Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential.1985.file1 o ASPEN NOUNTAI N LODG E/RESI DENTI AL PRELI NI NARY File No. 1 INDEX 1. Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP/Preliminary Caseload Sheet. 2. Resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Recommending Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Approval for Top Of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena Condominium Components of the Aspen Mountain PUD and Recommending a Rezoning to R-15 (PUD) (L) for that Portion of the Top Of Mill Site Currently Zoned Public and Owned by the City of Aspen on May 8, 1984. 3. Georgia Taylor January 24 , 1985 memorandum to Aspen Mountain Lodge Development Group re: Expenses for Project. 4. Georgia Taylor January 25, 1985 memorandum to Alan Richman and Jay Hammond re: Projected Schedule on Aspen Mountain PUD. 5. Alan Richman January 29 , 1985 memorandum, response from Heiki Kuhn for Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 6. Joe Wells January 31, 1985 letter to Alan Richman re: Outlining position on behalf of the applicants on verification of existing and previously demolished lodge and residential units. 7. Joe Wells February 1, 1985 letter to Alan Richman re: Commerce Savings Association transferred its interest in various parcels within the Aspen Mountain PUD to John H. Roberts, Jr. 8. Jim Markal unas February 5, 1985 memorandum to Alan Richman re: Aspen Mountain Lodge. 9. February 6, 1985 Certificate of Mailing done by Nancy Crelli to Adjacent Property Owners. 10. Joe Wells February 8, 1985 letter to Alan Richman re: Request of Aspen Mountain Lodge being considered as an Amendment to previous application rather than a new submission. 11. Thomas Dunlop February 9, 1985 memorandum to Alan Richman re: Aspen Mountain Lodge Res. GMP, Pre. Plat, Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place and 700 OS. Galena Environmental concerns. 12. Jim Adamski February 14 , 1985 memorandum to Alan Richman re: Housing review on the Aspen Mountain Lodge. 13. Jay Hammond February 22 , 1985 memorandum to Glenn Horn re : Geologic Hazard on Aspen Mountain. 14. Dick Meeker February 22 , 1985 letter to John Doremus re: To establish the criteria required by the Club in the selection and use of building site. 15. Jim Adamski February 25 , 1985 memorandum to Alan Richman re: Housing Review on Aspen Mountain Lodge. 16. Jim Holland February 26 , 1985 memorandum to Alan Richman re: Comments on Aspen Mountain Lodge, Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place and 700 South Galena. 17. Residential Application Issues and Notes 18. Employee Housing Notes 19. Alan Richman March 5 , 1985 memorandum to Aspen Planning and Zoning re: Aspen Mountain Lodge-The Residential Projects-Preliminary PUD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews. 20. Alan Richman March 8 , 1985 memorandum to Aspen Planning and Zoning re: Aspen Mountain Lodge - Preliminary PUD/Subdivision- Employee Housing. 21. Jeffrey Hynes March 8 , 1985 letter to Alan Richman re: Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP - Geologic Hazards and constraints. 22. Larry Yaw March 11, 1985 letter to Alan Novak re: Evaluation on three sites for Aspen Mountain Lodge. 23. Jay Hammond March 11, 1985 memorandum to Alan Richman re: Aspen Mountain Lodge, Preliminary Application, Residential Projects. 24. Alan Richman March 12, 1985 memorandum to Paul Taddune re: Legal Options Relative to Aspen Mountain Lodge. 25. Alan Richman March 13, 1985 memorandum to Jim Wilson re: Life, Health Safety Inspection Request. 26. Georgia Taylor March 14, 1985 memorandum to Development Group and Accounts re: Change of Address 27. Alan Richman March 19, 1985 memorandum to Aspen Planning and Zoning re : Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects- Preliminary PUD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews. 28. Tom Voorhies March 20 , 1985 memorandum to Jim Wilson re: Life Safety Inspection at the Copper Horse. 29. John Ostwald March 20 , 1985 memorandum to Jim Wilson re: Life Safety Inspection at the Copper Horse. MEMO TO: Jim Wilson FROM: John Ostwald RE: Life Safety Inspection at the Alpina Haus 935 E. Durant DATE: March 21, 1985 1. The exits from the second floor balcony are not placed per Section 2303(c) of the 1979 U.B.C. (c) Arrangement of Exits. If only two exits are required they shall be placed a distance aRart equal tc not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overalP diagonal dimension of the building or area to be served measured in a straight line between exits. 2. The spiral staircase serving rooms 32-42 and the lounge area from the parking area on the east was not constructed as approved and is not legal for a multi—family occupancy R-1 per Section 3305(f) of the 1979 U.B.C. (f) Spiral Stairways. In Group R,Division 3 Occupancies and in private stairways within individual units of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies, soiral stairways may be installed.Such stairways may be used for required rxits when the area served is limited to 400 square feet. 3. The spiral staircase serving the lounge from the kitchen/dining area is not legal per Section 3305(f) fo the 1979 U.B.C. (f) Spiral Stairways. In Group R,Division 3 Occupancies and in private stairways within individual units of Group R, Division I Occupancies, spiral stairways may be installed.Such stairways may be used for required exits when the area served is limited to 400 square feet. 4. Basement apartment has illegal sliding exit door per Section 3304(e) of the 1979 U.B.C. (e) Width and Height. Every required-exit doorway shall be of a size as to permit the installation of a door`eot less than 3 feet in width and not less +han 6 feet 8 inches in height.When installed in exit doorways,exit doors shall be capable of opening at least 90 degrees and shall'be so mounted that the clear width of the exitway is not less than 32 inches. In computing the exit width required by Section 3302(b), the net•dimension of the exitway shall be used. 5. The laundry area and the basement apartment have only one exit each. They are required to have two by Section 3302(a) of the 1979 U.B.C. For purposes of this section,basements and occupied roofs shall be pto- vided with exits as required for stories.Floors4bove the second story and basements shall have not less than two exits except when such floors or basements are used exclusively for the service of the building. 6. The fireplaces in the lounge and dining area do not have large enough hearth extentions per Section 3707(k) fo the 1979 U.B.C. (1) Hearth Extensions. Hearths shall extend at least 16 inches from the front of, and at least 8 inches beyond each side of, the fireplace opening. Where the fireplace opening is 6 square feet or larger,the hearth extension shall extend at least 20 inches in front of, and ai least '12 inches beyond each side of,the fireplace opening. 7. The hood over the fry grill in the kitchen is a residential type. It is required to be a commericial type I by Section 2003(a) of the 1979 U.M.C. and would also be required on a domestic grill by the 1982 U.M.C. Sec. 2003. (.a) Where Required. Hoods shall be Installed at or above all commercial type deep fat fryers,broilers,-fry grills,steam-jacketed kettles, hot-top ranges, ovens, barbecues, rotisseries, dishwashing machines and similar equipment which produce comparable amounts of steam, smoke, grease or heat in a food-processing establishment.For the purpose of this section•a food-processing establishment shall include any building or por- don thereof used for the processing of food but shall not include a dwel- ling unit. 8. The receptacles and circuits in the community kitchen and the kitchens in apartment 42, 43 and the basement need to comply with Section 220-3(b) (1) and 210-52(b) of the 1984 N.E.C. (b) Small Appliance Branch Circuits — Dwelling Unit. (1) In addition to the number of branch circuits determined in accordance with (a) above,two or more 20-ampere small appliance branch circuits shall be provided for all receptacle outlets specified by Section 210-52 for the small appliance loads, including refrigeration equipment, in the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, and dining room of a dwelling unit. Such circuits, whether two or more are used, shall have no other outlets. (b) Counter Tops. In kitchen and dining areas of dwelling units a receptacle outlet shall be installed at each counter space wider than 12 inches(305 mm).Counter top spaces separated by range tops,refrigerators, or sinks shall be considered as separate counter top spaces. Receptacles rendered inaccessible by appliances fastened in place or appliances occupying dedicated space shall not be considered as these required outlets. 9. All other receptacles in apartments 42, 43, and the basement need to comply with Section 210-52(a) .of the 1984 N.E.C. for maximum spacing. 210-52. Dwelling Unit Receptacle Outlets. (a) General Provisions. In every kitchen, family room, dining room, living room, parlor, library, den, sun room, bedroom, recreation room, or similar rooms of dwelling units,receptacle outlets shall be installed so that no point along the floor line in any wall space is more than 6 feet (1.83 m), measured horizontally, from an.outlet in that space, including any wall space 2 feet (610 mm) or more in width and the wall space occupied by sliding panels in exterior walls. The wall space afforded by fixed room dividers, such as free-standing bar-type counters, shall be included in the 6-foot (1.83-m) measurement. As used in this section a"wall space'shall be considered a.wall unbroken along the floor line by doorways,fireplaces,and similar openings. Each wall space 2 or more feet (610 mm or more) wide shall be treated individually and separately from other wall spaces within the room. A wall space shall be permitted to include two or more walls of a room (around corners) where unbroken at the floor line. -2- (FPN): The purpose of..this requirement is to minimize-the use of cords across doorways,fireplaces,and similar openings. Receptacle outlets shall,insofar.as practicable,be spaced equal distances apart. Receptacle outlets in floors shall not be counted as part of the required number of receptacle outlets unless located close to the wall. The receptacle outlets required by this section shall be in addition to any receptacle that is part of any lighting fixture or appliance, located within cabinets or cupboards,or located over 51h feet (1.68 m) above the floor. 10. Working space at the electrical equipment in the basement shall be as required by Section 110-16(a) and Table 110-16(a) of the 1984 N.E.C. ARTICLE 1 10—REQUIREMENTS•FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS 70-21 In addition:to the dimensions shown in Table.:110-16(a),thb work space, shall not be less than 30 -inches (762 mm) wide in front of the electric equipment. Table 110-16(a), working Clearances Voltage to Ground,Nominal- Minimum Clear Distance(feet) Condition: 1 2 3 0-150 3 3 3 151-600 3 3''A 4 11 . Each occupant must have access to the electrical disconnects as required by Section 230-72(c) of the 1984 N.E.C. They may not be locked in the storage closet in the basement as they now are. (c) Access to Occopants. In a multiple-occupancy building, each occupant shall have access to his service disconnecting means. 12. General clean up of the laundry area to assure compliance with electrical and plumbing codes. 13. Installation of a fire alarm system per Chapter 9, Section 13.307(f) . of the Aspen Municipal Code. (f) An inside audible alarm is to be installed wherever an alarm is required by Section 13.307 of the Uniform Fire Code or Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code, except in single family, duplex, triplex, or fourplex residential dwellings. In the case of public ,assembly areas with an occupant load of one- hundred (100) or more persons or where, in the opinion. of the building official or the fire marshal, the installation of an inside alarm may result in creating panic, the alarm signal shall'be installed in an attended area (e.g. projection booth, manager's office) from 14. Smoke detectors as required by Section 1210(a) of the 1979 U.B.0 may be incorporated into the alarm system'. —3— Fire warning and Sprinkler Systems Sec. 1210. (a) Fire-warning Systems. Every dwelling unit and every guest room in a hotel or lodging house used for sleeping purposes shall be provided with smoke detectors conforming to U.B.C. Standard No. 43-6. In dwelling units, detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to rooms used for sleeping purposes. In an efficiency dwelling unit, hotel sleeping room and in hotel suites, the detector shall be centrally located on the ceiling of the main room or hotel sleeping room. Where sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the center of the ceiling directly above the stairway. All detectors shall be located in accordance with ap- proved manufacturer's instructions. When actuated, the detector shall provide an alarm in the dwelling unit or guest room. 15. The boiler room requires a 1hr. rated door as required by Section 1212 and should have a second exit as required by Section 3320(a) of the 1979 U.B.C. Special hazards Sec.3320.(a) Boiler,Furnace and Incinerator Rooms.Except in Group R, Division 3 Occupancies, any room containing a.boiler, furnace, in- cinerator or other fuel-fired equipment must be provided with two means of egress when both of the following conditions exist: 1. The area of the room exceeds 500 square feet,and 2. The largest piece of fuel-fired equipment exceeds 400,000 Btu per hour input capacity. If two means of egress must be provided,one may be a fixed ladder.The means of egress must be separated by a horizontal distance not less than half the greatest horizontal dimension of the room.Where oil-fired boilers are used,a 6-inch noncombustible sill(dike)shall be provided.There shall be no interior openings between a Group H Occupancy and an incinerator room. Every room containing a boiler or central heating plant in Division I Occupancies shall be separated frotp the rest of the building by not less than a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation. 16. Ground fault circuit—interrupter receptacles as required by Section 210-8(a) and 210-52(c) need to be installed. (a) Dwelling Units. (t) All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles installed in bathrooms shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel. (c) Bathrooms. An dwelling units..at least one wall receptacle outlet shall be installed in the bathroom adjacent- to the basin location. See Section 210-8(a)(1). J0:lo —4— �ASPENOPITKIU REGIONAL BUILC JG OEPARTMENT MEMO TO: Jim Wilson FROM: John Ostwald RE: Life Safety Inspection at the Copper Horse DATE: March 20, 1985 1. Combustible decorative wood is too close to the fire box of the fire- place. Sec. 3707 (h) 1979 U.B.C. be placed within 1 inch of fireplace, smoke chamber or chimney walls. Combustible material shall not be placed%yithin 6 Inches of the fireplace opening. No such colnbustible material;wlthin 12 inches of the fireplace opening shall prbjkf more than X Inch for each I-inch clearance from such opening. 2. Rooms not having a minimum area of 70 square feet, not to be used as habitable rooms. Sec. 1207 (b) 1979 U.B.C. (b) Floor Area. Every dwelling unit shall have at least one room which shall have not less than 150 square feet of floor area. Other habitable rooms except kitchens shalt have an area of not less than 70 square feet. .�Efficiency dwelling units shall comply with the requirements of Section. 1208. 3. Bedroom above the first floor to have two qualifying exits. Sec. 3302 1979 U.B.C. Exits Required Sec. 3302. (a) Number of Exits.Every building or usable portion thereof shall have at least one exit and shall have not less than two exits where required by Table No.33-A. In all occupancies,ftoori above the first story having an occupant load of more than 10 shall have not less than two exits, 4. Boiler vent too close. to roof. Section 906 (d) and Figure 1 1979 U.B.C. (d) Type B or.BW. X.Type B or BW gas vent shall terminate not less than i foot above the roof through which it passes nor less than 4 feet from any portion of the building'which extends•at an angle of more than 45 degrees upward from the horizontal nor less than shown in Figure No. 1. r r r r Y r t = Y LISTED TOP b HEIGHTS ON SLOPING ROOFS 1 Y r 1. — tS T 1 IIAI Ml. 1 017 1/17 i/I7 11/Il 1)/Il II.:l It/Il 11:is Y b ROOF SLOPE FIGURE NCO. offices : mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado SIS11 5. Fire alarm system as required by Chapter 9 Sec. 13.307 (f) of the Aspen Municipal Code. (f) An insidd audible alarm is to be installed wherever an alarm is requited by Section 13.307 of the Uniform Fire Code or Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code, except in single family, duplex, triplex, or fourplex residential dwellings. In the case of public assembly areas with an occupant load of one hundred (100), or more persons -or where, in the opinion of the building official or the fire marshal, the installation of an inside alarm may result in creating panic, the alarm signal shall be installed in an attended area (e.g. projection booth, manager's office) from 6. The windows in the west side of the addition were illegal when installed by Table 5A of the• 1973 U.B.C. If the addition is closer than five feet to the property line,. then they would be illegal by Table 5A of the 1979 U.B.C. We need a current survey to determine. TABLE N0. S-A—Continued FIRE ZONE 1 4 I 2 hour leaf than 20 feet \ot perntiltWt lea'lh.% 3(rot l I I Iat.Ir rn.l npnrl.n.a11 h.NUrr I hater rlsew•hr•re, 1'mtWetl leer than 20 fret t;,,,,,•,Y.l., n.,u.rrtrrlr, trrrh ap\NIInNNi11I111K nNVr than Id WT. %..I I". owled 1..;.ll•+v,:1 I.-A. »»•»;••» $ 1 INNIr Ier.Ute@IP11 I.-St III1N. It,1.•et ti.•clinn f,,..fl...................................................................................... .. »... .......«.«....«....... 11(1. .1 I MNIr hers than S r1\1 \•N lM•f111{It.Y11..}114.11.I I.Y•1 I'i..I.Yiwl Ir..dwo S LY•1 F.1202 1 hour less than 3 feet Not permitted less 1—Hotels and apartment houses than S fat Convents and monastet4es(cacti aeeommodatint more than 10 persons) 3—Dwellings and lodging houses 1 hour less than 3 feet Not^er'rtlrted less JC:lo ASSPEN*PITKIN -REGIONAL BUILDINa DEPARTMENT MEMO TO: Jim Wilson FROM: Tom Voorhies RE: Life Safety Inspection at the Copper Horse DATE: March 20, 1985 1. This inspection is intended to identify electrical hazards. It is not intended to determine if the installation complies with current or past codes. 2. Conductors for pendant (chain) front porch fixture need protection where they enter ceiling canopy to prevent abrasion. 3. Numerous extension cords are used for lights and lamps in the lounge and rooms of the oldportion of building. Receptacle outlets need to be installed such that extension cords are not needed. 4. The old portion of building has an ungrounded electrical system. Receptacle outlets with ungrounded grounds have been installed at existing outlet locations. These must be grounded or replaced with ungrounded types. 5. There are ungrounded receptacle outlets in the kitchen. These must be grounded. 6. Exposed NM (Romex) cables in area above dropped ceiling in kitchen must be supported per N.E.C. code. 7. The electrical panel, located at rear of building, has a 240 v, X16 aluminum circuit protected by a 70 amp circuit breaker. This circuit breaker must be decreased to 50 amps. 8. Ground fault circuit--interrupter type receptacles shall be installed in the bathrooms s required by Sec. 210-3 (a)1 of the 1984 N.E.C. G G%� TEV:lo mail address: offices: 506 East Mein Street 110 East Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects - Preliminary PUD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews DATE: March 19, 1985 INTRODUCTION In our previous memorandum to you on this subject, dated March 5, we provided you with a general description of the Top of Mill, Summit Place,, 700 South Galena and Ute City Place projects. The memo also reviewed these projects in terms of basic land use and site design issues, circulation and employee housing. These issues were reviewed and completed at your meetings on March 5 and March 12. The purpose of this memo is to address the remaining concerns with respect to the residential projects for the discussions which are to take place on March 19 and March 26 . As a reminder, the issues to be discussed are as follows: 1. Plans for mitigation of natural hazards. 2. Miscellaneous outstanding issues emerging from conceptual conditions of approval 3. Residential condominiumization. The meeting on March 19 is intended to address topical area #1, while that on March 26 should deal with areas #2 and #3 (unless time permits on March 19 to complete all outstanding issues) . Finally, on April 2 we hope to present you with a resolution for action on these projects. NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW There are four (4) types of natural hazards which have been addressed by the applicants in response to the conditions of conceptual approval. Taking these issues in rank order, from the least complex to the most complex, the areas addressed are as follows: 1. Potential mine subsidence on the site. 2. Contaminated soils on the site. 3. Stormwater drainage from the mountain onto the site. 4. Geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain. 1. Potential Mine Subsidence The study of mine subsidence potential by Chen and Associates is contained in Appendix D of the submission. The study was a literature review, as opposed to an on-site analysis, and made the following findings: "The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project site is located at least 200 feet from the area where large concentrations of mine workings have been mapped. Based on our experience with similar projects, the geology and type of mining, a safety zone of 200 feet from mine workings should be satisfactory. Records of underground mine workings below the site were not found. There is some possibility that mine workings (small, shallow pits, abandoned exploration tunnels or shafts, mine water drainage or ventilation tunnels) may be present at the site which were not mapped or recorded through 65 years of mining. Because the proposed site is located outside of the main ore bearing zone, the possibility of major unrecorded mine workings below the site is very b n an experienced geologist recommend that h field observation when at i on at i Y the snow cover is gone. " I have discussed this study with Jay Hammond and it is our opinion that the field observation suggestion by Chen should be implemented. It should be required that the results of these reports be available to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of any building permits on the site. 2. Contaminated Soils Appendix D also contains the Chen and Associates chemical investi- gation of near surface soils. The purpose of this study was "to determine whether the soils might classified potentially hazardous materials, based upon testing procedures recommended by the U. S. EPA. " Twelve test pits were excavated and the samples were analyzed for total lead content and EP toxicity. results of this analysis were that among the three zones sampled, Zone It in the southermost portion of the site and Zone 2, just above the proposed terminus of Mill Street, failed the toxicity test, while the sample from zone #3, in the central and lower portion of the site, was not classified as hazardous. Based on this analysis, the consultant identified four ( 4) mitigation alternatives: a. Do nothing; b. Excavate the contaminated soils and ship to a disposal site; c. Cover the contaminated soils with soils from off-site; or d. Develop a cut-and-fill plan using uncontaminated soils from the property to cover contaminated soils. The consultant chose the fourth option based on its cost effective- ness. Tom Dunlop comments that contouring the site and covering the soils is an effective technique for mitigating the health hazard of contaminated soils. Tom further recommends that surface water be diverted from the contaminated areas to insure that no contamination of groundwater takes place. In this respect, we would note that no testing was done in the area of the proposed detention pond. Such testing would seem appropriate before approval is given to place the pond in this location. Tom further notes that if any excavated material is to be shipped off-site, it be limited to materials which are not contaminated. We, therefore, recommend that no material from the Top of dill portion of the site be permitted to be moved off the site. This limitation should effectively deal with all contaminated soils, since,ible. one moves Tom also hadrseveral other informational hazards informational ngli g requirements negligible. which can be dealt with in your resolution. 3 & 4. Stormwater Drainage/Geologic Hazards The final. two hazard issues have been addressed jointly due to the comment by Jeff Hynes of the Colorado Geologic Survey that: "Three general hazards are directly associated with this proposal . They are: unstable and potentially unstable slopes ; debris flows ; and flash flooding. These processes are dynamically interrelated in extremely 2 complex ways in which each can be the cause or the result of any of the others. Events can be random, sequential or episodic in nature with highly variable time delays between related events. " The applicants had Chen and Associates prepare two studies on these hazards, one being a -study of the 1984 landslide event, while the other looked at the potential for debris flow originating on the north face of Aspen Mountain. A study of stormwater drainage was prepared by Rea Cassens and Associates, to coordinate the overall site drainage needs with the off-site impacts of mud flows, debris flows and other materials transported from the mountain onto the site. The applicants have summarized the conclusions of the Chen and Associates report as follows : a. "Debris flows have occurred in the past with reoccurrence intervals measured in hundreds of years. b. Mud-floods have occurred in the past. The mud-flood is similar to the water flood except for significant volumes of transported sediment. The mud-flood return period is 25 years. c. The potential for a debris flow from the landslide reaching Aspen Mountian Lodge and the Top of Mill sites as anything but a fluid "mud flood" appears relatively low. The "mud flood" hazard can be mitigated in the same manner and using the same structures as proposed for storm drainage. d. Based on the results of our investigation, it appears that hyper-concentrated mud-floods with solids concentration of about 40% by volume pose the most risk of damage to the project. e. We believe the potential risks and mitigation measures for the project should be evaluated by hydrologic and hydraulic methods. Water flood volumes, however, should be increased by 50% to account for transport of solids in the flows. f. Conceptual mitigation measures would include the construction of detention/debris basins, diversion structures and channeli- zation. Provisions for periodic debris removal and cleanup should be included in the design of mitigation measures. g. The monitoring program has not indicated any significant movement of the landslide mass during the period of this study. The lack of data showing a clearly defined failure surface has limited our ability to analyze the landslide and propose corrective measures. However, the preliminary results indicate a relatively shallow failure surface within the mine dump material or near the contact of the original ground surface and the mine dump. h. Continued monitoring of the inclinometers and piezometers is recommended through at least the last spring of 1985 . Additional monitoring may be required beyond this time if the Aspen Skiing Company desires to develop corrective measures for stabl iz ing the landslide. " Jeff Hynes, of the Colorado Geologic Survey, has provided us with a detailed review of these studies, focusing on study methods, conclusions and recommendations. Jeff' s full response is included in your packet, but car be summarizedwith the following highlights: a. "While Appendices D and E provide a great deal of valuable information, they are less than what is necessary to understand and predict the behavior of this slope-failure-prone area. b. The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of 3 last June is insufficient in both detail and time span to adequately characterize this slide mass and/or predict its future behavior. c. Stability analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions rather than actual, measured characteristics of the landslide due to insufficient data. One of the critical assumptions made was that the materials were drained. This is most probably not the critical condition of the landslide deposit nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with the movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions, a safety factor of less than 1 .0 was achieved in one of the two cases. This case was classified as "marginally stable" in the Chen Report. By definition, the correct classification for this case is unstable. d. Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as a mud-flood, and therefor mitigatable by channel ization does not take into account the episodic nature and potential interaction between several events. A small landslide or debris flow which would present only a trivial threat to the actual structures could effectively block or alter the drainage network rendering it all but useless to defend the development from the flash flood which could occur before the blockage was cleared, or even noticed. . . e. In summary, we would like to concur with and reiterate the recommendations found in the Chen reports calling for more detailed studies of the mass wasting and slope failure processes affecting this area. The complexity of these phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood in order to make any reliable predictions about their likelihood, recurrence interval, and the risk they pose to the anticipated development. Additionally, the excess moisture conditions associated with the spring thaw and runoff period represents the critical phase of the landslide problem. Given the movement and surface disruption last June, it is highly likely that this slide mass will absorb more water this spring than last and may .move again. f. Based upon the above considerations we recommend that the City postpone any decision on this application until detailed studies have been completed and the hazards are better understood and realistic risk assessments can be performed. The timing of the studies should be such that the critical period (melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field investigations. " Given the recommendations made by Mr. Hynes in points a and f above, I reviewed this issue in a meeting with the City Manager, City Engineer, and Chief Environmental Health Officer. We all concur with the recommendations made by Chen and Associates and by Jeff Hynes that further study is needed before any decision on this application can be made. We recommend that Chen and Associates be requested to set up a study program for monitoring and analysis of the hazard and that this program be reviewed by Mr. Hynes for his concurrence. These conclusions have been discussed with the applicants who concur with the approach we are taking, and who have already moved forward with developing the necessary study and contacting Mr. Hynes. Based on these conclusions, we further recommend that the applicants return to City Council for reconsideration of the condition which limits the lodge portion of the PUD from proceeding to final plat until the residential projects have received preliminary approval. In our opinion, the main reason for this condition was to insure integrated planning of the site from the standpoint of architecture, site design, circulation and similar issues. Since these issues have been addressed and resolved to the City' s satisfaction at this time, we see no reason to hold up progress regarding the lodge itself, 4 as well as the 700 South Galena, Summit Place and Ute City Place projects. However, this approach does leave the applicants at some risk since it means that Top of Mill is essentially an unapproved portion of the PUD at this time. We feel that the City' s interests in the PUD can be preserved since the eventual development of the site will likely be in the form proposed at this stage or at some lessened density. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There were two conditions of conceptual approval which did not fit into any of the categories previously discussed. These conditions (#1 and #2 of Resolution 84-23) dealt with the Koch Land Trade and the relocation of the Ski Club' s buildings. The condition with respect to the Koch Property reflected the Council ' s desire to consummate the land exchange in conjunction with the final plat submission. The applicants have contacted the City Attorney and Planning Office to establish a procedure for dealing with the land exchange. As you are aware, the exchange involves two (2) pieces of land, one being traded in exchange for the City Lots in the Capitol Hill Addition and the other being freely given as a gift to the City. The City Attorney and I concur that the best way to deal with the subdivision of the land into two parcels for purposes of its conveyance to the City is as a subdivision exception. This procedure is expected to be completed simultaneously with the Final Plat action, with the request having been recently submitted by the applicants. As one condition of obtaining the Capitol Hill lots, the applicants agreed to construct f or the Aspen Ski Club a new building of at least equal size and of better quality than that which it now occupies on the City lots. This commitment also showed up as Condition #2 of Resolution 84-23. In response to this condition, the applicants have reiterated their commitment to construct a new Ski Club building of increased size and improved quality relative to the Club' s present situation. It has also come to my attention that the Ski Club is now actively involved in a search for a new building site. The attached letter from Larry Yaw to Alan Novak was written in response to an earlier letter by Dick Meeker of the Aspen Ski Club. Laryy has evaluated the suitability of three sites based on eight criteria, all as originally identified by the Ski Club. The three sites identified for the new building are within or in the vicinity of Willoughby Park. Larry Yaw finds the parcel' currently used for the volleyball courts to be the most suitable of the locations and proposes that the volleyball use be relocated to the Koch parcel. While it is not the P&Z ' s (or the applicants ' ) responsibility to choose the site for the building, it would be helpful at this point to give the Ski Club some guidance about the proposed locations. Given the lack of site planning for the Koch parcel, I am somewhat doubtful about displacing this use without a straight-forward replacement plan. It seems more reasonable to me to consider some form of recon- struction of, or addition to the ARA building to house the Ski Club. CONDOMINIUMIZATION On pages 32-38 of the submission, the applicants request subdivision exception for the purposes of condominumization of the 700 S. Galena, Summit Place and Top of Mill units. The units within the lodge have already received your recommendation of approval for condominiumization, while the units at Ute City Place were addressed in an earlier memo. The applicants' responses to the criteria of Section 20-22 are as follows: a. No existing tenants need be given written notice, as the condominiums are new construction or the completion of 5 t ` previously unoccupied units. b. The applicants request exception from the six (6) month minimum lease provisions. As with the units within the lodge, the intent for theses units is to rent them on a short- term basis to visitors. Given the location of these projects within the lodge concur with, the ex he ion erequest�r short-term occupancy, CS The applicants have demonstrated that the supply of affordable housing will not be reduced by agreeing to replace, as part of their employee housing calculations, any units which are eliminated by the construction of the project. The Planning office recommends approval of the condominiumization request, including exception from the six ( 6) month minimum lease restriction. SUMMARY This memo completes the Planning office' review of the preliminary PUD/Subdivision and associated reviews, for the residential projects included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. When the Planning commission has made its comments on each of the issues included within out report, we will be able to prepare a resolution summarizing your action on the projects. AR:jlr:apz .aml. 3.19 6 M E M O R A N D U M � � � OV L5, MAR 18 =; TO: Development Group and Accounts FROM: Georgia Taylor Aspen Project Office RE : Change of Address DATE: March 14 , 1985 Please change your records to show our new permanent address: ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PROJECT POST OFFICE BOX CC ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 7896 For deliveries via UPS or Federal Express the street address remains the same temporarily : c/o THE ASPEN INN 701 SOUTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 I will notify you of our new location as soon as we have one ! Meanwhile , all correspondence should be directed to our post office box. Thanks ! MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official FROM: Alan Richman, Acting Planning Director RE: Life, Health Safety Inspection Request DATE: March 13, 1985 As you may know, the applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge propose to convert the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse from tourist to employee occupancy. At last night' s P&Z meeting, I was asked if a life, health and safety report could be prepared for these two buildings. Attached are the "cosmetic" improvements proposed--- by the _applicants. Please let me know by March 21 what additional requirements your office will impose so I can incorporate them in a resolution concerning the project. Thanks. MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Alan Richman, Acting Planning Director RE: Legal Opinions Relative to Aspen Mountain Lodge DATE : March 12, 1985 Attached is a letter f rom Jeff rey Hynes of the Colorado Geologic Survey regarding natural hazards affecting the Aspen Mountain Lodge site. Based on Mr. Hynes' conclusions, there are two issues which I need you to address. 1. If thed City were to approve a development on the Top of Mill site and a natural disaster were to occur, to what extent could the City be held liable due to its grant of approval? What type of restrictive language should we be considering to protect the City ' s interests? 2. In a meeting held today with Hal , Jay, Tom Dunlop and myself, we unanimously agreed that the City should follow Mr. Hynes' recommendation and postpone action on Top of Mill until fall or winter. Given this conclusion, we need your opinion on whether PUD regulations will allow Council to waive its prior condition that the remainder of the project can' t go to Final Plat until preliminary for the entire PUD is granted. We believe that such a separation of the project into phases is supportable if not prohibited by our own rules. Your timely response to these issues would be greatly appreciated. cc : Hal Schilling Jay Hammond Tom Dunlop 17DU"I TO: Alan nichmanz Planning Office FRON Jay !Tammond, City Engineer.4- — DATE : Narch 11, 11955 RE : Aspen Mountain Lodge, Preliminary Application, Residential Projects 1T.-aving reviewed thU application or preliminary review OLE the C; 4 various Aspen liount-'a in Lodge rc s ident ial prof ec'C-13' CL �_Y Engineering Depart-Dient `,70ull,-' Offe r tilc, follo,%Tin-- f3e er_J a_ a The Aspen Mountain Lodge preliminary application for phase two is for generall, J .-I aCdAres;-_--�_Jncj engin(,'�.ering related concern y tlaoroug.0 1z the various sites , The streets 1:)lan proposes reconstruction for all roadways within the -project and adequately addresses circulation and emergency. access. utility systems are generally sufficient subject to on-going coordination regarding scheduling , easements and the resolution of conflicts between the various systems. All of the projects for which condominiumization is requested should be required to sub-mtit proper condominium mapping following substantial completion of tile '-projects for review by this office and recordation prior to sale of any units. Large trees intended for removal , particularly at the Top-of-Ilill and Ute City Place sites, will require specific approval by the building inspector pursuant to Municipal Code section 13-76 . Specific comments are broken down according to project. I have to those arc-as where problems are generally lijaitcoi. co,,nr.lent- apparent. Tgp-of-Mill Water - The Top-of-Nill project- proposes a water system involving J booster pumps to rovide- adequate pressure to up per units above T end review and approval the 8040 line. He would continue to recommend of any booster pump system by the City to determine whether the system is adequate in terms of reliability and -provision of fire flows. Booster _-Failure couple; with a lacll:, of T,,,ater storage- to provide fire flows at adequate pressures could be disastrous. Page Two March 11, 1985 Aspen Mountain Lodge, Preliminary Application, Residential Projects Landscaping - The application suggests the installation of street trees in some areas just 2 feet from the curb. Such trees could be subject to extensive damage from car doors and show removal operations. We would suggest a wider planting area allowing greater separation from the curb. All major landscaping should be supported with irrigation. - - - - - - - - - - - - Storm Drainage - The application requests consideration of trees in detention ponds. We would support the installation of sparse deciduous trees in the pond areas. Preliminary Plat/P. U.D. - The plat drawings contained in the application do not include a current site plan indicating the curb designs which have evolved in discussions between this office and Berridge and Associates. Updated drawings should accompany final plat. Detention pond locations are still not specifically addressed by this plan. Some additional detail should be submitted at this time. The P. U. D. plan should indicate slope areas on the site that exceed 30% . Phasing - The Top-of-Mill application suggests phasing of the project. We have not seen how a phased plan would occur and would request further information at this time. Koch - Application documents received by this office do not address the mapping of the portion of the Koch site contemplated for trade to the City. This information should also be provided at the preliminary review. Geological Hazard - A recent letter from Jeffrey Hynes of the Colorado Geological Survey (C. G. S. ) raised significant issues with respect to the adequacy of the Chen report and subsequent recommendations. While we would recommend continued monitoring and implementation of resulting mitigation measures, we would yield to Mr. Hynes and the expertise of the C.G. S. with regard to the adequacy of the current information and time required to study the problem. It would also be worthwhile to require that Chen submit the details of their on-going monitoring program to the C.G. S. for their review and comment. It would be preferable to have the C. G. S. sign off on the adequacy of the on-going program. Page Three March 11, 1985 Aspen Mountain Lodge, Preliminary Application, Residential Projects Ute City Place Circulation - The Ute City Place employee housing project has been shifted on the site to accommodate direct concerns of this office with respect to circulation. This represents a considerable improvement from our standpoint. The only further request we would make is that this office be copied on the applicants driveway permit from the Colorado Department of Highways. Preliminary Plat - The preliminary plat submission, while basically complete, is of the wrong size and final plat should be submitted in the standard 24 by 36 inch format. Condo platting should be required pursuant to our general comments discussion. Zoning - Residential Bonus Overlay Zoning presents no special problems for this site from an engineering standpoint. Drainage - All on-site drainage needs must be handled on-site as we have no storm drains in the immediate vicinity to accept such flows. Landscaping - The landscaping plan for Ute City Place proposes removal of a substantial cottonwood to accommodate the sidewalk. The plan also proposes installation of several new street trees in trade, however, and we would consider this a worthwhile exchange. New trees would suggest the need for an irrigation system. 700 South Galena This project has been reduced considerably partly in response to our request to create an improved alignment for South Galena Street. The resulting four plex represents reduced impacts in terms of traffic, utility needs, bulk and interference with the water table. Summit Place This project has not undergone any significant changes in pursuing completion as a triplex. Adjustments in the site plan for Top-of-Mill have given us the physical separation between buildings to construct a two-way road on the Summit Street alignment between Mill and Monarch if we deem it necessary in the future. I would reiterate here our conviction that the Summit Street roadway is a necessary roadway providing circulation and emergency access from two directions for structures such as Mountain Queen and 700 South Monarch. Pursuant to the design scheme for the Page Four March 11, 1905 Aspen Tiountain Lodge, Preliminary Application, Residential Projects Hotel , however, there has been a desire on the part of the Planning and zoning Commission and Council to maintain the skier/pedestrian trail link across Summit Street providing only limited emergency access on the alignment in the Sur,.imer. We have no problem with this approach since the capability to construct the road in the future (at City expense) is not precluded. JH/co/AspenMtLodge. 2 D - f1AC IAi'N' NA IV ARCHITECTS,LTD 11 March 1985 Mr. Alan Novak Aspen Mountain Lodge 701 S. Mill Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: Thank you for requesting the assistance of our firm to evaluate sites for the relocation of the Aspen Ski Club facility. I am in receipt of Dick Meeker's letter of 22 February which outlines site location criteria and have met with members of the Ski Club Board of Directors to discuss in further detail the site requirements and space needs for the new facility. The Ski Club identified three candidate relocation sites, all on city owned parcels, which our firm has evaluated for purposes of making a recommendation to the City and the Aspen- Mountain Lodge management. The three sites evaluated are as follows: 1. The existing ARA building and the two lots occupied by that building. 2. The parcels to the immediate east of the ARA parcel which are currently utilized for summer volleyball courts. (Willoughby Park) 3. The portion of Juan Street south of the ARA building between it and the Skier's Chalet. Although all three sites generally meet the criteria outlined by the Ski Club it is our opinion that the Willoughby Park site (site #2 above) is best suited to accept a new Ski Club facility. We felt that consideration of the ARA building and site, while generally ideal from a locational standpoint, would engage com- plications by requiring the City to relocate the ARA functions. Additionally, the condition and configurations of that building would require extensive renovation work to accomodate Ski Club functions. i I i "0> )L TH GALEN N SLATE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.925-1861 =)� HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Mr. Alan Novak 11 March 1985 Page two The Juan street site we felt would best remain as open space as a permanent historic site for the old No. 1 ski lift equipment now in place there. Further, the size and topographical con- figuration of that site would make vehicular access to the Ski Club building difficult and somewhat in conflict with ARA functions. While the Willoughby Park site would require the City to relocate the exisiting volleyball courts. That particular site best meets the criteria established by the Ski Club and as well as design and con- struction related functions. It is our recommendation that the City consider relocating the volleyball courts to the nearby Koch Lumber property which is relatively flat and can inexpensively accept the relocated courts. The Koch Lumber site would also be a better volleyball location from the stand point of spectator way finding, viewing, and access during the summer tournaments. The following considerations were factors in our recommendation for Ski Club relocation to the Willoughby Park site: 1. Access to Lift on Aspen I4lountain Training skiers can walk a short distance uphill to Lift 1A without entering or crossing a vehicular route. This is particularly important for the younger school children who train after school each day. 2. Ski Access from Mountain to Club Reciprocally, training skiers have a ski route directly from the mountain to the club location without vehicular conflict. This is particularly important during the early season when practice may end with less daylight. (shorter days) . 3. Bus route access The Willoughby Park site is only short (2blo k) An walk m- from the bus routes available from Ruby P j portant locational advantage, as a majority of the Ski Club children use the bus systems between school, p ractice and home destinations. 4. Vehicular Access to Site Immediately adjacent to the site, Dean street and the current public parking off that street offer vehicular access to a ,I HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS,LTD Letter to Mr. Alan Novak 11 March 1985 Page three club building for both deliveries and for parent vehicles. This is a significant advantage over the present Ski Club location where vehicles must climb a long steep uphill grade to arrive at the club. 5. Parking for Ski Club vans and staff Adjacency to the Dean street parking area would easily permit designated parking for Ski Club vehicles. 6. Proximity to Dryland Training The Willoughby Park site is within easy and safe walking distance to the mountain, Wagner Park, and the Koch Lumber parcel all of which can be used by Ski Club children and coaching staff for the daily dryland training which is the major pre-season ski club activity. 7. Ski Museum Adjacency to the Historic Lift #1 equipment would best relate to the Ski Clubs idea of a small ski museum/trophy space in the club facility. 8. Site configuration The Willoughby Park site would best adapt to the space needs of the Ski Club which require equipment work and storage at a lower level accessible to vehicles and ad- ministrative space at an upper level with separate grade access. We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to both the Ski Club and the City of Aspen. Please call me if you have any questions or require further clarification on the Ski Club re- location concept. Very truly yours, Hagman Yaw rchitects, Ltd U4,00 Larry Ya A A Principal LY:as cc: Dick Meeker, President Aspen Ski Club John Doremus% fart Daily, Holland S Hart Attorneys i ,��J QOl�I(r,(Jar�;, o PI-85-0003 RICHARD D.LAMM ✓_ JOHN W. ROLD GOVERNOR �t „E ,,,•` DIRECTOR 1876 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING-1313 SHERMAN STREE DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE(303)866-2611 March 8, 1985 t � Mr. Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE RESIDENTIAL GMP Dear Mr. Richman: We have reviewed the PUD and Subdivision Submission and Appendices HE as well as the general and engineering geology of the area. Based upon this review, our historical involvement in the area, and the events of last June we would like to make the following comments regarding this proposal and the geologic hazards and constraints associated with it. - The entire north face of Aspen Mountain is adversely affected by one or more geologic hazards or constraints, (Bryant, 1972). - All other factors held equal , the degree of risk associated with slope-related hazards increases with the slope and proximity to the source area. - Three general hazards are directly associated with this proposal . They are: unstable and potentially unstable slopes; debris flows, and flash flooding. These processes are dynamically interrelated in extremely complex ways in which each can be the cause or the result of any of the others. Events can be random, sequential or episodic in nature with highly variable time delays between related events. Slope failure processes appear to cause minimal impacts in their natural setting because they are an integral part of the "dynamic equilibrium" of the site. This equilibrium can be significantly altered by construction disturbance, seriously affecting the behavior of the process with respect to "things-put-in-the-way". - While Appendices D and E provide a great deal of valuable information, they are less than what is necessary to understand and predict the behavior of this slope-failure-prone area. GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST...KEY TO THE FUTURE i Mr. Alan Richman March 8, 1985 Page 2 The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of last June is insufficient in both detail and time span to adequately characterize this slide mass and/or predict its future behavior. - Stability analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions rather than actual , measured characteristics of the landslide due to insufficient data. One of the critical assumptions made was that the materials were drained. This is most probably not the critical condition of the landslide deposit nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with the movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions, a safety factor of less than 1 .0 was achieved in one of the two cases. This case was classified as "marginally stable" in the Chen Report. By definition, the correct classification for this case is unstable. - Test pit investigations yielded a debris flow sequence and a carbon-14 date of about 5000 B.P. Statigraphic relationships for this locality indicated a crude recurrance interval of one event per thousand years. Due to the nature of debris flow phenomena, this value should be taken as a maximum recurrance interval since generally only a portion of the total number of events occupy any given location on the overall fan complex. - Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as a mud-flood, and therefor mitigatable by channelization does not take into account the episodic nature and potential interaction between several events. A small landslide or debris flow which would present only a trivial threat to the actual structures could effectively block or alter the drainage network rendering it all but useless to defend the development from the flash flood which could occur before the blockage was cleared, or even noticed. Conversely, presuming that any major mass wasting event would move slowly enough to permit mitigation is begging the point. In many cases the only appropriate mitigation is to abandon areas adversely affected by landslides and debris flows. In summary we would like to concur with and reiterate the recommendations found in the Chen Reports calling for more detailed studies of the mass wasting and slope failure processes affecting this area. The complexity of these phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood in order to make any reliable predictions about their likelihood, recurrance interval , and the risk they pose to the anticipated development. Additionally, the excess moisture conditions associated with the spring thaw and runoff period represents the critical phase of the landslide problem. Given the movement and surface disruption last June, it is highly likely that this slide mass will absorb more water this spring than last and may move again. Based upon the above considerations we recommend that the City postpone any decision on this application until detailed studies have been completed and the hazards are better understood and realistic risk assessments can be performed. The timing of the studies should be such that the critical period (melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field investigations. Mr. Alan Richman March 8, 1985 Page 3 Last summer, as a result of the reactivation of the landslide in Pioneer Gulch, the City of Aspen indicated a strong interest in having a detailed geologic hazards and constraints evaluation made for the Aspen Mountain Area. We strongly encourage the City to proceed with such a study so that future development decisions can be based upon a proper understanding of the hazards and potential consequences of imprudent development in this complex, dynamic environment. We will be pleased to provide additional information, consultation or assistance as deemed necessary by the City. Yours truly, Jeffrey L. H n s Sr. Engineering Geologist bj/JLH-85-018 Doc. 0115K Disk 0060K i D a 14M 11 March 1985 Mr. Alan Novak Aspen Mountain Lodge 701 S. Mill Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: Thank you for requesting the assistance of our firm to evaluate sites for the relocation of the Aspen Ski Club facility. 1 am in receipt of Dick Meeker's letter of 22 February which outlines site location criteria and have met with members of the Ski Club Board of Directors to discuss in further detail the site requirements and space needs for the new facility. The Ski Club identified three candidate relocation sites, all on city owned parcels, which our firm has evaluated for purposes of making a recommendation to the City and the Aspen Mountain Lodge management. The three sites evaluated are as follows: 1. The existing ARA building and the two lots occupied by that building. 2. The parcels to the immediate east of the ARA parcel which are currently utilized for summer volleyball courts. (Willoughby Park) 3. The portion of Juan Street south of the ARA building between it and the Skier's Chalet. Although all three sites generally meet the criteria outlined by the Ski Club it is our opinion that the Willoughby Park site (site. #2 above) is best suited to accept a new Ski Club facility. We felt that consideration of the ARA building and site, while generally ideal from a locational standpoint, would engage com- plications by requiring the City to relocate the ARA functions. Additionally, the condition and configurations of that building would require extensive renovation work to accomodate Ski Club functions. 0<Ul M GALF­N 51.11[24 AWE',COLORADO 81611 303.925.28417 r ,ee == 1� HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Mr. Alan Novak 11 March 1985 Page two The Juan street site we felt would best remain as open space as a permanent historic site for the old No. 1 ski lift equipment now in place there. Further, the size and topographical con- figuration of that site would make vehicular access to the Ski Club building difficult and somewhat in conflict with ARA functi:orns. While the Willoughby Park site would require the City to relocate the exisiting v©lleyball courts. That particular site best meets the criteria established by the Ski Club and as well as design and con- struction related functions. It is our recommendation that the City consider relocating the volleyball courts to the nearby Koch Lumber property which is relatively flat and can inexpensively accept the relocated courts. The Koch Lumber site would also be a better volleyball location from the stand point of spectator way finding, viewing, and access during the summer tournaments. The following considerations were factors in our recommendation for Ski Club relocation to the Willoughby Park site: 1. Access to Lift on Aspen Mountain Training skiers can walk a short distance uphill to Lift 1A without entering or crossing a vehicular route. This is particularly important for the younger school children who train after school each day. 2. Ski Access from Mountain to Club Reciprocally, training skiers have a ski route directly from the mountain to the club location without vehicular conflict. This is particularly important during the early season when practice may end with less daylight. (shorter days) . 3. Bus route access The Willoughby Park site is only short (2 block) walk from the bus routes available from Ruby Park. An im- portant locational advantage, as a majority of the Ski Club children use the bus systems between school, practice and home destinations. 4. Vehicular Access to Site Immediately adjacent to the site, Dean street and the current public parking off that street offer vehicularaccess to a HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS,LTD Letter to Mr. Alan Novak 11 March 1985 Page three club building for both deliveries and for parent vehicles. This is a significant advantage over the present Ski Club location where vehicles must climb a long steep uphill grade to arrive at the club. 5. Parking for Ski Club vans and staff Adjacency to the Dean street parking area would easily permit designated parking for Ski Club vehicles. 6. Proximity to Dryland Training The Willoughby Park site is within easy and safe walking distance to the mountain, Wagner Park, and the Koch Lumber parcel all of which can be used by Ski Club children and coaching staff for the daily dryland training which is the major pre-season ski club activity. 7. Ski Museum Adjacency to the Historic Lift #1 equipment would best relate to the Ski Clubs idea of a small ski museum/trophy space in the club facility. 8. Site configuration The Willoughby Park site would best adapt to the space needs of the Ski Club which require equipment work and storage at a lower level accessible to vehicles and ad- ministrative space at an upper level with separate grade access. We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to both the Ski Club and the City of Aspen. Please call me if you have any questions or require further clarification on the Ski Club re- location concept. Very truly yours, Hagman Yaw rchitects, Ltd Larry Ya A A Principal LY :aa cc: Dick Meeker, President Aspen Ski Club John Doremus/ Art Daily, Holland S Hart Attorneys -� of coo o PI-85-0003 RICHARD D.LAMM F * JOHN W. ROLD GOVERNOR �* ���`�rvc n�^"�� *� DIRECTOR - ,87/ COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING-1313 SHERMAN STREE DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE(303)866-2611 n D March 8, 1985 1 165 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE RESIDENTIAL GMP Dear Mr. Richman: We have reviewed the PUD and Subdivision Submission and Appendices HE as well as the general and engineering geology of the area. Based upon this review, our historical involvement in the area, and the events of last June we would like to make the following comments regarding this proposal and the geologic hazards and constraints associated with it. - The entire north face of Aspen Mountain is adversely affected by one or more geologic hazards or constraints, (Bryant, 1972). - All other factors held equal , the degree of risk associated with slope-related hazards increases with the slope and proximity to the source area. - Three general hazards are directly associated with this proposal . They are: unstable and potentially unstable slopes; debris flows, and flash flooding. These processes are dynamically interrelated in extremely complex ways in which each can be the cause or the result of any of the others. Events can be random, sequential or episodic in nature with highly variable time delays between related events. Slope failure processes appear to cause minimal impacts in their natural setting because they are an integral part of the "dynamic equilibrium" of the site. This equilibrium can be significantly altered by construction disturbance, seriously affecting the behavior of the process with respect to "things-put-in-the-way". - While Appendices D and E provide a great deal of valuable information, they are less than what is necessary to understand and predict the behavior of this slope-failure-prone area. G E O L O G Y STORY OF THE PAST...KEY TO THE FUTURE Mr. Alan Richman March 8, 1985 Page 2 The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of last June is insufficient in both detail and time span to adequately characterize this slide mass and/or predict its future behavior. - Stability analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions rather than actual , measured characteristics of the landslide due to insufficient data. One of the critical assumptions made was that the materials were drained. This is most probably not the critical condition of the landslide deposit nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with the movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions, a safety factor of less than 1 .0 was achieved in one of the two cases. This case was classified as "marginally stable" in the Chen Report. By definition, the correct classification for this case is unstable. - Test pit investigations yielded a debris flow sequence and a carbon-14 date of about 5000 B.P. Statigraphic relationships for this locality indicated a crude recurrance interval of one event per thousand years. Due to the nature of debris flow phenomena, this value should be taken as a maximum recurrance interval since generally only a portion of the total number of events occupy any given location on the overall fan complex. - Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as a mud-flood, and therefor mitigatable by channelization does not take into account the episodic nature and potential interaction between several events. A small landslide or debris flow which would present only a trivial threat to the actual structures could effectively block or alter the drainage network rendering it all but useless to defend the development from the flash flood which could occur before the blockage was cleared, or even noticed. Conversely, presuming that any major mass wasting event would move slowly enough to permit mitigation is begging the point. In many cases the only appropriate mitigation is to abandon areas adversely affected by landslides and debris flows. In summary we would like to concur with and reiterate the recommendations found in the Chen Reports calling for more detailed studies of the mass wasting and slope failure processes affecting this area. The complexity of these phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood in -order- to make any reliable predictions about their likelihood, recurrance interval , and the risk they pose to the anticipated development. Additionally, the excess moisture conditions associated with the spring thaw and runoff period represents the critical phase of the landslide problem. Given the movement and surface disruption last June, it is highly likely that this slide mass will absorb more water this spring than last and may move again. Based upon the above considerations we recommend that the City postpone any decision on this application until detailed studies have been completed and the hazards are better understood and realistic risk assessments can be performed. The timing of the studies should be such that the critical period (melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field investigations. Mr. Alan Richman March 8, 1985 Page 3 Last summer, as a result of the reactivation of the landslide in Pioneer Gulch, the City of Aspen indicated a strong interest in having a detailed geologic hazards and constraints evaluation made for the Aspen Mountain Area. We strongly encourage the City to proceed with such a study so that future development decisions can be based upon a proper understanding of the hazards and potential consequences of imprudent development in this complex, dynamic environment. We will be pleased to provide additional information, consultation or assistance as deemed necessary by the City. Yours truly, Jeffrey L. H n s Sr. Engineering Geologist bj/JLH-85-018 Doc. 0115K Disk 0060K MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - Preliminary PUD/Subdivision - Employee Housing DATE: March 8, 1985 The purpose of this discussion is to cover the employee housing aspect of the Aspen Mountain Lodge Prelimimary PUD/Subdivision applica- tion. Please bring your March 5, 1985, packet materials with respect to this application to the meeting. Resolution 140. 84-A Page Four 6. The deed-restriction of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse Lodge to a maximum occupancy of forty-three (43) employees with first priority given to the employees of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. 7, The submission of an acceptable proposal for the specific building improvements to be undertaken with respect to the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodges, said proposal to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. 8. The retention of all existing on-site parking spaces at the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges and the submission of various alternatives for the mitigation of potential impacts resulting from the non-conforming status of said parking, to include the provision of a minimum of one (1) parking space per two (2) employees housed, said alternatives to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. 9. The deed-restriction of thirty-two (32) units at the Airport Business Center Apartments, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the Housing Authority, to the City's low and moderate rental and sales price guidelines as follows: Low Income 9 Two-bedroom units Moderate Income 8 One-bedroon sari's 13 yA.,,o--b Broom unit:; 2 T)1:.C:e-bed;ooAl un.,.Cs Rental and sales prices shall be restric"-ed to the lo;a and moderate price guidelines in effect at the time of the execution of the deed-restriction. Rents shall include utilities consistent with the City 's employee housing guidelines. 10. The deed-restriction of the thirty-two (32) units at the Airport Business Center Apartments to a maximum occupancy of sixty-nine (69) employees. 11. The provision of one (1) parking space per bedroom for the thirty-two (32) units at the Airport Business Center Apart- ments and an employee shuttle service to augment non-to-low operating times of the transit system, the details of said shuttle service to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. 12. The execution of all required deed-restrictions prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Aspen Mountain Lodge. section 2 That it does hereby exempt, pursuant to Section 24-11.2(f) of the Municipal Code, the proposed Ute City Place component of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal from complying with the City's growth management allotment procedures subject to the following conditions: Resolution No. Page Five 1. The deed-restriction of the twenty-two (22) unit Ute City Place project, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the Housing Authority, to the City's moderate income rental and sales price guidelines in effect at the time of the execution of the deed-restriction. Rents shall include utilities consistent with the City' s employee housing guidelines. 2. The deed-restriction of the twenty-two (22) unit Ute City Place project to a maximum occupancy of thirty-seven (37) employees with first priority given to employees of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Section 3 That it does hereby grant conceptual subdivision approval, pursuant to Section 20-10 of the Municipal Code, to the Ute City Place component of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicants' provision of an eight inch (8") water system interconnect on Cleveland Street between Hyman and Cooper Avenues and the reconfirmation of the agreement reached between the Applicants and the Water Department with respect to payment for the required interconnect. 2. The Applicants' re-evaluation, in conjunction with the City Fnnincer, of the appronriatencrs of the Drorroced curh cut on co r_ as o: al icrrativ:.� - for pro;�oncu U'e .Jr:c,_ pr.o ect. 3. The Applicants' provision of t_ sidewal). the lenuth of the property along Cooper Avenue. 4. The Applicants' provision of an acceptable landscaping plan designed so as to minimize the visual impact of the proposed project. 5. The Applicants' compliance with the provisions of Ordinance 12, Series of 1983, with respect to the inclusion of fire- places in the proposed project. 6. The Applicants' provision of a minimum of one (1) parking space per two (2) employees housed. 7. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual subdivision application not specifically referred to above being made a condition of this approval. 8. This approval being expressly conditioned upon the Applicants' receipt of a Residental Bonus Overlay rezoning for the Ute City Place site. I Date:_o ia��c.�F,i. _� , 1984. _ William L. StirYing, 6layor� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects - Preliminary PUD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews DATE: March 5 , 1985 APPLICANTS' REQUEST The Applicants request preliminary PUD/subdivision approval for the residential projects included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. Other associated review procedures to be followed at this time are are follows: 1. Confirmation of prior RBO for Ute City Place; 2. Condominiumization; 3. 8040 Greenline; and 4. Conditional use for short-terming in the R-15(L) PUD zone district. This application is being processed subsequent to the completion of your review of the lodge component of the PUD. Permission to phase and separately review the lodge and residential components was expressly granted by Council on August 27, 1984, provided that the approval of any preliminary stage not become effective until the preliminary review for the entire PUD has been approved. You granted preliminary approval to the lodge component of the PUD by your Resolution 85-1 on January 22, 1985, including a condition that the approval not be final until you have also approved the preliminary residential component. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The residential projects included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD are as follows: 1. Internal to Hotel - 14 units (8 via GMP application, 6 via reconstruction of demolished units within the PUD) . 2. Top of Mill - 33 units (all units are a reconstruction of demolished units within the PUD) . 3. Summit Place - 3 units (two units are already under construc- tion, exempt from GMP as a duplex on a previously subdivided lot; the third unit is to be a reconstruction of a demolished unit within the PUD) . 4. 700 South Galena - 4 units (all via GMP application) . 5. Ute City Place - 22 units (all units are employee units and have been granted a GMP'exemption as deed restricted housing) . In summary, there are a total of forty ( 40) units which the applicant has verified and wishes to reconstruct within the PUD, and twelve (12) units for which the applicant has received GMP allotments and proposes to build within the PUD. The twenty-two (22) employee units at Ute City Place represent one element of the total employee housing solution for the project, which also includes the following: 1. Alpina Haus - 43 rooms (change in use from lodge to employee housing, 46 employees to be housed) . 2. Copper Horse - 14 rooms (change in use from lodge to employee housing, 43 employees to be housed) . 3. Airport Business Center Apartments (32 units (deed-restriction of units which are presently in the free market, 69 employees to be housed) . 4. Ute City Place - 22 units (construction of new deed restricted housing, 37 employees to be housed) . The total of 195 employees to be housed within these four (4) projects is intended to meet the applicant' s commitments with respect to the lodge, residential and commercial GMP applications submitted during the last 18 months, plus the replacement of any housing which exists and is being demolished or was otherwise committed to within the PUD. While employee housing represents one key issue which will require review at this stage of the process, there are a variety of other issues which should receive your attention at this time. The major items which the Planning Office feels require review, based on our comprehensive review of the conditions of conceptual approval, are: 1. Basic land use and site design issues, particularly in terms of landscaping, height and compatibility with surrounding developments, incorporating the preliminary PUD, 8040 Greenline, and condition use criteria of the Code. 2. Circulation plans for the site, including roads, trails, parking solutions and overall access for emergency purposes. 3. Plans for mitigation of natural hazards, including potential geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain, stormwater drainage from the mountain onto the site, contaminated soils on the site, and potential mine subsidence on the site. 4. Miscellaneous issues such as the Koch Lumber land trade, the relocation of the Aspen Ski Club' s building and condominiumiza- tion of the free market units. REVIEW APPROACH Normally, the Planning Office' s approach to a project of this magnitude would be to initiate our review with some of the broad site concerns ( i. e. , #1, 2 and 3 above) and then move on to the relatively peripheral concerns such as employee housing and miscellaneous items. However, the Planning Office has been severly hampered in its review of this project by some unusual delays in receipt of referral memos from several key agencies. Recognizing the very technical nature of of some of the issues being addressed by these individuals, we have decided to concentrate this memo on those items where adequate informa- tion is presently available (principally employee housing and items 1 and 2) . We will forward additional memos to you prior to your review of the other issues when better review data is received. Following is the schedule which we propose for review of the residential projects: Tonight - Employee Housing, Architectural Concerns March 12 - Site Design and Circulation March 19 - Hazard Mitigation March 26 -Miscellaneous Concerns and Wrap Up April 2 - Resolution This memo before you tonight should be adequate to take us through the first two meetings and a follow-up memo for the 3rd and 4th meetings will be written subsequently. This schedule has been reviewed and approved by both the applicants and the Chairman. 2 EMPLOYEE HOUSING The key concerns with respect to employee housing are included in the attached City Council Resolution 84-27, endorsing the Aspen Mountain PUD revised employee housing proposal . The major aspects of that Resolution were as follows: 1. The applicants should recalculate the employee housing generation figures, based on revisions to the lodge program, and further document that existing employee housing units have been replaced. 2. The applicants should deed-restrict the units in the Alpina Haus, Copper Horse, Ute City Place and Airport Business Center Apartments. 3. The applicants should identify needed building improvements to the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse. 4. The applicants should identify parking and transportation plans for the employee housing units. 5. The applicants should address eight (8) specific conceptual conditions for Ute City Place. In response to requirement 1, the applicants have submitted an update of their employee housing generation figures, contained on pages 139-142 of the submission. Jim Curtis, representing the applicants, indicates that the new requirement for the hotel and residential projects, based on GMP commitments, is 195 employees, as compared to the 201 employees previously to be housed. The recalculation also includes the employee housing units which must be replaced to mitigate the displacement pressures of condominiumization. Looking specifically at the employee generation figures, we find that the reduced level of accessory retail space in the hotel is the primary reason for the drop in lodge employees at this time. Given the fact that the same approach is used by Jim in the original and updated calculations, Jim Adamski comments that "the Housing Office concurs with the applicants' methodology and calculations and therefore endorses this portion of the Preliminary Plat. " As you may recall, the only issue which the Planning Office raised with respect to the replacement calculation was the applicants' substitu- tion of a commitment to house all thirteen ( 13) of the employees generated by the 36 units of the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP for the prior Cantrup commitment to house 35 employees in 24 units. This issue was resolved during the review of the lodge component in favor of the applicants' proposal. The second item, with respect to deed-restrictions, has been properly addressed through the applicants submission of the necessary documents, to be incorporated in the PUD Agreement. The third item, with respect to Building improvements, has been addressed by Jim Curtis in a letter contained on Pages 161-162 of the application. In essence, Jim found that both buildings are well maintained and therefore have no major mechanical, roof or structural problems. Therefore, the applicants have committed to various cosmetic improvements to make the units somewhat more pleasant for occupancy. The fourth item, with respect to parking and transportation, requires first, that the the applicants retain all on-site parking at the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse. The applicants have agreed to retain the 11 on-site spaces at the Alpina Haus and the 4 on-site spaces at the Copper Horse to comply with this requirement. The second parking requirements was that the applicants mitigate the effects of this below Code parking ratio by providing at least one 3 parking space for every two employees at the housing units. Across the four residential projects, the applicant is providing 100 spaces for the 195 employees housed (see Table 1, page 163) . However, in town, the applicant is only providing 42 spaces for the 126 employees housed, a ratio of one (1) space for every three employees housed. The other half of the parking equation is parking for employees at their place of work. The applicants' traffic consultant believes that there will be unused parking spaces in the hotel which could be segregated for employee parking. The likely cushion available is 28 to 56 spaces, plus, 10 permanent spaces for employees. To address the parking short-fall which is likely to result, the applicants propose the f oll owing: 1. Employees will be discouraged from driving to work through management policies such as assigning spaces to specific employees. Please note that three of the projects are within walking distance of the hotel and are on bus routes, while the ABC property will be served by an employee shuttle and the RFTA buses. (See page 166-170 of application) . 2. Employees will be prohibited from bringing their cars to the hotel during peak occupancy periods. In my opinion, the applicants have not adequately addressed the need for employee parking at the employee' s place of residence for the in-town projects. I suggest that the applicants be asked to provide documentation that a ratio of one space for every three employees is adequate, given historical auto ownership patterns. If such documenta- tion is unavailable, the applicants should be required to provide a minimum of 21 additional spaces in and around the 3 in-town projects to bring the ratio up to one space per two employees. On the other hand, I feel more comfortable with the lack of employee spaces on the hotel site. My reasons for concurring with the applicants proposals in this regard are the availability of public and private transit service, the ability of the hotel operator to control the employees and my expectation that adequate on-street controls can be enforced to prevent long-term parking by employees. The fifth item, with respect to the eight conditions of conceptual approval of Ute City Place requires the following responses : 1. The water system interconnect originally required of this project has already been made by the City Water Department. 2. The applicants have re-evaluated, at the request of Jay Hammond, the proposed curb cut entryway on Cooper to the parking area and have found that by moving the cut away from the West End Street intersection to the vicinity of Cleveland Street, the traffic conflict problems identified earlier can be solved. Jay feels that the new location will eliminate the need to prohibit left turns into the lot from Cooper Street and will help to provide better access to several properties which are currently not well served by the alley behind the Ute City Place Project. 3. The applicants have agreed to provide a sidewalk along Cooper. 4. The applicants have provided a landscaping plan which provides the majority of its planting along Cooper Street. The street trees include cottonwoods, spruce and aspens, with the spruce specifically intended to screen the parking lot. Shrubs and ground cover are used for accent purposes only. The adequacy of the plan, only requesting that some minor changes be made to the proposal. 5. The applicants have agreed to eliminate all fireplaces in the Ute City Place project, going beyond the requirements of the Code. 4 6. The applicants are providing 27 spaces for the 37 employees to be housed, in excess of the one (1) space per two ( 2) employees requirements. 7. There is no response to this issue required. 8. The question of rezoning this site to RBO is one to which I have given a great deal of thought. In effect, this site is already zoned RBO, although that zoning designation was given to a particular project. However , the rezoning ordinance did not indicate that the RBO designation would expire if the project expired, and so I believe no rezoning is required. What I believe is necessary at this time is for us to reconfirm that this project is in compliance with the RBO which was granted to this site. On pages 129-133 , the applicants make some very convincing arguments about the appropriateness of this site and project for the RBO designation, including: 1. It exceeds the 50% deed-restricted housing requirements of RBO by having 100% of the units so designated. 2. It is in a neighborhood which is primarily free market housing and therefore helps to disperse employee units. 3. Its design and bulk is in keeping with surrounding uses. 4. It is on a bus route and close to shopping and the lodge. It provides adequate on-site parking. In my opinion, since we found the prior Ute City Place Project to be in conformance with RBO criteria, this project should be found to be in even greater compliance for the following reasons: 1. The FAR in the project has been reduced from 1.34: 1 (using current calculation methods) to 1. 1:1. 2. Open space on the site has been increased from 18% to 23% . Although this amount of open space is below the newly imposed 35% requirements in the R-MF district, this requirement can, and we believe should, be waived, as per Section 24-10.5 (f) of the Code. Please also note that the project' s height continues to be at 28 feet (not the 25 feet required by the zone ) due to the applicants ' having obtained a variance from that newly imposed provision of the Code. 3. Landscaping on the site exceeds that previously proposed. Parking has been increased from 26 to 27 spaces and is accessed in an improved fashion. 4. The project is 100% , rather than approximately 67% employee housing. Based on the above considerations, I believe that the project should be confirmed as meeting the intents and purposes of the existing RBO zoning designation. The only remaining issue with respect to employee housing is the applicants request for condominiumization. The applicants have requested condominiumization of the Ute City Place units for possible sale to employees. Jim Adamski raises a concern, shared by the Planning Office, that due to the seasonal nature of many of the lodge employees, purchase may be an inappropriate option. The Housing Authority has therefore asked for the ability to review the mix of rental and sale units three months prior to their deed-restriction for a determination as to what percentage of the total project housing mix can be condomini- umized. 5 With the exception of the above issue, no other concerns relative to Section 20-22 appear to be relevant at this time, since the one existing unit on the site has never been rented on a long-term basis. We will impose the relevant conditions on this proposal ( i. e. , six month minimum lease) in our resolution containing conditions. ARCHITECTURE, SITE DESIGN AND CIRCULATION The residential projects have changed as regards basic design, to varying degrees since conceptual submission. The Top of Mill Project has remained essentially the same as its original presentation, with the exception that the project has addressed the conditions and concerns raised at the conceptual stage. The 700 S. Galena project, as presented to you in the recent residential competition, has changed significantly, and, in our opinion, much for the better. Finally, the Summit Place and Ute City Place projects remain essentially as they were originally presented at the conceptual stage. Following is a review of the key architecture, site design and circulation issues for these four projects. 1. Top of Mill The major improvement to the Top of Mill project is its compliance with Condition #7 of Resolution # 84-27 which requires that building height be kept to 33 feet from the lowest floor level to the mid-point of the roof. Parking and part of each unit have been placed underground, to reduce massing, and the illustrative site plan now shows five (5) single-family and fourteen (14) duplex structures, as compared to the three (3) single-family and fifteen (15) duplex structures shown previously. There are no multi-family units within this project. The development approach to the site has been to cluster the units into "courtyard-like settings" in two distinct areas of the property. The lower part of the property, in the vicinity of the Mountain Queen and Summit Street, contains five (5) duplex structures in a clustered configuration. The units are accessed by entering the parking structure on Summit Street, and by taking an elevator and pedestrian system through the complex. A 25 foot easement has been created on Summit Street to handle the anticipated traffic; and to comply with Condition #9 of the Resolution. The upper part of the property begins in the portion of Mill Street which is being vacated, where cars and emergency vehicles enter the site and can turn around, park in the six (6) guest parking spaces or enter the upper parking garage. Three ( 3) of the single-family houses are clustered in the vicinity of this entry area, although retaining a view corridor up Mill Street to the Mountain. The remaining two (2) single-family units are located at the very top of the "bowl". The remaining eight (8) duplexes on the upper portion of the site are principally arranged to form "courtyards" open to the mountain. Once again, internal access to all units is through the parking garage, elevators and a pedestrian system. The Top of Mill project maintains approximately 70% of the property in open space, including a major open space easement in the northwest corner of the property above the Mountain Queen, and landscaped open space throughout the project. The landscape plan includes formal landscaping with a transition toward more natural planting as one moves towards the upper limits of the site. Condition #8 of Resolution 84-23 required that existing mature vegetation be retained to the maximum extent possible and that landscaping be used to screen view of the project from Mill Street, Lift lA and the ski area. It is important for P&Z to recognize that the site will be extensively disturbed during the construction phase. Drawing 3A shows the limits of site excavation to encompass about 2/3 of the entire site. It should be noted, however, that little of this 6 area is in a "natural " condition today, and much of the disturbance will be to cover materials left on the site, including toxic mine remains, and to construct a retention pond for storm drainage and the ski trail. The drawing also shows two groves of aspen trees which will be disturbed by the project. The applicant intends to investigate the possibility of replanting trees in the retention pond since it is intended to hold water during only a portion of the year. Other areas where trees will be disturbed are in the lower portions of the site, where both evergreens and cottonwoods will be removed, and possibly relocated. Jim Holland' s comments on the applicants proposed landscaping are that the "planting replacement program appears quite adequate. " There were a number of important conditions in Resolution 84-23 related to circulation through the Top of Mill site. Condition #4 required "resolution of the Engineering Department' s concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes. " To respond to this issue, the applicants employed Rolf Jensen and Associates, who prepared the report contained on Pages 95-96 of the application. The report indicates that the project' s design does not comply with the Uniform Fire Code criteria for access. The maximum travel distance from an access road to an exterior wall of a building in the project is 318 feet, well in excess of the 150 foot standard. Therefore, to mitigate this problem, the consultant recommends the following: A. Provide automatic sprinkler protection throughout living units and parking areas. B. Provide dry standpipes, located so that exterior walls of buildings are within 150 feet of an outlet. C. Provide a turn around space at the dead-end of Mill Street, and provide Fire Department connections for the dry standpipe system at this location. The applicants have committed to the above mitigation measures and the City Engineer informs me that he is therefore satisfied with this resolution of the problem. Condition #5 had to do with the vacation of Mill Street. In response to this Condition, the applicants have agreed to realign all utility lines at their own expense, and have therefore been able to obtain sign-offs from the utilities, concurring that the loss of right-of-way will not interfere with their current or future needs. Furthermore, the proposed street vacation ordinance for all vacations within the PUD, contained in Appendix B, specifically reserves to the City rights-of-way and easements for utilities and the right to use the vacated street for emergency vehicles and the diversion of public traffic during emergency purposes. Condition #9 required that an adequate easement on Summit Street be granted to the City. The applicants have granted the 25 foot easement desired by the City Engineer and have further moved the buildings on the lower portion of the site such that the Summit Place and Top of Mill units are 40 feet apart. The applicants have also noted that their traffic consultant, TDA, "felt that the disadvantages of opening Summit Street outweigh the benefits. " In a conversation with the City Engineer, this conclusion was found to be quite doubtful. While we are willing to accept the applicants desire to keep Summit Street closed at the beginning of this project, we question whether ultimately circulation needs of the area will outweigh the advantages of the ski-in trail which crosses Summit Street. We expect that parking restrictions will be needed on the street and that monitoring of traffic problems in the area will be necessary. 7 Condition #10 required the applicants to provide "a landscaped sidewalk across the Top of Mill site and within the Summit Street easement so as to facilitate pedestrian and emergency vehicle access between Monarch and Mill Streets. " The applicants have committed to an eight (8) foot wide paved sidewalk along Summit Street from the driveway access for the lower parking structure to the west property line, to be landscaped with grasses. Condition #12 required that the applicants increase the parking on the Top of Mill site f rom eighty ( 80) to ninety ( 90) spaces. The applicants now propose ninety-two (92) spaces in the following locations: Upper Structures Spaces 58 Lower Structure Spaces 28 On-Grade Guest Spaces 6 TOTAL 92 spaces Two other issues which should be discussed with respect to the basic land use and site design of the Top of Mill property are its compliance with 8040 greenline criteria and the use of the property for short-term rental purposes, which the applicants believe is a conditional use in the R-15 (L) PUD zone. The intention of 8040 Greenl ine Review is to evaluate all develop- ment above that line and any development up to 50 yards below that line for its compatibility with the natural features of Aspen Mountain. The applicants have specifically address each of the relevant criteria as follows: 1. Adequacy of water pressure and other utilities : These issues have been addressed in the conceptual PUD submission. Booster pumps will be provided to insure adequate water pressure to the upper units. 2. Adequacy of roads for fire protection, snow removal and maintenance: The issue of fire protection has already been addressed above. We await the City Engineer' s comments on the other items. 3. Site suitability including slope, ground instability, mud flow, rock fall and avalanche danger : These issues have been extensively discussed in reports prepared by Chen and Associates and will be reviewed at a subsequent meeting when referral comments are available. 4. Effects on run-off, drainage, erosion and water pollution: The referral comments on these items are also forthcoming. 5. Effects on air quality : According to the applicants analysis, the fireplaces and vehicle emissions impacts of the project will be a minor increase in particulates, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, but that there will be a decrease in all vehicle emissions categories. Confirmation of these claims has yet to be obtained from the Environmental Health Department. 6. Compatibility of roads and structures with terrain: In our earlier review of the project, we indicated that the units will comply with the height requirement of the zone and are compatible with surrounding uses. Units have been stepped up Mill Street, and use the relatively invisible location of the bowl to best advantage. New road construction in the area has been keep to an absolute minimum. 7. Disturbance to terrain, vegetation and land features through grading: As noted above, the development will result in extensive site grading and disturbance of vegetation. Jim Holland has approved the applicants' tree replacement 8 program. The site grading which will take place will not affect natural terrain but instead will disturb previously modified lands. The net impact of all of this disturbance should be a substantially reclaimed area, although admittedly the loss of some of the existing trees will result in less of a "natural " feel to the site. 8. Placement of structures and roads to increase open space, minimize roads, cutting and grading and preserve the scenic mountain: As noted above, roads are kept to a minimum within the site and open space is at approximately 70% . The retention of the view corridor through Mill Street is a key to the success of the design, as is the stepping of units up the hill. There will be significant cutting and grading, as noted above. 9. Reduction of building height and bulk: Bulk has been reduced through the use of underground parking and the design of structures as single-family and duplex units. In summary, the applicants appear to have met the intent and purposes of the 8040 Greenline Review through their project design. Final 8040 Greenline approval should only be granted after adequate referral comments addressing criteria 2 through 5 have been received. The other issue with respect to use which should be discussed is the question of conditional use. Since the property includes land zoned R-15 (L) PUD, the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit for the rental of the Top of Mill units on a short-term basis. The R-15 zone use requirements in Section 24-3.2 of the Code state that lodges are a conditional use in the R-15 zone district where an "L" is shown on the map. In my opinion, rental of these units on a short-term basis does not represent a conditional use, rather, it is actually a request to except condominiumized residential units from the six (6) month minimum lease restriction. My reason for this determination is the definition of lodge in Section 24-3. 1 (o) which includes the following language: "A building containing three (3) or more units, none of which units contain kitchen facilities, intended for temporary occupancy of guests. " Since none of the buildings on the Top of Mill site contain three (3) or more units and all contain kitchen facilities, this use cannot be considered a lodge and is ineligible for a conditional use permit. Excpetion of these units from the six ( 6) month minimum lease provisions will be considered as a miscellaneous issue during a subsequent meeting when residential condominiumiza- tion of the free-market units is discussed. 2. 700 South Galena The 700 South Galena project has experienced the most significant changes since conceptual submission. Rather than developing the site as a twelve (12) unit condominium complex, the proposal is instead to building two ( 2) duplexes in more of a townhouse configuration, with the remaining eight (8) units having been transferred to the lodge building. The major reasons for these changes are to accommodate the concerns of neighbors and the City Council's conditions of approval, and to address the desire of the City to realign Galena Street. The principal features of the project as regards architecture, site design and circulation are as follows: A. The duplexes will conform to the height limitations of the zone, thereby complying with conceptual Condition #16. 9 B. The project provides fifteen (15) underground spaces and four (4) on-grade guest spaces for the twelve (12) bedroom complex. The parking areas are accessed off the northern edge of the property. C. A sidewalk is shown for the length of the property and allows pedestrian access to the units through a courtyard. D. The applicants have agreed to realign Galena Street, in keeping with Condition #17 of Resolution 84-23 and much to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. The realign- ment has avoided the issue identified in Condition #14 regarding the identification of any easements which must be acquired to construct the project. The gas line beneath the site no longer encroaches onto the site and is instead within the right-of-way. Furthermore, the existing dead-end overhead electric line remaining along the rear of the site will be buried, for which a utility easement has been located. 3. Sum®it Place Townhouses There are virtually no design or circulation issues which have been noted to date with respect to the Summit Place aspect of the PUD. The architectural style of the project has been established as a result of the prior work on the exterior of the original duplex. The third unit will match the other two homes, while the foundation for the fourth unit will be removed to make room for the ski-in trail. The three (3) units all meet height and bulk limits for the zone. No conditions relative to Summit Place were identified at the conceptual stage, and no additional concerns have arisen at this time. 4. Ute City Place Compliance of this project with its conditions of conceptual approval has been reviewed above. Since this project has already been taken through the entire subdivision process for a very similar configuration, it seems redundant to apply these procedures once again. We believe that a finding as to compliance with the conditions of conceptual approval should be adequate to deal with Preliminary PUD issues concerning site design and circulation. SURM"Y This memo is intended to introduce you to the residential projects contained within the Aspen Mountain Lodge and to address the following review concerns: 1. Employee Housing; and 2. Architecture, Site Design and Circulation. I anticipate developing a second memo for your meeting on March 19, addressing the following issues: 3. Hazard Mitigation; and 4. Miscellaneous Concerns. Following the series of meetings at which these topics are reviewed, I will draft a resolution which comprehensively addresses the points you have raised regarding these projects. 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects - Preliminary PUD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews DATE: March 19, 1985 INTRODUCTION In our previous memorandum to you on this subject, dated March 5, we provided you with a general description of the Top of Mill, Summit Place, 700 South Galena and Ute City Place projects. The memo also reviewed these projects in terms of basic land use and site design issues, circulation and employee housing. These issues were reviewed and completed at your meetings on March 5 and March 12. The purpose of this memo is to address the remaining concerns with respect to the residential projects for the discussions which are to take place on March 19 and March 26 . As a reminder, the issues to be discussed are as follows: 1. Plans for mitigation of natural hazards. 2. Miscellaneous outstanding issues emerging from conceptual conditions of approval 3. Residential condominiumization. The meeting on March 19 is intended to address topical area #1, while that on March 26 should deal with areas #2 and #3 (unless time permits on March 19 to complete all outstanding issues) . Finally, on April 2 we hope to present you with a resolution for action on these projects. NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW There are four (4) types of natural hazards which have been addressed by the applicants in response to the conditions of conceptual approval. Taking these issues in rank order, from the least complex to the most complex, the areas addressed are as follows: 1. Potential mine subsidence on the site. 2. Contaminated soils on the site. 3. Stormwater drainage from the mountain onto the site. 4. Geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain. 1. Potential Mine Subsidence The study of mine subsidence potential by Chen and Associates is contained in Appendix D of the submission. The study was a literature review, as opposed to an on-site analysis, and made the following findings : "The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project site is located at least 200 feet from the area where large concentrations of mine workings have been mapped. Based on our experience with similar projects, the geology and type of mining, a safety zone of 200 feet from mine workings should be satisfactory. Records of underground mine workings below the site were not found. There is some possibility that mine workings (small, shallow pits, abandoned exploration tunnels or shafts, mine water drainage or ventilation tunnels) may be present at the site which were not mapped or recorded through 65 years of mining. Because the proposed site is located outside of the main ore bearing zone, the possibility of major unrecorded mine workings below the site is very small. In this regard we recommend that field observation by an experienced geologist be made when the snow cover is gone. " I have discussed this study with Jay Hammond and it is our opinion that the field observation suggestion by Chen should be implemented. It should be required that the results of these reports be available to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of any building permits on the site. 2. Contaminated Soils Appendix D also contains the Chen and Associates chemical investi- gation of near surface soils. The purpose of this study was "to determine whether the soils might be classified as potentially hazardous materials, based upon testing procedures recommended by the U. S. EPA. " Twelve test pits were excavated and the samples were analyzed for total lead content and EP_ toxicity._ _The results of this analysis were that among the three zones sampled, Zone 1, in the southermost portion of the site and Zone 2, just above the proposed terminus of Mill Street, failed the toxicity test, while the sample from zone #3, in the central and lower portion of the site, was not classified as hazardous. Based on this analysis, the consultant identified four ( 4) mitigation alternatives: a. Do nothing; b. Excavate the contaminated soils and ship to a disposal site; C. Cover the contaminated soils with soils from off-site; or d. Develop a cut-and-fill plan using uncontaminated soils from the property to cover contaminated soils. The consultant chose the fourth option based on its cost effective- ness. Tom Dunlop comments that contouring the site and covering the soils is an effective technique for mitigating the health hazard of contaminated soils. Tom further recommends that surface water be diverted from the contaminated areas to insure that no contamination of groundwater takes place. In this respect, we would note that no testing was done in the area of the proposed detention pond. Such testing would seem appropriate before approval is given to place the pond in this location. Tom further notes that if any excavated material is to be shipped off-site, it be limited to materials which are not contaminated. We, therefore, recommend that no material from the Top of Mill portion of the site be permitted to be moved off the site. This limitation should effectively deal with all contaminated soils, since, as one moves further down the site, the hazards become negligible. Tom also had several other informational requirements which can be dealt with in your resolution. 3 & 4. Stormwater Drainage/Geologic Hazards The final two hazard issues have been addressed jointly due to the comment by Jeff Hynes of the Colorado Geologic Survey that: "Three general hazards are directly associated with this proposal . They are : unstable and potentially unstable slopes ; debris flows ; and flash flooding. These processes are dynamically interrelated in extremely 2 complex ways in which each can be the cause or the result of any of the others. Events can be random, sequential or episodic in nature with highly variable time delays between related events. " The applicants had Chen and Associates prepare two studies on these hazards, one being a study of the 1984 landslide event, while the other looked at the potential for debris flow originating on the north face of Aspen Mountain. A study of stormwater drainage was prepared by Rea Cassens and Associates, to coordinate the overall site drainage needs with the off-site impacts of mud flows, debris flows and other materials transported from the mountain onto the site. The applicants have summarized the conclusions of the Chen and Associates report as follows: a. "Debris flows have occurred in the past with reoccurrence intervals measured in hundreds of years. b. Mud-floods have occurred in the past. The mud-flood is similar to the water flood except for significant volumes of transported sediment. The mud-flood return period is 25 years. C. The potential for a debris flow from the landslide reaching Aspen Mountian Lodge and the Top of Mill sites as anything but a fluid "mud flood" appears relatively low. The "mud flood" hazard can be mitigated in the same manner and using the same structures as proposed for storm drainage. d. Based on the results of our investigation, it appears that hyper-concentrated mud-floods with solids concentration of about 40% by volume pose the most risk of damage to the project. e. We believe the potential risks and mitigation measures for the project should be evaluated by hydrologic and hydraulic methods. Water flood volumes, however, should be increased by 50% to account for transport of solids in the flows. f. Conceptual mitigation measures would include the construction of detention/debris basins, diversion structures and channeli- zation. Provisions for periodic debris removal and cleanup should be included in the design of mitigation measures. g. The monitoring program has not indicated any significant movement of the landslide mass during the period of this study. The lack of data showing a clearly defined failure surface has limited our ability to analyze the landslide and propose corrective measures. However, the preliminary results indicate a relatively shallow failure surface within the mine dump material or near the contact of the original ground surface and the mine dump. h. Continued monitoring of the inclinometers and piezometers is recommended through at least the last spring of 1985 . Additional monitoring may be required beyond this time if the Aspen Skiing Company desires to develop corrective measures for stabl iz ing the landslide. " Jeff Hynes, of the Colorado Geologic Survey, has provided us with a detailed review of these studies, focusing on study methods, conclusions and recommendations. Jeff' s full response is included in your packet, but can be summarized with the following highlights: a. "While Appendices D and E provide a great deal of valuable information, they are less than what is necessary to understand and predict the behavior of this slope-failure-prone area. b. The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of 3 last June is insufficient in both detail and time span to adequately characterize this slide mass and/or predict its future behavior. c. Stability analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions rather than actual, measured characteristics of the landslide due to insufficient data. One of the critical assumptions made was that the materials were drained. This is most probably not the critical condition of the landslide deposit nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with the movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions, a safety factor of less than 1.0 was achieved in one of the two cases. This case was classified as "marginally stable" in the Chen Report. By definition, the correct classification for this case is unstable. d. Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as a mud-flood, and therefor mitigatable by channel ization does not take into account the episodic nature and potential interaction between several events. A small landslide or debris flow which would present only a trivial threat to the actual structures could effectively block or alter the drainage network rendering it all but useless to defend the development from the flash flood which could occur before the blockage was cleared, or even noticed. . . e. In summary, we would like to concur with and reiterate the recommendations found in the Chen reports calling for more detailed studies of the mass wasting and slope failure processes affecting this area. The complexity of these phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood in order to make any reliable predictions about their likelihood, recurrence interval, and the risk they pose to the anticipated development. Additionally, the excess moisture conditions associated with the spring thaw and runoff period represents the critical phase of the landslide problem. Given the movement and surface disruption last June, it is highly likely that this slide mass will absorb more water this spring than last and may move again. f. Based upon the above considerations we recommend that the City postpone any decision on this application until detailed studies have been completed and the hazards are better understood and realistic risk assessments can be performed. The timing of the studies should be such that the critical period (melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field investigations. " Given the recommendations made by Mr. Hynes in points a and f above, I reviewed this issue in a meeting with the City Manager, City Engineer, and Chief Environmental Health Officer. We all concur with the recommendations made by Chen and Associates and by Jeff Hynes that further study is needed before any decision on this application can be made. We recommend that Chen and Associates be requested to set up a study program for monitoring and analysis of the hazard and that this program be reviewed by Mr. Hynes for his concurrence. These conclusions have been discussed with the applicants who concur with the approach we are taking, and who have already moved forward with developing the necessary study and contacting Mr. Hynes. Based on these conclusions, we further recommend that the applicants return to City Council for reconsideration of the condition which limits the lodge portion of the PUD from proceeding to final plat until the residential projects have received preliminary approval. In our opinion, the main reason for this condition was to insure integrated planning of the site from the standpoint of architecture, site design, circulation and similar issues. Since these issues have been addressed and resolved to the City' s satisfaction at this time, we see no reason to hold up progress regarding the lodge itself, 4 as well as the 700 South Galena, Summit Place and Ute City Place projects. However, this approach does leave the applicants at some risk since it means that Top of Mill is essentially an unapproved portion of the PUD at this time. We feel that the City' s interests in the PUD can be preserved since the eventual development of the site will likely be in the form proposed at this stage or at some lessened density. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There were two conditions of conceptual approval which did not fit into any of the categories previously discussed. These conditions (#1 and #2 of Resolution 84-23) dealt with the Koch Land Trade and the relocation of the Ski Club' s buildings. The condition with respect to the Koch Property reflected the Council ' s desire to consummate the land exchange in conjunction with the final plat submission. The applicants have contacted the City Attorney and Planning Office to establish a procedure for dealing with the land exchange. As you are aware, the exchange involves two (2) pieces of land, one being traded in exchange for the City Lots in the Capitol Hill Addition and the other being freely given as a gift to the City. The City Attorney and I concur that the best way to deal with the subdivision of the land into two parcels for purposes of its conveyance to the City is as a subdivision exception. This procedure is expected to be completed simultaneously with the Final Plat action, with the request having been recently submitted by the applicants. As one condition of obtaining the Capitol Hill lots, the applicants agreed to construct for the Aspen Ski Club a new building of at least equal size and of better quality than that which it now occupies on the City lots. This commitment also showed up as Condition #2 of Resolution 84-23. In response to this condition, the applicants have reiterated their commitment to construct a new Ski Club building of increased size and improved quality relative to the Club' s present situation. It has also come to my attention that the Ski Club is now actively involved in a search for a new building site. The attached letter from Larry Yaw to Alan Novak was written in response to an earlier letter by Dick Meeker of the Aspen Ski Club. Laryy has evaluated the suitability of three sites based on eight criteria, all as originally -identified- by the Ski Club. The three sites identified for the new building are within or in the vicinity of Willoughby Park. Larry Yaw finds the parcel currently used for the volleyball courts to be the most suitable of the locations and proposes that the volleyball use be relocated to the Koch parcel. While it is not the P&Z ' s (or the applicants' ) responsibility to choose the site for the building, it would be helpful at this point to give the Ski Club some guidance about the proposed locations. Given the lack of site planning for the Koch parcel, I am somewhat doubtful about displacing this use without a straight-forward replacement plan. It seems more reasonable to me to consider some form of recon- struction of, or addition to the ARA building to house the Ski Club. CONDOMINIUNIZATION On pages 32-38 of the submission, the applicants request subdivision exception for the purposes of condominumization of the 700 S. Galena, Summit Place and Top of Mill units. The units within the lodge have already received your recommendation of approval for condominiumization, while the units at Ute City Place were addressed in an earlier memo. The applicants' responses to the criteria of Section 20-22 are as follows: a. No existing tenants need be given written notice, as the condominiums are new construction or the completion of 5 previously unoccupied units. b. The applicants request exception from the six (6) month minimum lease provisions. As with the units within the lodge, the intent for theses units is to rent them on a short- term basis to visitors. Given the location of these projects within the lodge district, where the intent is for short-term occupancy, we concur with the exception request. c. The applicants have demonstrated that the supply of affordable housing will not be reduced by agreeing to replace, as part of their employee housing calculations, any units which are eliminated by the construction of the project. The Planning office recommends approval of the condominiumization request, including exception from the six ( 6) month minimum lease restriction. SUMMARY This memo completes the Planning office' review of the preliminary PUD/Subdivision and associated reviews, for the residential projects included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. When the Planning Commission has made its comments on each of the issues included within out report, we will be able to prepare a resolution summarizing your action on the projects. AR:jlr:apz .aml. 3.19 6 3� l3o�..g z Co-�a z C-c A�— Icz 0o S G tA --- - - -- - - - _ S�" _s 30 0 o s FLFA-v _ I( - - nn �Ak R- 7' �.aCJ;, w o`C `�•Q.J�.ii Cis-NCO I � PX�p� C.o ,i► A AIL- - - - CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 M E 11 0 R A N D U M TO: ALAN RICHMAN, Planning Office FROM: JIM HOLLAND, Director of Leisure Services DATE: February 26 , 1985 SUBJECT: COMMENTS Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Prelim.Plat - Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place, & 700 South Galena — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — TOP OF MILL I agree with their assessment of the existing plant material on the property pertaining to removals & transplants ; their planting replacement plan appears quite adequate. For the record however, it might be less confusing to label the cottonwoods and aspen groves on Drawing #P-3A as "Removals" not "trees to be Relocated" . SUMMIT PLACE No comment. UTE CITY PLACE Removals OK. I would prefer in this situation that your plant spec for Populus acuminata (Smoothbark Poplar) be changed to Populus angustifolia "cottonless" (Narrowleaf Cottonwood) , and their planting size a minimum of 2k" cal. 700 SOUTH GALENA Crabapples placed in curb/sidewalk planting strips always seem to sustain a considerable amount of damage from the pedestrian traffic. They look great in bloom, but I recommend in order to minimize that damage, that you please spec a minimum of 3" cal . RA Ice o Ylanninq .: ng �ltect iminaCe -_ gyCrman' k1� �ouei G�4 Cti Y 41a lay' dame ial vte A �4Cae A 19$5 geeide nYlace� �. �natY 25 � Lodge Sum�1 he A�4en SO: F e'� vrta in X11 f t FgO Seen °�Ga ena ev i ew o DAZE: y 00 5onth °ll Ow ing On. LC2: 1 tye CO en to te vrmy G4 make Ce e teal e to Cute Offl iaen atea c°n ote �OOS�L°age gee ray tWO ed Off d thetef 2 o101 Ottioe enefatti°n pe 4tOV a re So at1Ore an tie re �Oneing m4101ee Oveing to tationna calYiat• 4tov�e,�t �O 2 1� 01 ee ee gene og! •a inatl to re al e X lo`1 trod°4tellm Oveing to4oe 21 to tVeCant n of the m4loYee .ante 4 n �miZOti en i c it 5t tY,e a ,�14°tt1° d to t � the a4f' Ot COti ou fain L w i eot eee t th teSa e w o�al Ae,�e'n d tVal e'a wi Oon a,�pt the etne Sel see TA �Of of e • exCeptytion °� ie co w�11 r re , sov51 ee0,e eiOn al V°� Office ,,Odle hake Woo tre „Snrdi e iaevl Ouein9onntai r to vmiSat a,et. tr o•eCt• e t`ne A54e a l�not o d0m1 t ertal t at a �� , trio t d rY etetote m The tesSe 8 atee er MOUt St , ding eneta nd tr vnit eadY aeatiae the AOalaVI e gega oY Sees o yet a dome nl he alt t e een enIt °t of a i nium1Z` e ep v ice �waee ° all i rt e eCOm4lo ltiOn e c0ndoo itl s to yet a e e°taFf'1 eva'P u11t1 cra e ° sin Antr eeS u h e f o ca e t I the th Went e pv t he 11 ed. e� t One Term o th d o t i vm1Z p eu dcallOwOnettaa�e c ndoa nl w Ou1 re aeTT`Unite i °t e the 1 Aspen Ski Club, Itnc. Own P)u� P.O. Box 49 Aspen. Colorado 81612 " Z 5 (303) 925-3125 1984-85 February 22 , 1985 Board of Directors Dick !Meeker Mr . John Doremus President 603 East Hyman Jem Blann Aspen, Co . 81611 Is[ Vice President Gideon Kaufman Dear John : 2nd Vice President Tom Scheer Thanks to you and Art Daily for taking the time to Treasurer visit with John Keleher and me about a new Aspen PhN11isYaA Ski Club building . Since our meeting I have had a Secretor• lengthy discussion with Mayor Stirling and a brief Penne. E\ans conversation with Planner Alan Richman. In addition Ward Hauenstein several of us representing the Club have put our heads Carolyn Haves together in an attempt to refine Club space require- Jim Horn ments as well as the most desirable building site . Connie Madsen Romeo Pelletier Don Ravburn The purpose of this letter is to establish the criteria required by the Club in the selection and use of a HonorarN, and building site and for you to authorize your architect , Lifetime Members Larry Yaw, to evaluate the various sites and subse- Ra\ Bros;n quently submit his findings to you and the City . John Denier John Hayes Important considerations in site selection for the Ed Lrnns Club are as follows : Tom !Moore Dick Parker T, Pedersen 1 . Easy access to lift on Aspen Mountain . Ch::rles Racine 2 . Ski from mountain to Club . AnJcR(,,h 3 . On or close to bus route . TcdR}an 4 . Access to Club by cars and delivery trucks . Don Stapicton 5 . Adequate parking for ASC vans and staff . Ruth Whvtc 6 . Close to park (dry land) . Director and 7 . Close to old #1 lift (historical significance- Head Coach complements museum/ trophy concept) TIM Petrick There appear to be three possible sites that would meet our requirements on land owned by the City of Aspen. They are as follows : 1 . The two lots occupied by the ARA (city and build- ing) . 2 . The lots next to ARA occupied by volleyball courts (Willoughby Park) . 3 . The part of Juan St . south of ARA and below Skiers Chalet . Page 2 We would ask that you authorize Larry Yaw to evaluate these three sites and submit his analysis and con- clusions to the City of Aspen with copies to you and me . Thank you. Sincerely , Dick Meeker cc : Bill Stirling Alan Richman Art Daily Larry Yaw John Keleher Tim Petrick t 0-0. MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Horn FROM: Jay Hammond DATE : February 22, 1985 RE: Geologic Hazard On Aspen Mountain ------------------------------------ This memo is intended to serve as an supplement to Chuck Roth ' s memo to you of February 11, 1985, regarding the proposed Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan. Pursuant to our discuss-- . c in consideration of the recently released Chen report on the geologic stability of the Strawpile area, the Engineering Department would offer some additional comment on the application. The recent application by the Aspen Mountain Lodge project for preliminary approvals relating to the residential Top of Mill speaks to on-site mitigation of potential "mud flood" hazard from the Pioneer Gulch area above the project site. The application notes, however, that some two-thirds of the Pioneer Gulch do QQJ flow into the Top of Mill. This flow is intercepted by roads and existing drainage routing on the ski area. Top of Mill, therefore, only offers mitigation of the debris flow hazard in the form of on-site channelization and detention/debris basins for a portion of the flows. Several measures contained in the Chen report are not addressed by Top of Mill and, in view of their location on Ski Company property, would seem appropriate for their considera- tion. Based on the Chen report, we would recommend conditioning any approval of the ski area master plan expansion on a commitment by the Ski Company to undertake the following: 1. Continued monitoring of the inclinometers, piezometers and topographic location of the inclinometer casings to evaluate potential mitigation measures. 2. Construction of further mitigation measures as may be deemed appropriate by Chen and Associates including, but not necessarily limited to the following: a. On-site grading to improve drainage and remove water from slide area. b. Installation of on-site structures, channels, membranes, surface and subsurface drainage facilities as may be recomm- ended. C. Construction of appropriate on-site detention/debris basins with provision for periodic debris removal. ,r 4 Page Two Geologic Hazard on Aspen Mountain February 22, 1985 Some of the above items, particularly on-going monitoring may be undertaken by the developers of the lodge project, however, in the absence of a clear indication of those portions of the Chen recommendations the lodge developers intend to pursue, we would assign the responsibility to the Ski Company. Let me know if you require further clarification. . JH/co/GeologicAspenMt MCA M E M O R A N D U M r 1 .5 1%5 TO: Alan Richman, Planning DirectorYF�, FROM: J. Lucas Adamski , Housing Director DATE : February 14 , 1985 SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Preliminary Plat - Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute -City Place, 700 South Galena OVERVIEW; The Planning Office is requesting review and referral comments from the Housing Authority on the Aspen Mountain Lodge Resid- ential GMP. The areas being reviewed are as follows: 1. Preliminary PUD approval for the Top of Mill , 700 South Galena and Summit Place. 2. Subdivision exception approval for condom ini umiz ati on of the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project. 3. Request to confirm the prior Residential Bonus Overlay on the Ute City Place portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project. 4. Conditional Use Review to permit a short-term use in the R-15(1) PUD zone district. 5. 8040 Greenline Review for construction of the Top of Mill portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project. HOUSING AUTHORITY REVIEW: The area of concern for review by the Housing Authority Board is Number 2. The applicant requests approval of the condominimui- zation of the Ute City Place employee units. On August 27 , 1984 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 27 , series of 1984 , granting Conceptual Subdivision approval and exemption for the City' s Growth Management Allotment procedures for Ute City Place. The development will provide twenty-two employee rental or sale units as part of the Aspen Mountain PUD' s Employee Housing Component, with 100% of the building devoted to employee housing. The attachment identifies the 195 employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain Lodge. r HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority approves the request for condominiumization of the Ute City Place with the following conditions: 1) The Housing Authority shall have the option of review- ing the mix of rental or sale units for Ute City Place three months prior to the placement of the deed restriction and at that time the Housing Authority will recommend what percentage of the project will be rental or sales. The decision will be based on the salary range of the Aspen Mountain Lodge employees and the affordability of the units for the employees. 2) The Housing Authority recommends approval of the Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP as the proposal is in compliance with Section 24-11.4 (b) , (4) (bb) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen conditioned on the following: a. The owner covenants with the City of Aspen that the employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and occupancy to the rental or sale guidelines established and indexed at the time or prior to issuance of the building permit by the City Council ' s designee for moderate income employee housing units. Verification of employ- ment and income of those persons living in the moderate income employee units shall be com- pleted and filed with the City Council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date of recording hereof , in the Pitkin County Real Property records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by and appropriate legal action including injunction, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy , during the period of life of the last surviving member of the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado , Plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be less. 2 t 1 REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES Incorporated November 19, 1984 Mr. John Doremus Doremus & Company 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: November 15, 1984 Update on Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Employee Housing Dear John: At the request of Joe Wells, I have updated the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD employee housing commitment based on ,,the current lodge and South Galena Street development program given to me by Joe. The PUD proposes -to meet its employee housing commitment as follows: 1. Alpina Haus - 43 rooms = 46 employees housed 2. Copper Horse - 14 rooms = 43 employees housed 3. Ute City Place - 22 units = 37 employees housed 4. Airport Business Center - 32 units = 69 employees housed 195 employees housed The current estimate for the PUD' s total employee housing commit- ; ment based on the revised development program is as follows: 1. Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP = 138 employees } 2. 700 South Galena/ - Lodge West Wing GMP - 24 employees 3. Non-Acc. Commcercial GMP = 4 employees 4. Employee Replacement = 29 employees 9 employees The analysis and assumptions of the employee housing commitment are given on the attached sheets. I will review the an with you at your convenience. Respect ul y, i J Curtis . JC:cck Enclosures North of Nell Building P.O.Box 3159,Aspen.Culorado 81611 88 Telephone:30319''_34530 11/19/84 • R.E.A. ATTACHMENT A EMPLOYEE GENERATION 11/19/84 4/23/84 Current Revised A. Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP 1. Lodge Operations Lodge rooms 378 rooms 385 rooms 1-bedroom suites 69 w/69 1 iv .rms. 62 w/62 1 iv.rms Total Bedrooms 447 44 Living Rooms @ 25% 17 15 464 462 Existing rooms -275 -277 Net new rooms 189 185 Employees per room .36 .36 Net new employees 68 67 GMP employees housed 60% 60% Employees housed 41 40 1 2, Accessory Food/Beverage 14, 000 of. Food/beverage 14, 000 sf. Kitchen 8 ,000 8 ,000 Total 22, 000 22, 000 Existing food/beverage -10 ,000 -10 ,000 Net new food/beverage 12, 000 12, 000 i Employees per 1#000 of 12 .8 12 .8 ? Net new employees 154 154 # GMP employees housed 60% 60% Employees housed 92 92 3. Accessory Retail 7, 000 of. Total retail 2, 917 of. Existing retail - 700 - 700 Net new retail 2, 217 6, 300 Employess per 1,000 of 3 .5 3 .5 Net new employees 8 22 GMP employees housed 60% 60% Employees housed 5 13 s Subtotal Employees housed 138 145 89 j 11/19/84 R.E.A. B. Non-Accessory Commercial GMP 2, 952 s f. 4, 500 s f. Total retail 3 .5 Employees per 1, 000 sf 310 16 Net new employees 35% 35% GMp employees housed 4 6 Employees housed C Employee Housing Replacement 10 employees 10 employees Melville II building 2 2 Black residence - 4 t 5 Townplace apartments 13 1978 Aspen Inn expansion _ - 133 0 Hillside-Holiday exchange 0 0 Mine Dumps apartments 29 30 j _ a i 90 11/19/84 R.E.A. ATTACHMENT B 700 SOUTH GALENA/LODGE WEST WING RESIDENTIAL G MP 1 . Original 12/1/83 Submission a . Free-market units 3 units @ 1 bedroom @ 1 . 75 = 5. 25 residents 6 units @ 2 bedrooms @ 2. 25 = 13.50 3 units @ 3 bedrooms @ 3 . 00 = 27 0 75 residents = 58% 12 units b. Employee units _ 42%_ = 9 units @ 2 bedrooms @ 2. 25 = 20 .00 775 Total - 100% 16 pts . 2 . Revised 11/19/84 Submission a. Free-market units 1 unit @ 1 bedroom @ 1 . 75 = 1. 75 residents 2 units @ 2 bedrooms @ 2. 25 = 4. 0 5 units @ 3 bedrooms @ 3 . 00 = 15. 00 4 units @ 4 bedrooms @ 3. 00 = 12 .00 12 units 33. 25 residents - 58% b. Employee units 10 units @ 2 bedrooms @ 2. 25 = .22. 50 employees 1 unit @ 1 bedroom @ 1. 75 - .24. 25 employees = 42% 16 pts . 57 .50 Total 100% 91 ASPEN#PITKIN ENVIRONMENTALME AI TH __DEPARTMENT TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 7� Environmental Health Department DATE: February 9 , 1985 RE : Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Preliminary Plat - Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place , 700 South Galena The above-referenced submittal has been reviewed for the following environmental concerns: AJ r—P—q1 Luis i oil This concern has been reviewed for vehicle pollution , wood burning pollution, restaurant grill pollution and demolition pollution. It will be the requirement of this office that adequate air handling facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate any buildup of air contaminates inside the underground parking structures. In the General Submission review of this project on October 22 , 1983 by this department, there was a request to have the applicant investigate an air purification system for the underground garages. After a careful review of the technology available to develop such a system by the applicant and this office it was determined that the technology did not exist as of this date. Refer to the attached memo dated September 11 , 1984 from this department to Hagman-Yaw Architects where the current opinion on this subject can be found . Further , reference the attached letter from Swanson-Rink Engineers to KSLW, Mr. Stan Sakamoto, dated September 4, 1984. In this communication, a list of four alternates can be found which shall be instituted by the applicant to address concerns of this department . All four explained design features shall be implemented in the final construction plans. Wood BurB,iig_ Compliance with Section 11-2 .3 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Solid Fuel Burning Devices" will be required. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 303/925-2020 ASPEN*PITKIN FaYI�QrAMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Preliminary Plat - Top of mill, Summit Place, ute City Place, 700 South Galena Also , the applicant should become familiar with H. B. 1187 which was signed into law by Governor Richard Lamm on April 13, 1984. The title of this law is "A Regulation Concerning the Control of Pollution from Wood Burning Appliances. " The most restrictive of the mentioned regulations will apply to this application. The submittal states, to the satisfaction of this department that "the applicant does not intent; to provide fireplaces in any units. " Condition #5 further states "the applicants have agreed to eliminate aU fireplaces from the original plan in accordance with Ordinance 12, series of 1933 . " However , on page 174 , the applicant is discussing possible effects on air quality. There appears to be a contradiction to the above quotes when the calculations include f_Ir pl. p and approved stoves in determining emission rate increases to the area . Clarification is requested prior to final approval . R.est aan -G.rl,l gu Compliance with Section 11-2 .4 of the Aspen municipal Code titled "Restaurant Grills" will be required. This section addresses the type of cooking devices which can be installed and operated in new or remodeled food service establis- hments. P&M-Ul"R-ALL-Pall 911w According to the submittal there will be extensive demolition of existing structures in preparation for the proposed new building construction. It will be a requirement of the applicant to initiate any or all customary air pollution control measures to minimize fugitive dust (wind blown) leaving the property. This may take the form of continuous water application on the immediate work site through the use of sprinklers or hoses . which ever control measure is used it must be effective. As a point of information none of the demolished materials can be burned. It must all be hauled to a designated landfill. Contact shall be made with the Pitkin County Public Works Director to determine landfill capacities and if the present landfill can accommodate the projected volumes of waste. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 Page 3 February 9, 1985 Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Preliminary Plat - Top of mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place, 700 South Galena The demolition activities shall also comply with Regulation 1 Section III, D, 2,h titled "Demolition Activities" of the "Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards, " Revised March 1983 . To continue , contact shall be made by the applicant with the Colorado Health Department , Air Pollution Control Division District Engineer to determine if an emissions permit and/or fugitive dust. control plan is required for both the demolition and construction phase of the project. That determination is relative to the estimated emissions which will be generated (tons per year) . The contact person will be: Colorado Health Department Mr . Scott Miller 222 S. 6th Street Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Phone: 248-7150 In conclusion, refer to the attached memorandum from this department to the Planning Office dated November 6, 1984. The content of the communication again requests contact be made with the Colorado Health Department relative to air pollution regulations. Included also is the requirement for asbestos testing of all buildings which will be razed prior to initiation of the project. ,qi_tg. Prd g. The use of on-site dry wells or catch basins to retain parking lot (paved area) run-off will be an approved method of treatment. Discharge of Aspen Mountain (off-site) run-off into the existing storm sewer system currently takes place. It is not anticipated that any change in these flow patterns will be necessary. That is, unless those flow patterns will access disturbed soil on the project site and carry soil off-site and into receiving waters of the State. Precautions by the applicant shall be exercised to prevent such an occurrence . The storm water drainage report prepared by Rea, Cassens and Associates appears to adequately address the concerns of this office. Ilp-ie.. 4 �A The project will be required to comply with Ordinance 2, series Page 4 February 9 , 1985 Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Preliminary Plat - Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place; 700 South Galena -of 1981 titled "Noise Abatement . " Specifically, during demolition and construction Industrial Zone standards will apply. After construction when occupancy is initiated the lower decibel levels of the Lodge Zone will apply. A caution will be expressed at this time that if live or recorded amplified music is generated from the property it will be of benefit for the applicant to become familiar with the noise ordinance. Reference is made in the soils report from Chen and Associates dated December 26 , 1984 , that the Aspen Building Department has accepted the mitigating measure of covering heavy metal contami- nated soils with uncontaminated soils to prevent human exposure. The question of remedial action is more involved than is expressed in the submittal. Also, the Building Department should not be expected or asked to determine what i -r acceptable control meati!._- : for exposed lead and other soil contaminates. This office has been deeply involved with other area locations which are sources of contaminated soils as the result of past mining activities. Isolation of the human population from contam- inated soils is of course very necessary. Protection of the groundwater and surface water around old mining sites is equally important. A detailed plan including existing topographic information and subsurface depths of contaminated soil shall be submitted. Also, final deposition plans shall be submitted outlining all mitigating actions, eg. final slope grades, contours, diversions, etc. Residents and visitors who have small children that may play on mine dumps and tailings should be notified of the potential hazard. WA„ 9 r Svt Service of this project by the Aspen I-later Department distribution system is in conformance with policies of this office. geyggg System Service of this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District collection system is in conformance with policies of this office. Page 5 February 9, 1985 Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Preliminary Plat - Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place, 700 South Galena Food Service andLi ounce Area, _ Conformance with the �ule,� a_nd RPgu� ate ons CQvernJ ng the any a i gn of Foo Is a i i shments i12 the State _of Colorado. July 1978 will be required. swimming Pools and ap Compliance with the State of Colorado $W_lItlIllnci PQO1 Reaultions and Stan a do will be required. TSD/co/AspenHtLodgeResGMP Enclosures : 3 cc : Colorado Health Department Mr. Scott Miller MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Director Planning Office FROTI: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 5 Environmental Health Department DATE : November 6 , 19£34 RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary GiiP/Subdivision The above-referenced submittal has been reviewed for the concerns listed in Condition ;ill of the conceptual approval , Resolution 23umber 84-I1 . The commitments made by the applicant to comply with review comments of this office, dated October 22, 1953 , are sufficient to warrant no further detailed discussion of environmental issues by this department. That is, with one exception. It will be a further requirement that, due to the magnitude of the demolition proposed, the applicant obtain an Air Pollution Permit prior to beginning demolition. The permit is required under State of Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulation Three. Further , the applicant shall document , through analytical analysis of the structures to be razed, that asbestos does or does not exist within the buildings. This shall be completed prior to initiation of the demolition. The demolition permit can be obtained from the Colorado Health Department , Air Pollution Control Division, 4210 E. 11th Avenue, Denver , Colorado 80220 . Contact person is Dick Fo:, who can also be reached at 320-4100. The asbestos testing shall be performed by a private consulting firm who specializes in collection and analysis of such fibers. A copy of the permit and asbestos test results shall be furnished to this office prior to commencing work on the project. TSD/co/AspenLodge P Swanson • Rink anti Associates CONSULTING ENGINEERS September 4, 1984 KSLW 3833 Long Beach Blvd. Long Beach, California 90807 Attention: Mr. Stan Sakamoto Reference: Aspen Lodge Gentlemen: In response to your request, we have reviewed the memorandum from the Aspen Director of Health Department dated October 22, 1983, specifically regarding "Vehicle Air Pollution. As suggested in the memo, we have investigated methods of treating the garage exhaust to alleviate the problem of high pollution concentration in a localized area. An activated charcoal filtration system can be used to remove objectionable constituents of the garage exhaust air. The drawbacks to this approach are cost and physical size. This type of system, sized to handle the air quantity required by code, will cost approximately $200,000 to install and impose maintenance and operating costs that may be as high as $45,000/year. Since the life of the charcoal filter media cannot be accurately predicted, we have assumed a one year replacement requirement. Space allowance in the building will need to accommodate a filter bank/plenum 15' high, 45' wide and 15' deep. This seems, to us, a cost and building impact out of proportion to the benefits chat will be appreciated for the small amount of time the system would truly be needed. As an alternative to the relatively expensive and building impactive charcoal filtering system outlined above, we suggest using the dilution system recognized by most code authorities with added features that will reduce the deterioration of ambient air quality in the immediate area of discharge. Feature 1 Increase the amount of air circulated through and exhausted from the garage. Feature 2 Control air quantity circulated to maintain acceptable CO concentrations in exhaust from garage. Feature 3 Use multiple discharge vents. Feature 4 Terminate discharge vents well above a level that would normally be considered occupied. 4704 Harlan,Suite 400 Denver,Colorado 80212 (303)433.6721 KSLW September 4, 1984 gage 2 If the Aspen Environmental Health Department would be willing to consider our suggested alternative, we will need to meet with yourself and them to define criteria and work out details of the system. Please contact us with any questions you might have. Regards, SWANSON-RINK AND ASSOCIAT , INC. .L. Brust, P.E. - JLB/mmc cc John Doremus, Doremus & Co. , Aspen, Express Mail 0 September 11 , 1984 Doug Graybeal Hagman Yaw Architects 210 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE : Carbon Monoxide Removal System Dear Doug : This office has contacted the Colorado Health Department ' s Air Pollution Control Division to determine the feasibility of having The Lodge - Top of Mill - Galena install an air-cleaning system for the underground parking structure. Adequate air-handling facilities will have to be designed into the complex to eliminate any build-up of air contaminants inside the parking structure. However, it is apparent that the systems that exist to remove carbon monoxide from such areas before the air is exhausted would not be satisfactory for this facility. They would be prohibitively costly and possibly inefficient as well . For this reason, we will not require a filtration system to be installed. It will be necessary for your engineers to design an air moving and exhaust system that will very efficiently remove exhaust gases from the underground parking areas. Especially at Aspen ' s high altitude, carbon monoxide should not be allowed to build up in this structure. I. If you have any questions, please feel free to call this office. Sincerely, W— oe,� Thomas S. Dunlop Environmental Health Director cc: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office H AIM DOMMUS &weLLs an association of land planners February 8, 1985 Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Alan: As you know, when we filed our Residential GMP Submission on December 1, 1984, on behalf of the Aspen Mountain Project, we requested that it be considered as an Amendment to our previous application rather than as a new submission. At our request, you scheduled a discussion before P&Z at their meeting on February 19. Because no challenges were filed to P&Z' s scoring within the time limit, we see no need to proceed with any formal discussion of our request at this time. We would like to reserve the option to raise the issue again in the future in the unlikely event that an outside party is successful in tying up this year' s residential GMP awards, since this might effectively prevent our proceeding with construction on the first phase of the hotel. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sinc y, J h Wells, AICP /b cc: Art Daily, Esq. Alan Novak 608 east hyman avenue❑aspen,colorado 81611 ❑telephone:303 925-6866 s CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this e_ day of 1985, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Publ ' c Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. Nancy Crelli i � { PUBLIC NOTICE f t . s RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on March 5, 1985, at 5: 00 P.M. , before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in Aspen City "Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider: 1) Preliminary PUD approval for the Top of Mill , 700 South Galena and Summit Place; 2) Subdivision Exception approval for condominiumization of the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project; 3) Request to confirm the prior Residential Bonus Overlay on the Ute City Place portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project ; 4) Conditional Use Review to permit a short-term use in the R-15(.L) PUD zone district; and 5) 8040 Greenline Review for construction of the Top of Mill portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project. (Note: #2 and #5 above are not technically subject to public hearing review but will be considered as part of the overall project review) For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 225. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on February 7 , 1985 f City of Aspen Account. i t` CITY OF ASPEN * MEMO FROM NANCY CRELLI Transamerica Transamerica Title Insurance Company Title Insurance Servicesgxuyrxg >8MR2 ft 601 E. Hopkins Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303)925-1766 r DOREMUS & COMPANY 608 E. HYMAN ASPEN, CO. 81611 THE FOLLOWING IS THE CURRENT LIST OF ADJACENT LAND OWNERS AS OBTAINED FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. THE ADDRESSES ARE THE MOST CURRENT AVAILABLE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER'S TAX ASSESSMENT ROLLS.- ALSO INCLUDES PROPERTY WITHIN 300 FEET OF R-15 (PUD) (L)-ZONED PORTION OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A. ASPEN INN: ALL OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2, CONNOR'S ADDITION, and part of the unplatted portion of Connor's Addition lying East of said Lot 6 and adjacent to the City and Townsite of Aspen, said tract being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Connor's Addition whence the Northwest corner of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. , bears North 20°08'40" West 773.8 feet; thence South 15°00' West 99.99 feet along the East line of Connor's Addition to the North line of Lawn Street; thence North 75°00' West 57.75 feet along the North line of Lawn Street to the South- west corner of said Lot 6; thence North 15 049'50" East 100 feet along the West line of said Lot 6 to the North- west corner of said Lot, being a point on the South line of Dean Avenue; thence South 75°00' East 56.3 feet along the South line of Dean Avenue to the Point of Beginning. AND LOTS 1, 2 and 3, DEAN'S ADDITION AND LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the strip 30 feet wide East of LOT 6 and LOT 12, BLOCK 3, CONNOR'S ADDITION, together with one-half of the vacated alley adjacent to and at the rear of said LOTS 1 through 6. AND A tract of land described as: Beginning at a point from whence the Northwest corner of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. bears North 15°57'43" West 1005,24 feet; thence North 14 033' 22" East 129.64 feet; thence North 75 000' West 70.72 feet; thence South 15 000' West 129.64 feet; thence South 75 000' East 71.73 feet to the Point of Beginning, formerly described as : LOTS 4 and 5, DEANS'S ADDITION - Il1ATT T TTTTL'Tl _-- SUBJECT PROPERTIES CONTINUED: ;I B. CHALETS - EAST AND WEST LOTS 7, 8, 11 and 12, BLOCK 3, CONNOR'S ADDITION and the South one-half of vacated alley North of and adjacent to said Lots 11 and 12. C. BLUE SPRUCE LOTS A, B, C and D. BLOCK 84, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4 and S, BLOCK 2, CONNOR'S ADDITION. D. CONTINENTAL INN LOTS M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, BLOCK 91, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND LOTS 1, 2 and 3, BLOCK 1, ANTHONY ACRES SUBDIVISION E. "ROBINSON" PARCEL LOT 19, BLOCK 2, DEAi\'S ADDITION F. "PAAS HOUSE" PARCEL A tract of land situated in the Northwest one-quarter of Section 18, Township 10 South, { Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. , described as follows: A strip of ground approximately 90 feet in width and 100 feet in depth and lying partially within the boundaries of Aspen Townsite and outside thereof to the South of said Townsite, said tract being designated as: LOTS K1, K2 and L, BLOCK 91, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, and being formerly described as follows: Lot K2 being a tract of ground fronting on Dean Street and being a strip of ground 30 feet in width and 100 feet in depth lying West of and adjoining Lot K in said Block 91, being sometimes known as Lot X in said Block 91, and as Lot A in Block 2 of Dean's Addition. Lots K and L being that portion of said Lots in said Block 91 together with a triangular piece of ground lying to the South of said Lots and being formerly known as The Foundary and Machine Shop as shown on Willet's Map of Aspen. ----CONTINUED---- SUBJECT PROPERTIES CONTINUED: G. "CHASE" LOTS (including the "Chase Duplex") LOTS D, E, F, G, H and I, BLOCK 91, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN H. "TOWNE PLACE" PARCEL LOT C, BLOCK 91, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN I. All of the unplatted portion of CONNOR'S ADDITION bounded on the North by Dean Street, on the West by BLOCKS 2, 3, 4 and 5, CONNOR'S ADDITION, and on the East by LOTS 1 through 12 inclusive, DEAN'S ADDITION, including without limitation those portions described in Book 264 at Page 793, in Book 264 at Page 959, in Book 316 at Page 986, and in Book 316 at Page 988 as shown in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. iJ. PART OF DEAN'S ADDITION LOTS 6, 7, 8 and 9, DEAN'S ADDITION EXCEPT that part of Lots 7, 8 and 9 lying within the following described parcel: Beginning at Corner No. 1 of U.S.M.S. No. 2535, whence U.S.M.M. Ute No. 4 bears North 85 012'50" East 2090. 18 feet; thence South 15°00' West 3.79 feet; thence South 75°09' 11" East 69.99 feet; thence South 14°33'22" East 307.20 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 75°30'42" West 60.52 feet; thence South 14°29' 18" West 104.03 feet; thence South 75°00' East 60.41 feet; thence North 14°33'22" East 104.58 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. (Said exception being North Aspen Inn Apartments Condominium as shown on Map filed in Plat Book 4 at Page 356) . AND ALSO EXCEPT that part of Lot 9 lying within Aspen Inn Apartments Condominium as shown on Map filed in Plat Book 4 at Page 332. K. UNITS 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 1B, 2B and 3B, NORTH ASPEN INN APARTMENTS, according to the Condominium Map filed in Plat Book 4 at Page 356 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration therefor in Book 272 at Page 313 and amendment thereto in Book 276 at Page 264. L. "MELVILLE" LOTS 17 and 18, BLOCK 2, DEAN'S ADDITION M. "HILLSIDE LODGE" LOTS A and B, BLOCK 91, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN ----CONTINUED---- SUBJECT PROPERTIES CONTINUED: N. "BASS" LOTS 9 and 10, BLOCK 3, CO\TNOR'S ADDITION 0. LOTS E, F, G, H and I, BLOCK, 84, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN P. LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, CAPITAL HILL ADDITION ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, LITTLE CHIEF LODE U.S.M.S. 5850 above the 8040 line;, those parts of BIG CHIEF LODE U.S.M.S. 4237 and the MILLIONAIRE MILLSITE 3620B, below the 8040 line; those parts of the BIG CHIEF LODE U.S.M.S. 4237 and MILLIONAIRE MILLSITE 3620B above the 8040 line. . . i . ADJACENT OWNERS LIST AZT EC CONDOMINIUMS- 6 UNITS RECORD ADDRESS: AZTEC CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. 131 EAST DURANT ASPEN, CO. 81611 THE DURANT GALENA CONDOMINIUMS- 2 UNITS RECORD ADDRESS: THE DURANT GALENA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. C/O STEVE MARCUS . P.O. BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO. 81612 NORTH OF NELL CONDOMINIUMS- 59 UNITS RECORD ADDRESS: NORTH OF NELL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX NN ASPEN, CO. 81612 CURRENT ADDRESS: 555 EAST DURANT ASPEN, CO. 81611 TIPPLE INN CONDOMINIUMS- 12 UNITS RECORD ADDRESS: TIPPLE INN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD OF GOVERNORS 747 GALENA STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 MANAGED BY: CONDOMINIUM RENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC. , 747 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 ALPENBLICK TOWNHOUSES (A CONDOMINIUM)- 20 UNITS RECORD ADDRESS: ALPENBLICK TOWNHOUSES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION #9 EQUITABLE BUILDING DENVER, CO. MANAGED BY: CONDOMINIUM RENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC. 747 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 ASPEN INN APARTMENT CONDOMINIUMS- 11 UNITS There is no record address of the Condominium Association, notices will have to be sent to each individual owner. UNITS 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 3 D, ASPEN INN APARTMENT CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: BOB J. SCARBOROUGH 116 LEISURE WORLD MESA, ARIZONA 85206 UNIT 3B, ASPEN INN APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM 014NER: DAVID G. ELMORE 10001 EAST EVANS, #69C DENVER, CO. 80231 ----CONTINUED---- ADJACENT OWNERS CONTINUED: UNITS 3A and 3C, ASPEN INN APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM OWNER: ROBERT PRENTIS MORRIS P.O. BOX 9069 f ASPEN, CO. 81612 UNIT 1C, ASPEN INN APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM OWNER: HANS B & JUNE CANTRUP P.O. BOX 388 ASPEN, CO. 81612 DOLOMITE VILLAS- 12 UNITS RECORD ADDRESS: DOLOMITE VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 2678 ASPEN, CO. 81612 CURRENT ADDRESS: 650 SOUTH MONARCH ASPEN, CO. 81611 LOTS 12, 13 and 14, CONNOR'S ADDITION, BLOCK 1 OWNER: JAMES S. & MERYL N. HEARST P.O. BOX 67 ASPEN, CO. 81612 LOT 11, CONNOR'S ADDITION, BLOCK l OWNER: THEODORE T. & MARY E. ARMSTRONG 623 SO. MONARCH ASPEN, CO. 81611 LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, CONNOR'S ADDITION, BLOCK 1 and LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, EAMES ADDITION OWNER: JOHN J. DOLINSEK & FRANK L. DOLINSEK, JR. P.O. BOX 275 ASPEN, CO. 81612 LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, EAMES ADDITION, BLOCK 3 OWNER: HERBERT P. BALDERSON AND JOE CABELL 115 SOUTH ACAIA AVE. SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 � - AND/OR P.O. BOX 493 ASPEN, CO. 81612 ASPEN MANOR LODGE OWNER: ASPEN MANOR LODGE, LTD. 411 SOUTH MONARCH STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 LOTS E, F, G, H and I, BLOCK 84, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN OWNER: MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES, INC. , 333 EAST DURANT ASPEN, CO. 81611 SOUTHPOINT CONDOMINIUMS - 27 UNITS RECORD ADDRESS: 205 E. DURANT STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 ----CONTINUED---- ADJACENT OWNERS CONTINUED: MAIL NOTICE TO: NANCY ADSIT SOUTHPOINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 205 EAST DURANT LISP ASPEN, CO. 81611 MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS - 15 UNITS MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 8880 ASPEN, CO. 81612 CURRENT ADDRESS: MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 800 SO. MONARCH ASPEN, CO. 81611 ATTN: SISSY ERICKSON 700 MONARCH CONDOMINIUMS - 20 UNITS MANAGED BY: STIRLING HOMES 600 E. MAIN ST. ASPEN, CO. 81611 LIMELITE LODGE LIMELITE, INC. LEROY G. PAAS 228 E. COOPER STREET ASPEN, CO. 81611 LOTS F, G, H and I, BLOCK 90, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN GUIDO PAUL MEYER P.O. BOX 1799 ASPEN, CO. 81612 LOTS A, B and part of LOT C, BLOCK 96, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN OWNER: ROBERT B. GOLDBERG INDEPENDENCE COMPANY 1900 AVE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1630 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90067 LOTS N, 0, P, Q, R and S, BLOCK 96, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN OWNER: AJAX FOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, LTD. C/O STEPHEN J. MARCUS P.O. BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO. 81612 LOTS 3 and 4, CAPITAL HILL OWNER: VALDA�MAR MARK P.O. BOX 2196 ASPEN, CO. 81612 PART OF LOTS A, B and C, BLOCK 90, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN OWNER: SCOTT INVESTCO -- P.O. BOX 4257 -- CONTINUED -- ASPEN, CO. 81612 19 ADJACENT OWNERS CONTINUED: UNIT 4, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS INOWNER: HERBERT & CHERYL TOWNING 2100 WEST LOOP, SUITE 1100 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77027 UNIT 5, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: JAMES C. ARMSTRONG P.O. BOX 1824 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 UNIT 6, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: BERT & SUSAN HOLLEB 221 EAST WALTON CHICAGO, ILL. 60611 SILVER SHADOW CONDOMINIUMS - 4 UNITS SILVER SHADOW CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O STEPHEN BUSCH 740 WEST LAKE DR. ATHENS, GA. 30606 SOUTH GALENA STREET CONDOMINIUMS - 2 UNITS No record of the Condominium Condominium Association or Management, notices will have to be sent to the individual Unit owners UNIT A, SOUTH GALENA STREET CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: WALTER BIRK AND E. ROBERT GORDON P.O. BOX 3421 ASPEN, CO. 81612 ADDITIONAL NOTICE SHOULD BE SENT TO: EMPIRE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION 1654 CALIFORNIA ST. DENVER, CO. 80202 � - LEGAL DEPT. UNIT B, SOUTH GALENA STREET CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP 10 TRAMWAY LOOP N.E. ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87122 LOT 3, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION 01�NER: RONALD M. POPEIL 1292 MONTE CIELO DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS, CA. 90210 LOT 4, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION OWNER: GEORGE ANDERMAN 506 DENVER BUILDING 1776 LINCOLN ST. isDENVER, CO. 80202 ADJACENT OWNERS CONTINUED: ,PARK PLACE CO\DOMINIUMS - 14 UNITS PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/0 UNICORN BOOKS 413 E. COOPER AVE. ASPEN, CO. 81611 ATTN: ANDREW DRACOPOLI LOT 14, BLOCK 2, ANTHONY ACRES OWNER: CHRISTOPHER B. HEMMETER f HEMMETER CENTER . HONOLULU, HAWAII 96819 TELEMARK CONDOMINIUMS - 6 UNITS LAST KNOWN PRESIDENT OF ASSOCIATION JOHN P. KLEINER 55 2ND ST. COLORADO SPRINGS, CO. 80906 DURANT CONDOMINIUMS, FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUMS, FASCHING HAUS EAST CONDOMINIUMS, TIPPLE LODGE DURANT CONDOMINIUMS.- 30 UNITS FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS - 38 UNITS ALL MANAGED BY CONDOMINIUM RENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC. FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUMS - 15 UNITS 747 SOUTH GALENA STREET FASCHING HAUS EAST CONDOMINIUMS - 23 ASPEN, CO. 81611 TIPPLE LODGE - 12 UNITS ASPEN MOUNTAIN PROPERTY SPAR CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY C/O MARTIN KIRKPATRICK, ESQ. FISH & ROCHARDSON ONE FINANCIAL CENTER BOSTON, MASS. 02111 CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS - 6 UNITS No record of the Condominium Association or Management, notices will have to be sent to the individual Unit owners kIT 1, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS ','\ER: GEORGE STRAWBRIDGE SCOTT PLAZA II, 3RD FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19113 U-IT 2, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS ,'\ER: DOROTHY WILDMAN 2920 NO. COMMONWEALTH CHICAGO, ILL. 60606 \IT 3, CARIBOL' CONDOMINIUMS 0.,'\ER: DAVID & VIRGINIA STRINGER 841 BISHOP ST, SUITE 2201 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 ----CONTINUED---- ADJACENT OWNERS CONTINUED: UNIT 4, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: HERBERT & CHERYL TOWNING 2100 WEST LOOP, SUITE 1100 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77027 UNIT 5, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: JAMES C. ARMSTRONG P.O. BOX 1824 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 UNIT 6, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: BERT & SUSAN HOLLEB 221 EAST WALTON CHICAGO, ILL. 60611 SILVER SHADOW CONDOMINIUMS - 4 UNITS SILVER SHADOW CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O STEPHEN BUSCH 740 WEST LAKE DR. ATHENS, GA. 30606 SOUTH GALENA STREET CONDOMINIUMS - 2 UNITS No record of the Condominium Condominium Association or '_Management, notices will have to be sent to the individual Unit owners UNIT A, SOUTH GALENA STREET CONDOMINIUMS 01,TNER: WALTER BIRK AND E. ROBERT GORDON P.O. BOX 3421 ASPEN, CO. 81612 ADDITIONAL NOTICE SHOULD BE SENT TO: EMPIRE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION 1654 CALIFORNIA ST. DENVER, CO. 80202 LEGAL DEPT. dUNIT B, SOUTH GALENA STREET CONDOMINIUMS OWNER: ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP 10 TRAHWAY LOOP N.E. ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87122 LOT 3, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION d OWNER: RONALD M. POPEIL 1292 MONTE CIELO DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS, CA. 90210 dLOT 4, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION kj OWNER: GEORGE ANDERMAN 506 DENVER BUILDING 1776 LINCOLN ST. DENVER, CO. 80202 ----r0MT TNTTTWTI---- ADJACENT OWNERS CONTINUED: ASPEN SKI NG CORPORATION LOT 5, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION P.O. BOX 1248 OWNER: WILLIAM JOSEPH YARBROUGH ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 1010 WILDER AVE. #1001 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96822 LOT 6, TIPPLE WOODS SUBDIVISION OWNER: STIRLING A. & ROSIE W. COLGATE 4616 RIDGEWAY ALAMOS, NM 81544 ITRAN AMERICA TI LE INSURANCE COMPANY VINCENT - I ENS *TANAGER TK OPERATIONS THE ABOVE NAMES AND ADDRESSES WERE OBTAINED AS OF JANUARY 16, 1985 FROM THE 1985 TAX ROLL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE. d d • Transamerica Transamerica Title Insurance Services Title Insurance Company :r.;! Rfd 601 E. Hopkins Aspen,Colorado 81611 (303)925-1766 DOREMUS & COMPANY 608 E. HYMA\ ASPEN, CO. 81611 THE FOLLOWING LIST IS THE CURRENT LIST OF ADJACENT LAND OWNERS AS OBTAINED FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. THE ADDRESSES ARE THE MOST CURRENT AVAILABLE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER'S TAX ASSESSMENT ROLLS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS: LOTS C, D, E, F AND G, BLOCK 118, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST: LOTS A & B, BLOCK 118, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN OWNER: GLENN E. LAW P.O. BOX 2537 ASPEN, CO. 81612 LOTS : K, L, M, N AND 0, BLOCK 118, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THE OLD HUNDRED CONDOMINIUMS OLD HUNDRED CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O OLOF HEDSTROM P.O. BOX 4815 ASPEN, CO. 81612 LOTS P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 118, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN OWNER: BRASS BED ASSOCIATES 926 E. DURANT ASPEN, CO. 81611 LOTS K, L, M, BLOCK 33, EAST ASPEN ADDITION OWNER: PETER D. FARMER & L & E PROPERTIES P.O. BOX 2133 ' LA JOLLA, CA. 90237 ALSO : 145 SO. GRAPE ST. DENVER, CO. 80222 LOTS N AND 0, BLOCK 33, EAST ASPEN ADDITION OWNER: BECKY DREW P.O. BOX 492 ASPEN, CO. 81612 LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 33, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TEN SIXTEEN EAST HYMAN CONDOMINIUMS `1021AGED BY: JACOBSON RENTALS 730 E. DURANT ASPEN, CO. 81611 ATTN: MARGARET LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 33, EAST ASPEN ADDITION NOW: T,OT 1, MOLNY/EUBANK SUBDTVISION ---- CONTINUED ---- ADJACENT OWNERS CONTINUED LOT 1, MOLNY/EUBANK SUBDIVISION OWNER: ROBIN MOLNY 1020 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO. 81611 LOT 2, MOLNY/EUBANK SUBDIVISION OWNER: DALE EUBANK 1022 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO. 81611 tiLOTS H AND I, BLOCK 118, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN OWNER: WILLIAM AND NANCY SHEEHAN P.O. BOX 571 . ASPEN, CO. 81612 THE ABOVE NAMES AND ADDRESSES WERE OBTAINED AS OF JANUARY 16, 1985 FROM THE 1985 TAX ROLL ldOF THE PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER'S OFFICE. d TRAN AMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY d &&MRA; VINCENT J NS dMANAGER PITKIN OPERATIONS r d d i . d d d d OW APE D -- _, ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT _ c V €r MEMORANDUM �•------ v.�[ { TO: ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1985 We have reviewed the latest Preliminary Submission for the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD and have no additional comments other than those already submitted (see attached) . JM:ab cc: A.J. Zabbia Lc'o n CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 September 21, 1984 Mr. A.J. Zabbia, Jr. . Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc. 201 N. Mill St. Suite 207 ' Aspen, CO 81611 Dear A.J. , This letter is to note that the developer of the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge Ins requested us to temporarily remove 'our facilities in a portion of Mill Street and to review our present and future easement needs in the proposed vacation of Dean Street between Monarch and Galena, Lawn Street and the upper portion of Mill Street within the Top of Mill Project. We presently have and will continue to require an easement within the proposed vacation at the top of Mill Street for the City of Aspen 12" water line and at such time as contractual arrangements are completed, we will agree to relinquish easement rights within Dean Avenue between Galena and Monarch as well as Lawn Street. In accordance with our water main extension policy, any water line relocation is subject to t'he rules--,and regulations of the City of Aspen Water Department and is dependent upon completion of contractual arrangements and easement acquisition. Said construction shall be the financial responsibility of the developer or consumer. If you have -any questions, or require further information, please contact me. Si cerely, Mr. m Markalunas, Director City of Aspen Water Department J11:ab cc: Planning Dept. Engineering j ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: ASPEN MOUNTIAN LODGE PRELIMINARY GMP/SUBDIVISION DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1984 This is to inform you that I have reviewed the Aspen Mountain Lodge Preliminary Submission. With concern to statements made in the Introduction and Summary, Section D, Public Facilities Improvements and Relocations, Water, page 22, the Water Department will provide service to the. project, provided the Water improve- ments outlined in the PUD agreement, (page 5) are installed; i.e. 12" Water Main in Galena St. It is also our understanding that there will be three new Fire Hydrants installed on South Galena. We would like to take this opportunity to point out there are some minor discrepancies on the Utility Drawings. The Utility Drawing shows four new hydrants, two on Mill and two on Galena. Also, the Master Plan shows struc- tures built over the existing 12" main supplying the Aspen Mountain Tank. I am assuming that the development will take this into account and provide for re-rout- ing, at the developers expense, the existing 12" main, so as notto interfere with maintenance access to this main. Please also reference ouV letter of 9/21/84 (attached) . JM:ab Attachments: (1) R owls DOMMUS &weLLs - ' 1985 an association of land planners 7 February 1, 1985 Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Alan: Our letter is to inform you that on January 25, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas transferred its interest in vari- ous parcels within the Aspen Mountain PUD to John H. Roberts, Jr. Mr. Roberts joins Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway as a co-applicant for the Preliminary Submission for residential projects, replacing Commerce Savings, shown as a co-applicant in our January 28, 1985 submittal. This arrangement is transi- tional; we expect in the coming weeks a venture agreement of some sort will be worked out which will include the three parties. We will keep you advised regarding any further changes. If you need any additional information please let us know. R ards Jos, ls, AICP �W/b cc: John H. Roberts, Jr. Michael Holbrook Alan Novak Robert Callaway 608 east hyman avenue❑aspen,colorado 81611 11 telephone:303 925-6866 Ow ff DOMMUS &weLLs an association of land planners January 31, 1985 Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Alan: My letter is to outline our position on behalf of the applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD regarding verification of existing and previously demolished lodge and residential units. Since timing will become crucial as we proceed toward construc- tion, we need to confirm that there are no additional review procedures required in order to begin demolition of existing units; our understanding is that all we need to do in order to proceed is to apply for a demolition permit. We also need to confirm the date to be used for commencement of the 5-year replacement limitation for 5 previously demolished units . As you may recall, we conducted with the building department an inventory of existing lodge rooms and residential units in the PUD site during the summer of 1983. That inventory confirmed a total of 275 lodge units and 37 residential units (2 to remain) . We assume the verification requirement referred to under Section 24-11.2 (a) has been met as a result of the language in Resolution 84/11 (Condition 12) and 84/13 (Condition 19) . It should be pointed out that last winter, some time after veri- fication by the building inspector, the roof of the south wing of the Blue Spruce collapsed and the Cantrup Estate removed the building. This wing contained 17 rooms which are included in the total of 275. We are not sure whether the Estate requested a demolition permit prior to demolition; because of the risk and liability concerns they may not have taken the time. Council Resolution 23/84, regarding the Aspen Mountain PUD residential projects, requires that reconstruction of the 40 units verified pursuant to Section 24-11. 2(a) be accomplished within five years of the date of demolition. This figure of 40 units includes 5 units previously demolished by Mr. Cantrup. 608 east hyman avenue❑aspen,colorado 81611 ❑telephone:303 925-6866 Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office January 31, 1985 Page Two I have reviewed several documents prepared regarding the five units and I have been unable to determine the actual date of demolition of these units. The units, however, were "verified" by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a hearing on September 7, 1982. Actually a total of seven units were verified, of which only five have been demolished: 1 unit at Lot 21, Capitol Hill Addition (below Snowchase) 3 units at Lots 16 and 17, Anthony Acres (400 S. Galena) 1 unit at Lots 16 and 17, Capitol Hill Addition (Snowchase) Apparently this hearing was held prior to the final adoption of Resolution 82-9, which was later codified as Section 24-11. 2(a) of the Municipal Code. In light of what may have been some confusion at the time of the hearing as to the final form of the regulation, it seems to us to be reasonable to use the verification date of September 7 , 1982 as the date to begin the clock for the five-year reconstruction period. This would therefore require application for a building permit by September 7, 1987 for these 5 units. Please let us know if you have any problem regarding either of these two areas of concern. nc rely, Jq�s Vell s, AICP cc: Robert Callaway Alan Novak Michael Holbrook Margaret Holih an Art Daily Ron Norby 608 east hyman avenue❑aspen,colorado 81611 ❑telephone:303 925-6866 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department "Environment Health Aspen Condolistated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Chief Building Department Colorado Geological Survey FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Preliminary Plat - Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place, 700 South Galena DATE: January 29, 1985 The Planning Office is forwarding to you for your review and referral comments the Preliminary Submission for the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD, Residential GMP. In this stage of the review process the applicant is requesting the following review approvals: 1. Preliminary PUD approval for the Top of Mill, 700 South Galena and Summit Place. 2. Subdivision Exception approval for condominiumization of the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proj ect . 3 . Request to confirm the prior Residential Bonus Overlay on the Ute City Place portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project. 4 . Conditional Use Review to permit a short-term use in the R- 15(L) PUD zone district. 5 . 8040 Greenline Review for construction of the Top of Mill portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project. Please review the materials which we have forwarded to you and address each of the above mentioned reviews. Please note that we have only forwarded appendices to those of you with particular concerns within the items addressed in those documents. We would appreciate it if you would please return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than February 18, 1985 , in order to give this office ample time- to prepare for the public hearing scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 5, 1985 . If you have any questions, please feel free to call the Planning Office. MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer ED 2010 Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environment Health Aspen Condolistated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Chief Building Department Colorado Geological Survey FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP - Preliminary Plat - Top of Mill, Summit Place, Ute City Place, 700 South Galena DATE: January 29, 1985 The Planning Office is forwarding to you for your review and referral comments the Preliminary Submission for the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD, Residential GMP. In this stage of the review process the applicant is requesting the following review approvals: 1. Preliminary PUD approval for the Top of Mill, 700 South Galena and Summit Place. 2. Subdivision Exception approval for condominiumization of the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD pr of ect . 3 . Request to confirm the prior Residential Bonus Overlay on the Ute City Place portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project. 4 . Conditional Use Review to permit a short-term use in the R- 15 (L) PUD zone district. 5 . 8040 Greenline Review for construction of the Top of Mill portion of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD project. Please review the materials which we have forwarded to you and address each of the above mentioned reviews. Please note that we have only forwarded appendices to those of you with particular concerns within the items addressed in those documents. We would appreciate it if you would please return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than February 18, 1985 , in order to give this office ample time- to prepare for the public hearing scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 5 , 1985 . If you have any questions, please feel free to call the Planning Office. �.- .ii-1 n i` 4 K 1-1;4 E M O R A N D U M TO: Alan Richman Jay Hammond FROM: Georgia Taylor Aspen Mountain Lodge Project RE : Projected Schedule Aspen Mountain PUD DATE : January 25 , 1985 Attached is the very optimistic projected schedule that we hope to follow for the Aspen Mountain PUD. I might add that we realize the extra effort which will be required to meet this time frame and that there will be special concessions required. We hope joint cooperation will allow us to meet the goals . If you will critique the schedule and pass your co_mmehts on to John Doremus we would be grateful . (Or "might" be grateful , tee hee. ) Your attention and cooperation are greatly appreciated by the team. n i cc : J . Doremus M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Aspen Mountain Lodge Development Group EiIOM: Georgia Taylor RE: Expenses for project DATE : January 24, 1985 Bob Callaway has requested that I begin to set up permanent com- plete records for our project in the Aspen office. I will be in touch with Commerce for records up to this date and ask that all future correspondence and billings be sent to : Aspen Mountain Lodge Project c/o The Aspen Inn 701 South Mill Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 In addition, in order to facilitate Bob ' s desire to review and be familiar with all contracts and projected expenses , I would like to have each of you send copies of any agreements you nego- tiated with Commerce , formal or not . Also , he would like to have a ball-park projection of future anticipated expenses you anticipate billing with regard to the project . If you have any questions feel free to call me — and let it ring for a long time as I spend a lot of time in the sun by the pool ! (Only kidding. . . . . . . . . ) r John Doremus P L A N N I N G S C H E D U L E January 23 , 1985 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PROJECT January lst Through May 1985 JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY TASK 1 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 , 11 18 25 PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION: I 22 Hotel - P&Z �-•»�»»�»»»»»-»»�» App owed Resolution RESIDENTIAL GMP : Z2 5 y ._ 700 S . Galena, P&Z ----------jApproved Resol t ion KEY I LI1`.IINARY SUBMISSION: Submit 22 5 12 1C� 2(,0 2 9 la .o o o Preparation Approved Residential P&Z o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Staf f Review� Resolutio P&Z Review PESIDENTIAL GMP : It n *tit tit tit*tit** GMP A royal *** Council Review 700 S . Galena, Council _ pp =��� Bldg . Dept . RevieNx Construction 'REVISED HOTEL GMP 2$ Submit l° 6 12. 1111111 P&Z 10 D 000000000000 ** �c c ••'�~ Approved Resolution REVISED HOTEL GMP : Council *tit*** GMP Approval a:. FINAL PLAT PUD SUB- �9 Submit 'g APPROVED RESOLUTInN MISSION: Council oa 000000000tittit tit tit CLOSE ON ESTATE BUILDING PERMIT* 22 I Submits 29 (Foundation o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �%��%��% ���������������Permit Pulled SALVAGE A 1111111111111111111111 it DEMOLITION 111 1 1 1111 1111 _,,�, EXCAVATION 1 L ii � 11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIiilllllllllllll�ll� l 1 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION i *Requires special council approval . RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE TOP OF MILL, SU11MIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AVID RECOII21ENDING A REZONING TO R-15 (PUD) (L) FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN Resolution No. 5 (Series of 1984) WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Lssociatio�i, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants" ) , have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sui)-- division approval for the Top of Mill and Summit Place conc:c:-:iniur: components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS , the application requests certain additional revie;:- and approvals including 8040 Greenlinc and I'.ountain Viet; Plane revic',7 and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top o= rill currently zoned Public and R-15 (PTID) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezon4. �r to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Nill site currently zoned F-- 15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS , the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis ion (hereinafte° referred to as the "Commission" ) did consider the rppl.icants ' rer;ueF't for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the Ton of gill ane' SuTl -,- Place condominiums , 8040 Greenline and Mountain Vies? Plane recier: and rezoning from Public to L-2 at meetincrs held on r'arch 20t;: , I'arch 27th and April 17 , 1984 , and at a duly noticed public hearing conftictC-c. on April 10 , 1984 ; and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect to the Applicants ' request for 3040 Greenline and mountain View PlLr?e review until its consideration of the Applicants ' preliminary PiII?/sUh- division submission, given the technical nature of the various reviot.' criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to ar'lcauately assess project impacts ; and WHEREAS , pursuant to Section 24-11 . 3 (f) of the municipal Coc:e , any project needing PUD or subdivision approval which has received a development allotment may be deemed by the Planning Office to have satisfied the conceptual presentation requirements of the City ' s PUD and subdivision regulations ; and Resolution No. 84- 5 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section 24-11 .4 (g) of the Municipal Code , a development allotment of twelve (12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium comnonent of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution rio . 7 , Series of 1984 ; and WHEREAS , the Commission did review , Section 24-11 .3 ( f) of the rlunicipal Code notwithstanding , the 700 South Galena condori. niu', component of the Aspen r:ountain PUD with respect to the conccntual PUD/subdivision criteria of the r•iunicipal Code at neetinas held on April 24th , Hay 1st and r`ay 8 , 1984 ; and WHEREAS , the Tionlicants have revised the Top of rill anel. 700- South Galena condominium components of the Aspen r'ountain PUD is response to various concerns identified by the Planninc Office and: Commission, including a significant reduction in the overall :lei ghlE of both projects . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the 'Planning and ?onina Conmi.ssion of the City of Aspen; Colorado: Section 1 That it does hereby recomnend that the Asr)en City Council grant conceptual PUD/subdivision approvalr pursuant to Sections; 20-10 and. 24-8 .7 of the rlunicipal Code , to the Ton of Lill . Summit Place and, 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen rlountain PUT" subject to the following conditions : 1 . The Applicants ' acquisition of that portion of the Tor, of "dill site currently owned by the 'city. 2 . The Applicants ' resolution of the Engineering Denartment : concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the Top of r.'ill site for fire protection purposes . 3 . The Applicants ' subnission of a detailed proposal . acceptable to the Aspen Ski Club , for the relocation of the Ski Club ' S facilities. 4 . The vacation of rill Street being ccnditione(l upon the' retention of all utility rights , the provision of app_ ro*:)ria.tc utility casements , and each utility franchised in the CiLN signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure tha_z_ the loss of the right-of-��:a?7 will not interfere wit" each utilitv' s current or future needs . 5 . The Applicants ' submission of an acceptable detailed storm: drainage plan for the Top of rill site , including information with respect to the extent and nature of the grading rec4uire�; to construct the proposed retention ponds . l Resolution 110. 84- 5 Page 3 6 . The height of the Top of mill condominium units not exceedino thirty-three ( 33) feet as measured from the lowest floor elevation to the midpoint of the roof. 7 . The Applicants ' revision of the Top of Mill site plan so as to increase the distance between the two single-famiIII units located at the southern terminus of r?ill Strect in order to expand the view through the project from the Street to the ski area. 8 . The retention , to the maximum extent feasible, of existinc mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact of the project , in particular as viewed from r=ill Street , Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain. 9 . The Applicants ' provision of an adequate easement, acc^7tabie to the Engineering Department , so as to allow the extension of Surmiit Street in the event the extension is deeded c.-ppro- priate by the City. 10 . The Applicants ' granting of an acceptable tra=il ea_ement across the Top of rill site so as to provide access-,;to the extent feasible , to the base of Little r?ell an(. Lift- 1-A. 11 . The Applicants ' submission of a preliminary soils anc ,rater table investigation of the 700 South Galena site '-o include an evaluation of slope stability bOIC' during; anc, followi_nc, construction . Conceptual PUD/subdivi::� ion approval cf the 700 South Galena project should be er_nressly conOitioneC upon the T,nplicants ' mitigation of any : _-oil , sloe sta �i.IiL�r or drainage problems identified, the details of sa=id mitic- tior to be included in the Applicants ' preliminar,., PUD/subdivi.,ior, submission . 12 . The Applicants ' identification of all ea ements reouirec: in conjunction with the construction of the 700 ; oath Galena- project and the accuisition of said easements , to the e:!tens_ required , prior to the issua=nce of an e.:cavation ne-rmit . 13 . The Applicants ' agreement to a completion schedule for the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the provision of an appropriate performance bond so as to t-)rcvent and minimize damage to the surroundinc landovne.rs in L form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for a longer period of time than is necessarv. 14 . The height of the 700 South Calena condominium units not exceeding a maximum of thirty-four ( 34 ) feet along the projects ' south facade , a maximum of Ithirt- -ni.ne (39) feet along the north facade and a maximum of forty-three ( 43 ) feet in any other location as come-ared to the, Ila lmllrl hcigh:. allowed in the underlving L-2 zone district of thirty-three ( 33 ) feet , all as measured from natura=l o,rade to the r_idc-e of the roof and as shown on the Applicants ' revised eleva=tions dated April 27 , 1984 . These restrictions are to be noteO and recorded on the Applicants ' final PUD/subdivision plat . 15. The Applicants ' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity of the 700 South Galena project , to the extent feasihlor so as to improve traffic circulation an0 safety in the general site area. 16. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PI-m/sub- division approval . 17 . The reconstruction of existing residential. units Fein(' limited to the forty (40) units verified par.>uant to Section Resolution 110. 84- 5 Page 4 24-11 . 2 (a ) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within five (5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted to the Aspen Hountain PUD site . 18. All material representations of the Applicants ' conceptual PUD/subdivision and residential GrIP applications not speci- fically referred to above being made a condition of this approval . Section 2 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council deny the Applicants ' request for a rezoning from Public to L-2 of that portion of the Ton of rill site currently ovmed by the City and does hereby recommend instead that the parcel (s) be rezoneC, to R-15 (FUD) (L) at such time as the parcel ( s ) may be conveyed to the T�ppli.cant:- , for the following reasons : 1 . While the proposed develcpment is consistent with the intent of the L-2 zone category and of the recreation/Tccoru�oC: .tio :" Transition. land use cater.ory �. ?plieu to this are.'. in -lie 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan , a rezoning to L-2 is not rer,uireci to achieve the proposed development. 2 . The primary reason for the Applicants ' recruest is to enEble favorable able FT.r rE do there to take advantac7e of the more available in the L-2 zone district . Since the PAP rrovisiorr of the rlunicipal Code r.-.a-\, be varied pursuant to the ?L ' regulations , a rezoni.nc; rierely to reduce the e?:tent. o-�= the requested variation is inappropriate . 3 . The L- 2 zone district permits rlulti-f am:_l; resir-"-ential uses in addition to single-family units anc duple:.-.0c ; nc: ,- therefore , does not r;uarantee that 6evelorr.lent_ will occur consistent ;with the adopted Land use Plan. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Ci' ,, of Aspen, Colorado , at their regular meeting on r4ay 8_, 19r'n ASPEN PLAVITIM AND ZONING COMIISSIOiT By Perry Chairrian ATTEST: Barbara riorris, Deputy Cite Clerk CASE NO. - CHECKLIST CASE NAME: �Q *54 m P pa llmin r INITIAL/AA1* 1. RECEIPT PREPARED 2 . CASE ASSIGNED IIUIIBER 3 , NUMBER LOGGED III ACCOUNTING BOOKS ICl/ 4 . NUMBER LOGGED Oid BULLETIN B OAP.D LIST c� 5 . CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET PREPARED 6 . CASE ASS IGIIED DATE FOR FIRS T/ONLY REVIEW 7 . CASE LOGGED III BLACK B 00 K L—= 8 . CASE LOGGED 0 1-1 ADJACENT PROPERTY CK'7TERS NOTIFICATION 9 . REFERRAL MEI10 PREPARED AND SENT OUT 10 . PUBLIC DOTICE PREPARED 11. DATE BY WHICH I1UST BE PUBLISHED: c �- \ 12 . DATE BY WHICH IIUST BE MAILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY y `� OW N ERS 13 . PUBLIC NOTICE TAKEN TO ASPEN TIMES (Date Published: 4, ) 14 . DATE PUBLISHED LOGGED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS �• NOTIFICATION LIST--' 15 . PUBLIC NOTICE I?AILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY a lIERS 'L' (Date Mailed: ­1- ' Xt5 ) 16 . DATE MAILED LOGGED. ON ADJACENT PROPERTY aINERS NOTIFICATION LIST J 17 . PUBLIC NOTICE FILED TO APPLICANT (S) ��== (Date Hailed: X -L - 10 ) AFTER FIRST REVIEW, IF APPLICABLE 18 . CASE ASSIGNED DATE FOR SECOND REVIEW 19 . CASE RE-LOGGED IN BL•ACI': BOOK 20 . CASE LOGGED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY CkINERS NOTIFICATION Case No. — __ _ - Checklist Page 2 21 . PUBLIC NOTICE PREPARED 22. DATE BY WHIM MUST BE PUBLISHED: 23 . DATE BY WHICH MUST BE MAILED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS : 24 . PUBLIC NOTICE TAKENI TO AS PEN TIIIES (Date Published: ) 25 . DATE PUBLISHED LOGGED ON ADJACEN?T PROPERTY 0,11IERS NOTIFICATION LIST 26 . PUBLIC NOTICE MAILED TO ADJACENIT PROPERTY aINIERS (Date Bailed: ) 27 . DATE f';AILED LOGGED ON ADJACENT PROPE- TY a-INERS NOTIFICATION] LIST 28 . PUBLIC NOTICE 11AILED TO APPLICANT(S) (Date flailed• ) AFTER REVIEW COMPLETED 29 . COPY OF RESOLUTION/ORDINAN,ICE OBTAINED AND IN FILE 30 . CASELOAD SUNI1,1ARY SHEET ROUTED W/FILE (if applicable) *NA = Not Applicable