HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain Lodge Commercial.025A-84ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD - TOP OF MILL. 66-83
tJp�� • �L� 11T PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
Co
S'S'S T'�' I, P^JUD� SUBDIVISION AND ASSOCIATED�/IE6IS
CASELOAD SUMMARY S111.ET
City of Aspen
CASE NO. 025 8�-
STAFF:
�� %yl
la ��i?�rn
rz� � �� ��i'1��� �V,.::'
PROJECT
NAME: ^ �lrt
p srr1-a
-
APPLICANT: GC.
4V ���
�e:
.77/-3dG2 .riZ) o?)
Y62-bFii `j -�8
�i2. ?Zz-a260
REPRESENTATIVE:
all-" (�Q�_w
1I�b
Phone:
0
TYPE OF
APPLICATION:
(FEE)
I. GMP SUBDIVISION/PUD
(4 step)
1. Conceptual
Submission
/
($2,730.00) ✓
2. Preliminary
Plat
($1,640.00)
3. Final Plat
($ 820.00)
II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Final Plat
III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step)
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step)
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination
3. Conditional Use
4. Other:
P&Z MEETING DATE.< ' \`-1� CC MEETING DATE:
REFERRALS: /
\/ City Attorneyy Aspen Consol. S.D.
7__,,,Housing
City Engineer Mountain Bell
Director Parks Dept.
Aspen Water Dept. Holy Cross Electric
City Electric Fire Marshall
Environmental Hlth. Fire Chief
FINAL ROUTING:
✓ City Attorney City Engineer
Other: Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
($1,900.00)
($1,220.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,490.00)
($ 680.00)
DATE REFERRED:
School District
Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas
State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn)
Building Dept.
Other:
DATE ROUTED: /a
-,/ Building Dept.
OL
DISPOSITION:
l
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
rl
1
�0 e0
—
/
•1
/1—
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
n ,
Or�acme No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
DWI
1. The Applicants' entering into an agreement for the
acquisition from the City of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14 and 15,'Capitol Hill Addition, containing
approximately 20,860 square feet of land, in exchange
for (a) approximately 21,084 square feet of the "Koch
Lumber" property comprised of the entire Colorado
Midland Railroad Right -of -Way located thereon and
partial Lots 13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1, and (b)
M the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of
j Civic Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allega-
tions set forth therein.
(` c �
19. The Applicants con sutnationjof their offer to donate
to the City the remaining 40,931 square feet of land
in the Koch Lumber property (ie. that portion not
involved in the land exchange described in Condition
No. 1 above), in the form of a Special Warranty Deed
to be delivered to the City in recordable form imme-
diately following the execution by the Applicants and
the City of a Final Subdivision and P.U.D. Agreement
for the hotel phase of the Aspen Mountain Subdivi-
sion.
i
1. The Applicants' entering into an agreement for the
acquisition from the City of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14 and 15, Capitol Hill Addition, containing
approximately 20,860 square feet of land, in exchange
for (a) approximately 21,084 square feet of the "Koch
Lumber" property comprised of the entire Colorado
Midland Railroad Right -of -Way located thereon and
partial Lots 13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1, and (b)
the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of
Civic Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allega-
tions set forth therein.
19. The Applicants' consummation of their offer to donate
to the City the remaining 40,931 square feet of land
in the Koch Lumber property (ie. that portion not
involved in the land exchange described in Condition
No. 1 above), in the form of a Special Warranty Deed
to be delivered to the City in recordable form imme-
diately following the execution by the Applicants and
the City of a Final Subdivision and P.U.D. Agreement
for the hotel phase of the Aspen Mountain Subdivi-
sion.
ASPEN LODGE, TOP OF MILL, 700 S. GALENA
AND SUMMIT PLACE
PARKING STUDY
Prepared for:
Doremus & Company
March 30, 1984
Prepared by:
TLJr1
316 Second Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98104
INTRODUCTION
This report provides an analysis of the parking demand projected for the
proposed Aspen Lodge and compares that demand to the supply required under
Section 24-4.5 of the Aspen Municipal Code versus the PUD provisions in
Section 24-8.17. The proposed parking demand is based on surveys of actual
demand in Aspen and other ski areas as identified in recent surveys,
interviews and on -site counts.
PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project is located in central Aspen, within one block of the
downtown Mall and Aspen Mountain. The Aspen Lodge would be located on a site
bounded by Durant on the north, Galena on the east, Monarch on the west and
Juaniata on the south (see Site Plan). It is located astride Mill Street,
which serves as a major pedestrian corridor between the Mall and Lift. )A and
Little Nell. The 33-unit Top of Mill condominiums would be located at the
southern end of Mill Street, just south of Summit Street. Summit Place, a 3-
unit condominium, would be located between Snark and the Lodge. Another 12
condominium units would be located at 700 S. Galena Street.
Because most of the retail, commercial and restaurant/bar establishments
in Aspen are within walking distance of each other and Ajax Mountain, there is
little need for a car to get around. Consequently, transit service plays an
important role in providing access to central Aspen from outlying areas.
Rubey Park, which is the transfer point for all city and county transit
routes (they are in the process of being consolidated), is directly across the
street from the proposed Lodge site. Approximately two-thirds of all transit
riders board or alight at the Rubey Park bus stop. Figure 1 shows the six
transit routes that stop at Rubey Park.
Approximately half as many visitors arrive by automobile during the ski
season than during the rest of the year. The higher auto usage from late
spring to fall reflects the fact that a higher percentage of visitors come to
Aspen from out of state during the ski season versus a higher percentage of
in -state visitors during the remainder of the year. In addition, snow, ice
and unpredictable road conditions make traveling to Aspen by airplane or bus
1
SI............
to -
ManUm
varm� �
Ino.f+•'r+0e.•c.
Vaaa
.ter ...+.•w
MTN.
VALLEY„
SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN
MTN. VALLEY— — — — -
SILVERKING ............••
HIGHLANDS 00000000,
SNOWBUNNY
MUSIC FESTIVAL •••«.•
COUNTY ROUTES 11111111111
SKIERS SHUTTLr' "
�( p
l ASPEN MOUNTAIN
KK'' n �1 � .. •. A. �.ir
rPWj ASPEN
N!QHLANDS
Figure 1. - Trans'�':i Routes
Source: Aspen/PItkin County Trantlt Dovalopffiant Proltpam MA
more attractive during ski season. The commercial airline and bus schedules
between Denver and Aspen reflect this pattern (see Table 1).
Table 1. AIR AND BUS SCHEDULES TO ASPEN
Rocky Mtn Aspen Continental
Ai rv►ays Airways Trai l►� ys _
Winter Schedule 7 flights midweek
(Mid December daily
end -of --April) 11 flights on Sat.
9 flights on Sun.
Summer Schedules 5 flights daily
(June --Labor Day)
Spring and Fall 3 flights daily
Schedules
11 flights midweek
daily
Every 1/2 hr from
7 a.m. - 8 p.m. on
Sat. & Sun.
7 flights daily
3-4 flights daily
SOURCE: TDA Inc.
M-TH 1 bus daily
Fri. 2 buses
Sat. 4 buses
5/day to Glenwood
,Spri ngs ' w/connections
to Aspen
1 bus/day
5/day to Glenwood
Springs w/connections
to Aspen
1 bus/day
5/day to Glenwood
Springs w/connections
to Aspen
Table 2 shows the mode of arrival for winter visitors (both in- and out-
of-state) staying at lodges and compares it with similar figures for Steamboat
and Vail. As the figures indicate, the percentage by automobile is
considerably smaller for Aspen (47 percent) than for Steamboat (70 percent) or
Vail (79 percent).
Table 2. WINTER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO SKI AREA
Private Car
Rental Car
Scheduled Bus
Chartered Bus
Commercial Air
Private Air
Express Bus from Stapleton
Other
Aspen Vail
33%
57%
14%
22
4%
6%
10%
8%
35%
2%
3%
--
Ctnamhnn+
-- 3%
1% 2%
3 SOURCE:.Reference 1
PROJECT DEFINITION
The PUD plan has four projects: the Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill
Condominiums, Summit Place Condominiums and 700 S. Galena Condominiums. Table
3, below, shows the specific development program for these projects. This
development program will replace approximately an existing 277 lodge and 40
residential units.
Table 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Aspen Lodge
447 1BR Lodge Units
6 �BR Residential Units
Food & Beverage
Retail
Conference
Health Club
Subtotal 453 units
Top of Mill Condominiums
33 units @ 4 Bedrooms each
700 S. Galena Condominiums
3 units @ 1 Bedroom each
6 units @ 2 Bedrooms each
3 units @ 3 Bedrooms each
Summit Place
3 units @ 2 Bedrooms each
Subtotal 48 units
TOTAL 501 units
SOURCE: Doremus & Company
MARKET PROJECTIONS
Table 4 shows the preliminary projections of peak monthly occupancies for
the Lodge and Condominiums. A letter by Laventhol & Horwath (see page in
Appendix ), shows Aspen Lodge peak month occupancies in the fifth year. Peak
Condominium use is based on a survey made by TDA (November 1983) of
condominium managers in Aspen.
4
Table 4. PEAK MONTH AVERAGE OCCUPANCIES
Lodge Condominiums
Winter: 88% 100%
Summer: 90% 80%
As a result of the conference facility, Aspen Lodge will attract large
groups that presently cannot be accommodated in Aspen. Because the majority
of conference attendees can be expected to use group packages that include
hotel and travel arrangements, most of them will arrive in Aspen by airplane
or bus. The relatively high summer occupancies are based on attraction of
national groups of 60-65 percent of the Lodge's market. For winter, the
market would be 40-45 percent group business with the marketing emphasis
placed on larger, more affluent groups than can be served currently.
The marketing plan will focus on groups that will also use the Lodge
facilities. However, an infrequent local event may use the facilities that
attract day visitors or in -state residents. Often, in -state residents are
more aware of the accommodations available in Aspen and thus shop around for a
lodge or condominium that is cheaper or most responsive to their needs.
Approximately 40-50 percent of the condominiums would be offered for
short-term rentals by their owners for about 140 days per year (primarily in
season). At least ten of the Top of Mill condominiums will probably be used
solely as a residence for the owners and their guests.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The Aspen Municipal code (Section 24-4.5) requires one parking space per
bedroom in zones L-1 and L-2. A portion of the property fronting on Durant is
in a C-L zone, for which there is no parking requirement.
fhe
retail, and food and beverage activities would be treated as accessory and not
require additional parking.
5
The PUD provision (Section 24-8.17) of the Aspen Municipal Code states
that in the presence of the following factors, the number of off-street
parking spaces required can be modified upon review:
a) The probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in
the PUD
b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses
c) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed.
d) Available public transit and other transportation facilities to be
supplied by the applicant; and
e) The proximity of the PUD to the commercial core or recreational
facilities of the city.
These provisions allow the proposed projects to modify the code
requirements pertaining to off-street parking.
The demand estimates are based on the peak days of the winter and summer
seasons when lodge occupany is assumed at 88 percent in winter and 90 percent
in summer. Because these peak occupancy days will occur infrequently (less
than 20 percent of the year), much of the parking supplied to meet the
projected peak demand will remain unused most of the year. Therefore, the
proposed supply does not provide, nor does it need, a "cushion" above
projected peak demand. In fact, during most of the peak seasons, supply will
provide a 10 to 20 percent cushion above average demand. To accommodate the
peak demand with a supply closer to the average demand, specific temporary
measures such as valet parking and shuttles to an additional parking supply
would be implemented during peak periods.
For winter, parking demand rate was determined to be .55 spaces/bedroom
for lodge accommodations. The proposed project would have a maximum of 447
bedrooms demanding 216 parking spaces at peak occupany (88%). This was based
-:)n the following considerations:
• A 1984 survey conducted by TDA, Inc. (on 5 separate days) of guest
parking demand and parking utilization counts at 10 Lodges in Aspen
(560 bedrooms) showed a parking demand rate of .5 spaces/bedroom.
1.1
This data was collected during one of the busiest weeks of the ski
season (2/20-2/27) when participating lodges were at 95% occupany.
(Reference 2)
• A detailed peak season survey of parking demand in Steamboat _Sprifigs
was conducted in 1980 by TDA, Inc. This survey showed Lodge parking
demand ranged from .58 to 1.2 spaces/bedroom. When this mean (.89) is
adjusted to reflect Steamboat's higher dependence on the automobile,
the demand rate is .6 spaces/lodge bedroom. (Reference 3)
• The Vail parking requirement calls for .85 spaces/450 sf lodge room
and .67 spaces/1BR lodge suite. When these requirements are adjusted
to reflect the higher non -auto arrival mode in Aspen, the mean is .59
spaces/lodge bedroom. (Reference 4)
• Aspen is a premier destination resort. Table 2 indicates that
relative to other• major• Colorado drs.tiri,tion ski areas, Aspen Iirs the
lowest percentage of automobile access. (Reference 5)
• An industry "rule of thumb" of 0.6 spaces per bedroom
for lodges.
• A projected 40-45 percent group bookings for Aspen Lodge (Reference 6)
• Aspen Mountain and the Mall are just one block away from the proposed
site and the transfer center for 6 transit routes is directly across
the street. Consequently the site is in the optimum location for
minimizing the need for an automboile while staying at the lodge.
Summer demand was estimated at 0.66 spaces per bedroom during peak
occupancy of 90%. This was based on the following considerations:
• 60-65 percent group bookings for the summer season, oriented toward
the Lodge's capacity for large conferences unique to Aspen.
• For the group business, travel behavior is assumed to be similar to
winter visitors.
• For non -group business, use of automobiles by 95 percent
of visitors.
ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR PARKING
Table 5 compares the code requirements with projected peak demand.
7
Demand estimates are generally less than code requirements.
Table 5. PROJECTED PARKING DEMAND
COMPARED TO CODE REQUIRLMENTS SPACES
Code Projected Peak Demand Proposed_
Requtrement i—W`nf-e-l— YSummer TuP�y
Aspen Lodge
Guest Rooms
447
216
265
280
Restaurants
0
15
15
15
Conference Facility
0
20
20
20
Retail, Health Club
0
0
Employee (on -site)
0
10
10
10
Residential
24
12
12
12
Truck loading berths
0
5
5
5
Guest loading berths
0
0
0
11
Subtotal
471
278
327
353
700 S. Galena
24
15
13
40
Top of Mill
132
66
53
80
Summit Place
6
3
3
6
Subtotal
162
84
69
126
TOTAL 633 362 396 479
*None required in CL zone. Figure shown is for L-1, L-2 zones.
SOURCE: Aspen Municipal Code, TDA Inc.
Aspen Lodge. Demand Estimates recognize the nature of Aspen Lodge, its
expected market and its unique location. The Aspen Lodge is in the commercial
core of Aspen, adjacent to the Rubey Park transit stop, at the base of Ajax
Mountain, and within walking distance of Lifts 1A and Little Nell.
Food and Beverage. The 15 space estimate was based on joint use
considerations including:
E'?
. Between 50--1.00 percent of restaurant customers are also Lodge
residents (based on Reference 7)
. An average of 32 square feet per seat. (Reference 8)
. Because of the location, only 30 percent of off -site customers would
drive.
• A small number of spaces (about 10) would be made available by Lodge
guests driving elsewhere.
Conference Facility. The 20 space estimate was based on consideration of:
80-100 percent of those attending conferences would be housed on -site.
(Reference 9)
• Of those not housed on -site, about half would be housed within walking
distance; most of the remainder would arrive by car.
• One conference attendee per 40 square feet of conference space.
(Reference 10)
35 percent of the attendees staying at other lodges or condominiums
will arrive by auto. The marketing plan for the Aspen Lodge will
emphasize conferences where attendees will stay in Aspen. Should
there be a locally oriented event with primarily in -state day
visitors, there would be additional demand for parking. The
additional demand would be satisfied with shuttles to off -site parking
and valet service providng approximately another 40-80 spaces by
stacking in the garage.
Retail. The retail space was assumed to be oriented entirely to Lodge
residents or those within walking distance.
Health Club. This facility will be used exclusively by Lodge residents.
Employees. A maximum of 10 parking spaces will be provided on -site for
employees who would be under an unusual hardship if they had to park in remote
spaces. Employee parking supply is based on the following:
• The Aspen Lodge will have a policy stating that unless so authorized
no employees can bring their cars to work during identified peak
9
periods. Enforcement will include employer- reprimand, ticketing or
towing for any employee vehicle that violates the policy.
• The Aspen Lodge will provide shuttle service for employees coming from
Down Valley locations.
• All Aspen Lodge -sponsored employee housing will either be located
within walking distance of the Lodge or be provided with shuttle
service to the Lodge.
. Employees will be able to park or. -site during at least 80 percent of
the year.
• During the peak periods when only 10 employee spaces will be provided,
the Aspen Lodge will reserve available parking in a remote lot for -
their employees and shuttle them to work.
Residential. Parking demend for the six i,esidential lodge units was est.iriiatcd
at 2 spaces/unit for the same reasons as those identified for condominiums.
As a result 12 spaces will be supplied for these units.
Loading Zones. The Aspen Municipal Code does not require any loading or
service vehicle parking, but the Master Plan submission requirements state
that this demand must be addressed. At build -out, the Aspen Lodge will
require a total of 5 truck loading berths. In addition, the hotel main
entrance provides loading space for 6 vehicles and the conference entrance
provides loading space for 5 vehicles.
Condominiums. Parking demand estimates are based on a conservative projection
of 100 percent occupancy in the peak winter months and 80 percent occupancy
during the peak summer months. Supply is expected to provide a 33 percent
cushion during the peak season.
Parking demand was estimated to be 1.0 spaces/one or two bedroom dwellin(�
unit and 2.0 spaces/3 or 4 bedroom dwelling unit. The 84 space estimate of
demand was based on the following considerations:
A 1984 TDA Inc. survey of parking at 10 condominium (on five separate
days during a peak winter week) developments in the vicinity of the
10
proposed Aspen Lodge site, showed that condominiums generate demand
for only .68 spaces/condominium unit in the winter. (Reference 11)
• A 1979 survey of 753 condominium units (1,326 bedrooms) in Snowmess
West Village showed a parking derrcirid rate of 1 space/unit or .52
spaces/bedroom. (Reference 12)
. A 1980 parking study in Keystone conducted by Summit County, shoved
the condominium demand for parking as 1.2 spaces/unit if the
condominium was located within a mile of the moutain and an average of
2 spaces/unit if located over a mile from the mountain. (Reference
13)
• A 1977-78 Copper Mountain survey (during Christmas -New Years week) of
actual parking demand showed that at the rate of 2 spaces/condominium
unit, 1 space/lodge unit and .5 spaces/employee unit, only 61 percent
of uncovered spaces were occupie(. arse, 79 percent of the covered spaces
were occupied. this overstatement of demand resulted in a 2S-30
percent over supply of parking. teased on this study, condominium
units are now required to supply parking at the rate of 1.5
spaces/unit. (Reference 14)
• Table 6 summarizes a comparison of residential parking requirements at
Colorao ski communities. The proposed 126 spaces for the three
condominium complexes would exceed all but the Aspen code
requirements.
• The Summit Place and 700 S. Galena condominiums would satisfy or
surpass Aspen's parking requirements. It is only the Top of lull
units that are estimated to generate considerably less parking demand
than the City provides for in its zoning code. All 33 Top of Mill
units will have four bedrooms. These units generally would not:
attract four separate vehicles because they would not be lockoffs.
• A TDA (November 1983) survey of condominium managers in Aspen
identified a demand for 1.25 spaces/unit in the winter and 1.5
spaces/unit in the summer (Reference 15).
Parking Summary
Peak season parking demands can be met with 327 Lodge spaces and 84
11
N
F-
Z
W
f
W
W
Of
Z
Y
CL'
Q
O_
V)
W
F—
Z
O
V
]L
VN
O
m
Q
O
J
O
C.0
LL.
O
z
0
N
ce
Q
O_
O
V
tO
QJ
r0
E
Zi
0
z
W
o
L
a
�
V)
Cl
Q
W
r--
r-
L
F-
fO
N
Q
4-3
C
CO
O
L
O
.r
Q
7
�.
to
\
N
LO
.0
p
E
ILI
=3
(U
4
'-
L
C)
.r.
w-
V)
Ln
N
E
E
ar
r
! aJ
r-
r--
%--
4-
C j
I
E: �
Y
z
�c
4-
F -
+�
4-
r
O
Of
3
v
O
d
LO
'O
r
O_
\
C)
N
N
V
t
W
1
r-
C7
X
U
r-
O
►-�
N
C1
r-
O
r•
E
w
r
Cl
Z
W
C71
C
>
0.
.-
W
`
Ln
N
4-
E
CC
N
r
r•
p
4-
03
L
a
4-
d
N
Q-
w
O
1
U
O
CV
LO
U
O
r
I
C1
O
N
N
(D
N
N
U-)
N
r
r
1
1
1
1
C)
Z
N
i
m
S-
m
L
CO
S-
m
r-
1
N
1
c7
1
.Cr
W
4-J
C
W
E
v
L
•r
Q•
N
CT
O
•r
Y
i
a.
r.
condominium spaces; however 479 parking spaces are included in the total
supply for the proposed project. These are based on the conservative
application of experience elsewhere to the special characteristics of Aspen
and of this project. The results show that, under a PUD designation, a 154
space reduction from zoning code requirements ce..n be justified.
MEASURES TO REDUCE PARKING DEMAND
The Aspen Lodge and three cndominium projects will make the following
provisions to minimize auto travel and parking demand. These are a
combination of disincentives for using an automobile and incentives to use
transit or walk.
1. Provide a total of four courtesy vans for connection to the airport,
evening trips for off -site restaurants and transportation to other
ski areas.
2. Valet parking will be employed at the Aspen Lodge all hours during
the peak winter and summer months. This will provide more efficient
use of the parking areas and a psychological disincentive to moving
a car once it is parked. Whenever parking demand exceeds supply.,
the valet parking will stack cars in the garage, thereby adding
another 40-80 spaces.
3. During peak periods, parking reservations will be made at the same
time as lodging reservations. This will help provide planning for
peak periods.
4. Aspen Lodge and all three Condominium brochures and reservations
packets will provide information on availability of courtesy vans
for airport connections and other trips, as well as information
about Aspen's free bus service.
5. Because a relatively large conference facility is not currently
available in Aspen, Lodge marketing will emphasize large groups
package tours, particularly in the summer. Special fare
arrangements for large groups will discourage arrival in Asper:
car.
6. The Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 S. Galena
13
Condominiums will take a lead io moviicg the Lodge district
improvement program for -ward and encourage the early formation of the
financing district. The. Aspen Lodge will develop its facilities
(lighting, sidewalks, crosswalks, street furniture) in conjunction
with that improvement program.
7. The previously described pedestrian facilities will encourage
walking and transit travel.
8. The proposed project will agree not to protest an assessment for
improvements to Rubey Park and construction of a Transit Center
assuming costs are distributed euqitably among beneficiaries.
9. Whenever valet service is not being implemented, guests' vehicles
will be tagged and the garage monitored to control unauthorized
parkers from competing with gue!�-ts for the parking supply.
10. A policy will be enfur ced sUlt ;-:; thy, empl uyecs cannot bring
vehicles to work during periods identified as having peak parking
demand. Violation of this policy by unauthorized employees will
result in an employee reprimand, ticketing and/or towing.
11. Employees will be able to park on -site during the non -peak periods
if experience shows that spaces are available. Transit passes will
be purchased for any employees who want to encourage their use of
transit for commuting to work.
12. All Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 S. Galena
sponsored employee housing will be located within walking distance
of the hotel or provided with shuttle service to get employees to
work.
If experience determines that peak parking demand exceeds on -site supply,
the Aspen Lodge and Top of Mill Condominiums will agree to the following
additional measures:
1. During the peak periods, the Aspen Lodge will provide remote parking
if experience shows it to be necessary. This remote parking will be
serviced by valet service.
2. Contribute up to $25,000 for concept plans for the design of Rubey
Park.
14
REFERENCES
1. Out of State Skier, University of Colorado, Dr. Goeldner, 1977-78.
2. TDA parking data collected in Aspen in February, 1984.
3. TDA parking data collected in Steamboat Springs in 1980.
4. Vail Parking Code.
5. Comparative Analysis of Aspen Visitor Studies, University of Colorado.
6. Laventhol & Ho math, 1983.
7. TDA Surveys in Sun Valley at Sun Valley Lodge and Elkhorn.
8. ITE Trip Generation.
9. TDA Surveys in Sun Valley at Sun Valley Lodge and Elkhorn.
10. TDA Survey of banquet and restaurant space/person.
11. TDA parking data collected in Aspen in February 1984.
12. Snowmass Parking Study, Design Workshop Inc., March 1979.
13. Summit County Planning Dept. 1980.
14. Copper Mountain Parking Study, 1977-78.
15. TDA telephone survey of Aspen Condominium Managers, November 16, 1983.
16. City of Aspen Engineering Department.
15
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
ENDORSING THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD REVISED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
PROPOSAL AND GRANTING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
EXEMPTION FROM THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT
PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSAL'S UTE CITY PLACE COMPONENT
Resolution No. _
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Associa-
tion, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as
the "Applicants") have made the following employee housing commitment,
pursuant to Sections 24-11.4(b)(4), 24-11.6(b)(4), 20-22(d) and
20-23 (A) (2) of the Municipal Code, in consideration of the review
and approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD:
1. To provide nine (9), two -bedroom units housing twenty (20)
employees in conjunction with the 700 South Galena residential
condominium project;
2. To provide housing for sixty perce the additional
employees, currently estimated a one ndred forty-five
(145) employees, generated by the Aspen Mountain Lodge
project; and
3. To provide housing for an estimated thirty (30) additional
employees displaced as a result of the demolition of existing
employee housing units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised their original proposal for
fulfilling their employee housing commitment so as to withdraw their
requests for rezoning to R-6 (RBO) , conceptual PUD/subdivision approval,
and exemption from the City's growth management allotment procedures
for the fifty (50) unit, multi -family employee housing project to be
constructed on the Benedict/Larkin property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' revised proposal for fulfilling their
employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of the
following components: '\
1. The acquisition and deed-restr' ct ) thirty-two (32) of
the existing sixty-four (64) fr - rket Airport Business
Center apartment units;
2. The acquisition and conversion of the existing forty-three
(43) unit Alpina Haus and fourteen (14)'unit Copper Horse
lodges to deed -restricted employee housing; and
3. The const-r Ac n of a new twenty-two (22) unit, one hundr d��0��
percent-{�h(wn
eed-restricted, multi -family residenti 1
project as Ute City Place.
Resolution No. 84-
Page Two
; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority did review and
conceptually endorse the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal
at their regular meeting held on April 19, 1984; and
WHEREAS, there are no specific review requirements J forth , ir�
the Municipal Code for the conversion of existing, fre -market units
to deed -restricted employee housing units; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of existing lodge units to deed -restricted
employee housing units is subject to the change -in -use provisions of
Section 24-11.2(j) of the Municipal Code provided, however, that the
change -in -use of a structure which has received individual historic
designation is exempt from complying with the City's growth management
allotment procedures pursuant to Section 24-11.2(b); and
WHEREAS, the Copper Horse Lodge, located at 328 West Main
Street, is an individually designated historic ructur and
/pa
WHEREAS, the construction of a one hund epee c t (1003') deed -
restricted employee housing project is exempt from complying with the
City's growth management allotment procedures pursuant to Section 24-
11.2(f) of the Municipal Code subject to the special approval of the
City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the construction of a multi-fami residential project
is subject to the City's subdivision review requirements pursuant to
Section 20-5 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did find, pursuant
to Section 24-11.2(j) of the Municipal Code, that the conversion of
the forty-three (43) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed -restricted employee
housing, as set forth in the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal, will result in negligible growth impacts on the Community,
and that said change -in -use is exempt from complying with the growth
management allotment procedures of the Municipal Code, all as set
forth in the Commission's Resolution No. 84-1, dated January 17,
1984; and
Resolution No. 84-
Page Three
WHEREAS, the Commission did endorse the Applicants' revised
proposal for fulfilling their employee housing commitment and did
recommend conceptual subdivision approval and growth management
exemption for the proposed Ute City Place project, all as set forth in
the Commission's Resolution No. 84-6, dated June 5, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did consider the Commission's
endorsement of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal and
their recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request for
conceptual subdivision approval and growth management exemption at
regular meetings held on July 23rd, August 13th and August 27, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby endorse the Applicants' revised proposal for
fulfilling their employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain
PUD subject to the following conditions:
1. The submission, to the extent necessary, of revised employee
generation figures for the various components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD, said generation figures to be included in the
the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission.
2. The submission of additional documentation with respect to
the replacement of existing employee housing as required
pursuant to Sections 20-22 and 20-23 of the Municipal Code,
said documentation to be included in the Applicants' preli-
minary PUD/subdiv' submission.
3. The deed-restri t the forty-three (43) unit Alpina Haus
Lodge, as propo by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty-five percent (25%) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per person
per month, whichever is less. Rents shall include utilities
consistent withl/ # - guidelines.
's
4. The deed-restr o the forty-three (43) unit Alpina Haus
Lodge to a maxi occupancy of forty-six (46) employees
with first priority given to employees of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge.
5. The deed -restriction of the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge, as proposed by the Applicants and endorsed by the
Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of
twenty-five percent (25%) of the employees average annual
income, or two hundred dollars ($200.00) per person per
month, whichever is less. Rents shall include utilities
consistent with guidelines.
Resolution No. 84-
Page Four
The deed-restri t� the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge to a maxi occupancy of forty-three (43) employees
with first priority given to the employees of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge.
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.
The retention of all existing on-si arking spaces at the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse Lodge,( nd the submission of
various alternatives for the mitig ' n of potential impacts
resulting from the non -conforming status of said parking,AN
said alternatives to be included in the Applicants' prelim-
inary PUD/subdivision submission.
6.
7.
0
y
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 -bedroom units
13 Two -bedroom units
2 Three -bedroom units
Rental and sales prices shall be restricted to the low and
moderate price guidelines in effect -at--;the time of the
execution of the deed- esriction. Rents shall include
utilities consisten with guide�lines.
10. The deed-restrictio 6 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:
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 -bedroom units
13 Two -bedroom units
2 Three -bedroom units
Rental and sales prices shall be restricted to the low and
moderate price guidelines in effect -at--;the time of the
execution of the deed- esriction. Rents shall include
utilities consisten with guide�lines.
10. The deed-restrictio 6 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. 84-
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 guidelines.
2. The deed -restriction of the wenty two 2) 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
Engineer, of the appropriateness of the proposed curb cut on
Cooper Avenue, including an evaluation of alternative access
points for the proposed Ute City Place project.
3. The Applicants' provision of,a sidewalk the length 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.
All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
subdivision application not specifics _ly--r d to above
being made a condition of thi E� proval.
Date _
C. ; ` -
Wil
g, !Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado
at a meeting held _ _ _ 1984.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 1984)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
TO THE TOP OF HILL, SUNNIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
CONDONINIUN COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN NOUNTAIN PUD
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants") have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South
Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations
of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to: a) a rezoning
to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned
Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and b) an exemption from the City' s growth
management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units located on the
Aspen Mountain PUD site; and
WHEREAS, in light of the unfavorable recommendations of the
Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those
portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15
(PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified,
pursuant to Section 24-11. 2 (a) of the Municipal Code, forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen
Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City's
growth management allotment procedures; and
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 component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 (Series
of 1984); and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request
)r conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill, Summit
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain
PUD at regular meetings held on May 14th, May 29th, June llth, June
25th, July 9th, and July 23, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700
South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in
response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, including a significant
reduction in the overall height of both projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby grant conceptual PUD/subdivi-
sion approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8.7 of the Municipal
Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to the
following conditions:
1. In accordance with the Applicants' proposal, their consummation
of an agreement for the acquisition from the City of Lots
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15, Capitol Hill Addition,
containing approximately 20,860 square feet of land, in
exchange for (a) approximately 21,084 square feet of the
"Koch Lumber" property comprised of the entire Colorado
Midland Railroad Right -of -Way located thereon and part of
Lots 13 through 16 of the Eames Addition Block 1, and (b)
the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civil
Action No 8 CV44 an9. all claims and all tions set forth
herein.../y� � �GG�
2. The egotiation of a mutually satisfactory agreement between
the Applicants and the Aspen Ski Club whereby the Applicants
agree to construct, at their sole expense on any site selected
and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality and functionality than
the building which the Club currently occupies. In exchange,
the Ski Club will terminate its existing leasehold agreement
with the City with respect to Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol
Hill Addition.
3. The Applicants' mitigation, to the extent appropriate,
of any geological problems associated with the development
of the Top of Mill site which are identified as a result
of any evaluation of geological hazards in the immediate
site area, the details of said mitigation to be included in
the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. The
City Council expressly reserves the right to make such
disclosures with respect to geological hazards as it deems
to be in the public interest.
4. The Applicants' 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.
5. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all circulation and utility rights, the provision
of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised
in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as
to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere
Resolution No. 84-
Page 3
with each utility's current or future needs.
6. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention ponds.
7. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor
elevation to the midpoint of the roof.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation
of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact
of the project as viewed from Mill Street, Lift 1-A and
the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' granting of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to the allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event rtthee extension is deemedr ppro-
�Lpj i at e by th�MCi ty�f ) �`G' -�(,� � � �»�.�.i��.-�•;�
10. The Applicants' provision of a landscaped gidewalkacross
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.
11. The Applicants' granting of an acceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site and the construction of an
eight (8) foot trail at such time as the City provi es
s Gy""pro }z ate coneqions to the overall Vail systems
'1 c�y+c�.ic�,✓�4�,�Q �.,•.✓� i��/iJ++�
12. The Appli/cants' provision of ninety (90) on -Sir parking
spaces for the residents of the Top of Mill project, as
opposed to the eighty (80) spaces proposed in the original
application.
13. The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and following
construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the
700 South Galena project is expressly conditioned upon
the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation
to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
14. The Applicants' identification of all easements required
in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena
project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent
required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.
15. The Applicants' agreement to a completion schedule for
the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the
provision of an appropriate performance bond prior to final
PUD/subdivision approval so as to prevent and minimize
damage to the surrounding landowners in the form of an
unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for a longer
period of time than is reasonably necessary.
16. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being
reduced so as to comply with the twenty-eight (28) foot
height limitation of the underlying zone district.
17. The Applicants' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity
of the 700 South Galena project, to the extent feasible,
so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
immediate site area
Resolution No. 84-
Page 4 %X
J
18. Xhe above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval,4-gyp ,
19. cc;�uX��cr� �n��:,er h�
-Up
Ci Fnt
resses its intent to accept, as proposed, he
Ci s' donation of the remaining 40,931 square feet of
land in the Koch Lumber property (i.e. tY2t portion not
involved in the land exchange described i o 'dition number
one) in the form of a special Warranty Dee o be delivered
to the City in recordable form immediately following the
execution by the Applicants and the City of a final PUD/sub-
division agreement for the Aspen Mountain PUD.
20. The reconstruction of existing residential units being limited
to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section 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 Mountain PUD site.
21. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications, as revised,
not specifically amended or referred to above being made
a condition of this approval.
22. The expiration of Council's conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval, pursuant to Section 24-8.8 of the Municipal Code,
in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application
is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
24-8.11 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution.
DATED: yYZ
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify
that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution
adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a
meeting held , 1984.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Doremus & Wells, an association
608 east hyman avenue - aspen, colorado 81611
(303)925.6866
July 9, 1984 (2 @ a
D 1� � ,,
SEP - 6
Mr. Sunny Vann
Director
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny:
On behalf of the applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD, my letter
is to formally withdraw our request for consideration by the City
at this time of our rezoning request from Public to L-2 for the
lots located on the Top of Mill Site. These lots are currently
owned by the City and included in our trade proposal which has
been previously outlined.
Sincerely,
'Joe �Wqe
Project Planner
JW/b
RESOLUTION NO. _
(Series of 1984)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
TO THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants") have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South
Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations
of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to: a) a rezoning
to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned
Public and P.-15 (PUD) (L) ; and b) an exemption from the City's growth
management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units located on the
Aspen Mountain PUD site; and
WHEREAS, in light of the unfavorable recommendations of the
Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those
portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15
(PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified,
pursuant to Section 24-11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen
Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City's
growth management allotment procedures; and
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 component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 (Series
of 1984) ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill, Summit
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
Place and 700 South Galena --condominium components of the Aspen Mountain
PUD at r ular meetings held on May 14th, May 29th, June llth,, June
(�� 25th, my 9nd
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700
South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in
response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, including a significant
reduction in the overall height of both projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby grant 'conceptual PUD/subdivi-
sion approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8.7 of the Municipal
Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Applica enteri nto afi agreement for the acquisition
of that portion he Top of Mill site currently owned
by the City e ter f said agreement to include the
City's ac isition of the e re Koch Lumber property and
the di issal with prejudice the Applicants of Civil
Acti No. 82CV44 and all claims an llegations set forth
therein.
2. The negotiation of a mutually satisfactory agreement between
the Applicants and the Aspen Ski Club whereby the Applicants
agree to construct, at their sole expense on any site selected
and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality and functionality than
the building which the Club currently occupies. In exchange,
the Ski Club will terminate its existing leasehold agreement
with the City with respect to Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol
Hill Addition.
3. The Applicants' mitigation, to the extent appropriate,
of any geological problems associated with the development
of the Top of i 1 site which are identified as a result
of evaluation
of geological ha ards in the immediate site area, the details
of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD/subdivision submission--,
4. The Applicants' 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.
5. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all circulation and utility rights, the provision
of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised
in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as
to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere
with each utility's current or future needs.
6. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention ponds.
Resolution No. 84-
Page 3
7. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor
elevation to the midpoint of the roof.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation
of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact
of the project as viewed from Mill Street, Lift 1-A and
the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' granting of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to the allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro-
priate by the City. __-
10. The Applicants' provision of a=w�ithin
la dscaped
sidewalk across the Top of Mill site andt Summit
Street easement so as to facilitate�ed� emergency
vehicle access between Monarch and Mill Streets.
11.
The Applicants' granting of an acceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site and the construction of an
eight (8) foot trail at such time as the City provides
appropriate connections to the overall trail system.
12.
The Applicants' provision of ninety (90) on -site parking
spaces for the residents of the Top Mill project, as
opposed to the eighty (80) spaces rpose in the original
application.
13.
The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and following
construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the
a
700 South Galena project is expressly conditioned upon
the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation
to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
14.
The Applicants' identification of all easements required
in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena.
project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent
required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.
15.
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 prevent
and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the
form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for
a longer period of time than is reasonably necessary.
16. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being
reduced so as to comply with the twenty-eight (28) foot
height limitation of the underlying zone district.
17. The Applicants' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity
of the 700 South Galena project, to the extent feasible,
so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
immediate site area.
18. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.
1. _^t-_-'_n, into an agreement for the
acquisition from the City of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14 and 15, Capitol Hill Addition, containing
approximately 20,860 square feet of land, in exchange
for (a) approximately 21,084 square feet of the "Koch
Lumber" property comprised of the entire Colorado
Midland Railroa� R 'ghof-Way located thereon and
part-�! Lots 13 6 ofames Addition Block 1, and (b)
the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of
Civic Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allega-
tions set forth therein.
t-e�-C-' maininS40,931 square feet of land
in the Koch Lumber property (ie. that portion not ®p
involved in the land exchange described in Condition Mw1iAvt-,)
in the form of a Xpecial Warranty Deed
to be delivered to the City in recordable form imme-
diately following the i by the Applicants and
the City of a Final o _P. Agreement
for the hotel phase of the Aspen Mountain ubd-_v4- �U�•
4//
Resolution No. 84-
Page 4
2a The reconstruction of existing residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
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 Mountain PUD site.
n,l• All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUL/subdivision and residential GMP applications, as revised,
not specifically amended or referred to above being made
/ a condition of this approval.
The expiration of Council's conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval, pursuant to Section 24-8.8 of the Municipal Code,
in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application
is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
24-8.11 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution.
DATED:
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify
that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution
adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a
meeting held
1984 .
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
r
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 1984)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL POD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
TO THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN POD
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants") have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South
Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations
of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to: a) a rezoning
to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned
Public and R-15 (PUD) (L); and b) an exemption from the City's growth
management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units located on the
Aspen Mountain PUD site; and
WHEREAS, in light of the unfavorable recommendations of the
Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those
portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15
(PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified,
pursuant to Section 24-11. 2 (a) of the Municipal Code, forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen
Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City's
growth management allotment procedures; and
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 component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set
forth in Resolution No. 7
(Series
of 1984); and
WHEREAS, the City Council did
consider the
Planning and
Zoning
Commission's recommendations with
respect to the
Applicants'
request
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the
Top of Mill,
Summit
--11
ly
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain
PUD at regular meetings held on May 14th, May 29th, June llth, June
25th, July 9th, and July 23, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700
South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in
s
response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office, the
Planning and zoning Commission and City Council, including a significant \`
1`
reduction in the overall height of both projects.?
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby grant conceptual PUD/subdivi-
e
sion approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8.7 of the Municipal
Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium'
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to the (`
following conditions:t
1. In accordance with the Applicants' proposal, their consummation's
of an agreement for the acquisition from the City of Lots
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15, Capitol Hill Addition,
containing approximately 20,860 square feet of land, in
exchange for (a) approximately 21,084 square feet of the
"Koch Lumber" property comprised of the entire Colorado
Midland Railroad Right -of -Way located thereon and part of
Lots 13 through 16 of the Eames Addition Block 1, and (b)
the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civil -�
Action No 8 CV44 an all claims and alleg tions set forth
herein../� - o✓ y
l-Lo�ifi .� / �-% �,,�T�(�t"`rl G3%Y'2`fi"� `�i
2. The negotiation of a mutually satisfactory agreement betwd'en �� d
the Applicants and the Aspen Ski Club whereby the Applicants
agree to construct, at their sole expense on any site selected
and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality and functionality than
the building which the Club currently occupies. In exchange,
the Ski Club will terminate its existing leasehold agreement
with the City with respect to Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol
Hill Addition.
3. The Applicants' mitigation, to the extent appropriate,
of any geological problems associated with the development
of the Top of Mill site which are identified as a result
of any evaluation of geological hazards in the immediate
site area, the details of said mitigation to be included in
the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. The
City Council expressly reserves the right to make such
disclosures with respect to geological hazards as it deems
to be in the public interest.
4. The Applicants' 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.
5. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all circulation and utility rights, the provision
of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised
in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as
to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere
Resolution No. 84-.
Page 3
with each utility's current or future needs.
6. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention ponds.
7. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor
elevation to the midpoint of the roof.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation
of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact
of the project as viewed from Mill Street, Lift 1-A and
the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' granting of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to the allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event the extenlsio'n� is deemed appro-
priat�e� by the
/Cit4��
/aG�J/��a��sor�►�!-� ca�pedidewal
10. The Applicants' provision of a landsk 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.
11. The Applicants' granting of an acceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site and the construction of an
eight (8) foot trail at such time as the City provi�es
ap rop late con e �jions to the overall trail syste� —
�/J,cG/.C�t«� �.A,--���/J�GVJsousi
/ 12. The Appl�Ycants' provision of ninety (90) on-s t'e parki/gam �.
spaces for the residents of the Top of Mill project, as
opposed to the eighty (80) spaces proposed in the original
application.
13. The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and following
construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the
700 South Galena project is expressly conditioned upon
the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation
to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
14. The Applicants' identification of all easements required
in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena
project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent
required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.
15. The Applicants' agreement to a completion schedule for
the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the
provision of an appropriate performance bond prior to final
PUD/subdivision approval so as to prevent and minimize
damage to the surrounding landowners in the form of an
unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for a longer
period of time than is reasonably necessary.
16. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being
reduced so as to comply with the twenty-eight (28) foot
height limitation of the underlying zone district.
17. The Applicants' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity
of, the 700 South Galena project, to the extent feasible,
so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
immediate //.. site area
Resolution No. 84-
Page 4 / e,1
18. Xhe above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.4-,o-��.,
19 . --Lip �--�.-�z� i3�ment-of—co-ndition--number—one-,—abav e.� ,thee
Ci e.presses its intent to accepts as proposed; --th 6\
AP
e�nts' donation of the remaining /40,931 square feet of
land in the Koch Lumber property ( . e. that portion not
involved in the land exchange descred in((condition number
one) in the form of a special Warranty Deed -to be delivered
to the City in recordable form immediately ollowing the
execution by the Applicants and the City of a anal PUD/sub-
division agreement for the Aspen Mountain PUD,
20. The reconstruction of existing residential units being limited
to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section 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 Mountain PUD site.
21. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications, as revised,
not specifically amended or referred to above being made
a condition of this approval.
22. The expiration of Council's conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval, pursuant to Section 24-8.8 of the Municipal Code,
in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application
is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
24-8.11 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution.
DATED:
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify
that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution
adopted
by the City
Council of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a
meeting
held
1984.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
RE: Deadline for Submittal of
Preliminary Plan for Aspen
Mountain PUD/Subdivision
FROM:
/4-
Arthur C. Daily,
Attorney for the Applicants
DATE: September 24, 1984
A simple clarification is needed in the language of
Condition 19 of Council Resolution No. 84-11 dated April 2,
1984 (lodge conceptual approval), which provides that the
approval contained therein expires six (6) months from the
of the Resolution. As you know, the final conceptual approval
for the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision is embodied in Council
Resolution No. 84-23 (residential conceptual approval), which
is presently awaiting the Mayor's signature.
date
Throughout the lengthy conceptual process on this Project,
Council has taken the position that no conceptual approval res-
olution would become fully binding and effective until the
entire Project received such approval. Sections 20-11 and
24-8.8 of the Municipal Code support the Council's position by
providing that conceptual approval lapses unless a preliminary
plan is submitted within six (6) months of final conceptual
approval.
In sum, Condition 19 unintentionally contradicts both the
Municipal Code and Council's expressed position on the matter.
In the interests of eliminating from the record any potential
confusion with respect to this complex development, I would
suggest that Council instruct the City Attorney to prepare a
brief resolution which amends Condition 19 of Council Resolu-
tion No. 84-11 in its entirety to read substantially as fol-
lows:
"19. The expiration of Council's concep-
tual PUD/Subdivision approval, pursuant to Sec-
tion 24-8.8 of the Municipal Code, in the event
a preliminary PUD/Subdivision application is not
submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
24-8.11 within six (6) months of the date of
Council's final conceptual approval in connec-
tion with the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision."
DOTZTil
U
2013,11
0 '
(0 ?
"" P .
608 east hymar avenue •
i Lid
aspen, colorado 81611 - telephone: (303) 925-6866
April 5, 1984
William Sterling, Mayor
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gary Plunley, Chairman
Commercial Core & Lodging Cbmmission
City of Aspen
130 South Ga 1 ena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
As you are atiare, the owners of the Aspen Nbuntain Lodge project made a nunber of
commitments to public improvements in the conceptual application including a
commitment to participate in the Lodge Improvement District.
The District has been the subject of much discussion but for one reason or another,
the impetus to get the project under way has never come along. V.e believe the Aspen
bbuntain Lodge can prcvide that impetus so that the improvenent project can be
undertaken this year.
For our part, the timing of the formation of the District is critical, as a nunber
of the off -site improvements we anticipate logically fall within the District
program. If the .formation of the District does not begin immediately, however, we
will have to undertake a number of our proposed iaiiprovenents around the site at our
own expense and still be obligated to contribute tokard the District improvemelzts on
other sites throughout the Lodge area.
We realize that, as with any other City project, funding is an issue that must be
resolved prior to beginning further design work for the District. Fbr this reason,
the owners of the Aspen Nburitain Lodge project have agreed to front-end the costs of
the design work for the District as outlined in the attached letter.
I+le look forward to discussing this approach further with the City and hope that we
can be of assistance in getting this much -needed project underway in the caning
un PlrC _
ly,
J05e}i7 We
Associate Project Planner
JW/b
ASPEN LODGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Lodge owners, merchants, property owners, and residents have
recognized the need to take positive action in order to improve
various physical aspects of the streetscape within the vicinity
of the proposed Aspen Lodge District. Specifically, improvements
are needQd such as new sidewalks and trails, improved access to the
lifts, street lighting, signage, intersection improvements,
improved drainage, burying of utility lines, solutions to parking
problems, and other similar improvements.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge, recognizing the opportunity to
coordinz.te the design and construction of these improvements
with the construction of the hotel, believe that now is the
appropriate time to proceed past the conceptual stage of the
Improvement District and begin to formulate a final design plan,
prepare a budget, create the District, adopt a funding mechanism,
and implement the improvements so that they correspond to the
construction of the improvements associated with the Lodge.
Since the Lodge site comprises approximately 40% of the
District, and in order to facilitate coordination in the design
and timing of, both the District improvements and the
Hotel -associated improvements, it seems logical to have the
team of consultants currently coordinating and developing the
design of the Lodge site improvements to be participating in
corresponding roles in the design, planning, and implementation
of the district. That team consists of the following:
Project Planning and Coordination:
Landscape Architecture:
Doremus and Company in
association with Joseph
Wells, Planner
608 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Berridge Associates, Inc.
1000 So. Frontage Rd. West
Suite 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Page 2
Engineering:
Surveying:
Rea, Cassens & Assoc. Inc.
201 North mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Alpine Surveys
P.O. Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Parking, Traffic and Circulation: TDA, Inc.
Transportation Planning
316 Second Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98104
The tear_ would serve to coordinate the creation of the District
in close conjunction with the CCLC and the City and would
perform the following tasks:
I. Review,,evaluate, and update existing conceptual plans.
II. Finalize improvement plan, design, and budget.
III. Assist CCLC and the city in evaluating funding alternatives
and selecting appropriate funding mechanism.
IV. Prepare construction documents for improvements and assist
in contractor selection.
V. Provide supervision during construction of improvements.
It is our intention that the process would be one of continual
and frequent coordination and review with 'the CCLC throughout
the project. We anticipate that the City would designate a
staff member whose primary responsibility in the coming months
would be to coordinate the formation of the District and
oversee the work of the Team. We also assume that the City
would retain legal assistance immediately at its expense
to assist in the documentation required for district
formation.
t
Page 3
pursuing this approach in order to
If the city is interested in P t step would be for
quickly get the project underway, the next
and budget for
the team to prepare a more detailed work program the CCLC and the city. The CCLC is perhaps aware
reveiw by the improvements and implementing
that the cost of designing
the District,
and administering the District are costs which
on the formation of the District as a par
will be reimbursed up
of the overall assessment.
While we have not had an opportunity discuss this proposal
to
in any detail, the applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge
for
rvices
propose tO initially bear the costa theirassessment
the
eobligation
ed
which would then be hrthetformation of the District.
as determined throug
r
Aspen/P1tk=i. . Planning Office
130 sou'th_.,galena :.street
aspen col,6rado 81611
October 2, 1984
Dor emus & Company
608 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain PUD - Additional Billings
Dear John:
As you know, the City's land use application fee regulations provide
for ADDITIONAL BILLINGS to cover the additional costs incurred by the
City when the processing of a land use application by the Planning
Office takes more time than is covered in the base fee structure.
Similarly, the payment of any outstanding ADDITIONAL BILLINGS with
respect to a given phase of an application is a prerequisite to the
review of any subsequent phases.
Pursuant to these provisions, attached is an itemized accounting of
the additional hours incurred in the processing of the GMP/Conceptual
PUD/Subdivision phase of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Based on the hours
expended and the applicable billing rates, the ADDITIONAL BILLINGS for
this phase of your project total $15,057.50 as of September 30, 1984.
Given the forthcoming submission of your Preliminary PUD/Subdivision
application, your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
ASP ior
PLANNING OFFICE
unnAICP
Dire
SV:jlr
Attachment
ADDITIONAL BILLINGS
Aspen Mountain PUD
Application
Base
Fee
Hours
Allocated
Hours
Spent
(1983/1984)
Additional
Billings
(1983/1984)
1. LODGE
A. GMP/Conceptual
PUD/Subdivision
$
1,840
20
B. Rezoning
1,010
11
Subtotal
$
2,850
31
50.5/111.5
19.5/111.5
2. TOP OF MILL
A. Conceptual PUD/
Subdivision
$
1,290
14
B. Rezoning
1,010
11
C. Special Review
465
5
Subtotal
$
2,765
30
--/ 82.5
--/ 52.5
3. 700 SOUTH GALENA
A. GMP/Conceptual
PUD/Subdivision
$
1,840
20
--/ 12.5
--/ (7.5)
Total $ 7,455 81 50.5/206.5 19.5/156.5
Based on the City's additional billing rates for 1983 and 1984 of
$90/hr. and $85/hr. , respectively, total additional billings are as
follows:
19.5 hrs. x $90/hr. = $ 1,755.00
156.5 hrs. x $85/hr. = $ 13,302.50
$ 15,057.50
CITY OF ASPEN
�!f 23
MEMO FROM NANCY CRELLI
t;l,--e7
--- 3 /
7> ;-
/5_ /,�ie2ax/t-- /e/z�
e-_-, /vn//c2u 4 S
1�i, sIz;7
151
7SY
-)-) / 21 ;7�7z-
71s, -74 / (n 7 ) C-) -=-
/�,.s�,7
:Z e t2
.. J
U
13ECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Fo" II c. r. MMCKFL M. n. 6 L. L f
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 198
AN ORDINANCE PE -ESTABLISHING TILE LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
CIIARGED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE AND REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 82 (SERIES OF 1981) AND ORDINANCE NO. 67
(SERIES OF 1982) TO TIIE EXTENT SAID ORDINANCES ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEES AND PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED HEREIN
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has adopted a policy of annually
reviewing the Planning Of.fice's land use application fee structure to
bring it more into line with the increasing costs of service provision;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office has determined that
the current fee structure for the processing of land use applica-
tions, which is contained in, Ordinance No. 67, Series of 1982, does
not accurately reflect the current costs of providing the necessary
level of services associated with the City's Code Administration
function; and
WHEREAS,. the Aspen City Council wishes to revise the current
land use application fee structure consistent with the policy out-
lined in Ordinance No. 82, Series of 1981, so as to offset 100
percent of the total cost of the Code Administration function; and
WHEREAS, the various land use applications which may be sub-
mitted to the Planning Office, based on various provisions of the
City's subdivision and zoning regulations, can be categorized into
the following review processes:
I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD
1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Final Plat
II. Subdivision/PUD
1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Final Plat
III. Except ion/Exemption/Rczoni.nq
IV. Special Review
; and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
!MV `a G. f. tntCKt L A. A. A I. l 1.
100 Leaves
WHEREAS, the Planning Office has determined the total cost of
the City's Code Aministration function, which includes the cost of
processing land use applications, responding to routine public
inquiry, and initiating minor code amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a BASE FEE should
be established for each type of review process which, when considered
in relation to the number of applications expected during the forth-
coming year, will have the effect of offsetting 100 percent of the
total cost of the Code Administration function; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 67, Series of 1982, City
Council provided for ADDITIONAL BILLINGS to cover the additional
costs incurred by the City when the processing of a land use applica-
tion by the Planning Office takes more time than is covered in the
base fee structure and desires to re-establish said billings as set
forth below and to repeal the provisions of Ordinance No. 82 (Series
of 1981) and Ordinance No. 67 (Series of 1982) to the extent the
procedures thereof are inconsistent with this Ordinance.
NOW, TIiEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the categories of review processes, base fees and Planning
Office average time requirements for the processing of land use
applications are established as follows:
Category
I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD
1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Final Plat
II. Subdivision/PUD
1. Conceptual Submission
2. Preliminary Plat
3. I." final. Plat
Planning Office
Hours Base Fee
20 $2,730.00
12 $1,640.00
6 $ 820.00
14 $1,900.00
9 $1,220.00
6 $ 820.00
- 2 --
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
1oa -e C. F. enrcKn n. n. a 1. c.i.
III. Exception/Exemption/Rezoning 11 $1,490.00
IV. Special Review 5 $ 680.00
Section 2
That the Planning Office staff be required to keep an accurate
record of the actual time required for the processing of each land
use application and that ADDITIONAL BILLINGS will occur commensurate
with the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing
of an application takes more time than is covered by the BASE FEE.
In the event the processing of an application takes less time than
provided for in Section 1, the Planning Office shall refund the
unused portion of the Base Fee.
Section 3
That the following guidelines for the administration of the fee
structure hereinabove are established:
(1) Fees charged for the processing of applications which fall
into more than one category will be cumulative, while the fees
charged for the processing of applications within the same category
will not be cumulative; and
(2) ADDITIONAL BILLINGS will be based solely on processing
time spent by members of the Planning Office in the processing of an
application; and
(3)
ADDITIONAL
BILLINGS •:ill be
computed
at the
rate of
$85.00
per
hour of additional
Planning
Office
staff time
required; and
(4) The Planning Office shall establish appropriate guidelines
for the collection of ADDITIONAL BILLINGS as required; and
(5) This fee structure shall be reviewed annually in December
of each year and adjusted appropriately, such adjustments to take
effect on January 1.
This ordinance and the re-established fees set forth herein -
above shall take effect on January 1, 1984.
- 3 -
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
l G4� •a C. f. ���I f.Kfl N. I�. � I. ll. _..—____.___..__ _ —__.__ .._ _-__—_.... _ __—___. _._ _---_—______
c- ,. ,. +- ; r , r
It is the intent of this Ordinance that the fees and procedures
set, forth herein shall supercede the provisions of Ordinance No. 82
(Series of 1981.) and Ordinance No. 67 (series of 1982). Therefore,
Ordinance No. 82 (Series of 1981) and Ordinance No. 67 (Series of
1982) are hereby repealed to the extent that they are inconsistent
with the provisions of this Ordinance.
0--4-, ti
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 7
A public hearing on the ordinance shell be held on the ,� ''' day
of r . r 1983, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the
City Council. of the City of Aspen on the _Z;). t day of December, 1_983.
Hill Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Finally adopted, passed and approved on this day of December.,
1983.
Bill Stirling, mayor
ATTEST:
Katli.ryn S. i:och, City Clcr
- 4 -
HOLLAND & HART
DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE
55S SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 2900
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE (303) 575-6000
TELECOPIER (3031 575-8261
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476
BILLINGS. MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 1400
175 NORTH 27TH STREET March 1 1984
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (406) 2S2-2166
TELECOPIER (406) 252-1669
ARTHUR C. DAILY
(303) 925-3476
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Proposed Land Trade
Dear Paul:
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE(202) 466-7340
TELECOPIER (202) 466-7354
LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE
HOLLAND 6 HART 6 KITE
618 GRAND AVENUE
LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070
TELEPHONE (307) 742-8203
TELECOPIER (307) 792-7618
The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project's P.U.D. Plan includes in
proposed development area eight (8) Capitol Hill Addition Lots
which are presently owned by the City of Aspen (the "City Lots"),
it being mutually understood between the Applicant and the City
that the Applicant must submit a proposal for the acquisition of
the City Lots, which is deemed acceptable to the City, before the
P.U.D. Plan as currently structured can receive final approval.
For the past several years there has been informal discussion of a
possible land trade involving a conveyance to the City of a portion
of the "Koch Lumber" property, situated at the corner of Cooper
Avenue and Garmisch Street, in exchange for the City Lots. The
Applicant believes that a trade along these lines can be developed
which will be both fair and beneficial to both parties, and desires
to submit the following proposal for the City's consideration.
The pertinent facts concerning these two (2) properties are
set forth below.
1. City Lots
(a) Lots 7 and 8 were acquired by the City by Trea-
surer's Deed on March 1, 1948 for the sum of $14.18. They are
zoned "Conservation", and to the best of our knowledge they have
not been put to any use by the City, whether public or otherwise.
(b) Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 were acquired by the City by
Quitclaim Deed on January 10, 1941 for an apparently nominal con-
sideration. Lot 9 is zoned Conservation, while Lots 10, 11 and 12
HOLLAND & HART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 2
are divided by the zoning district line so as to be zoned partially
Conservation and partially "Public". Here again, we are not aware
of any use of these Lots by the City.
(c) Lots 14 and 15 were acquired by the City by Trea-
surer's Deeds on March 1, 1948 for the sums of $21.39 and $16.39,
respectively. They lie entirely within the Public zoning district,
and have been leased to the Aspen Ski Club for a period of fifty
(50) years commencing August 10, 1981 at a rental of Ten Dollars
($10.00) per year. The Ski Club has constructed a building on the
property which it uses as a skier training center and for office,
storage and other related purposes.
(d) A Survey Engineers survey map of the area
establishes the following square footages for the City Lots:
Lot
7
1,211
sq.
ft.
Lot
8
1,856
sq.
ft.
Lot
9
3,142
sq.
ft.
Lot
10
1,913
sq.
ft.
Lot
11
1,887
sq.
ft.
Lot
12
2,121
sq.
ft.
Subtotal:
Lot 14
Lot 15
Subtotal:
Total City Lots:
2. Koch Lumber Property
12,130 sq. ft.
5,093
sq.
ft.
3,637
sq.
ft.
8,730
sq.
ft.
20,860
sq.
ft.
This property was acquired by Hans Cantrup on April 23,
1979, for the sum of $300,000.00, and is presently zoned R-15. It
is comprised of all of Block 62 (Lots A -I only) of the City an-:
Townsite of Aspen, all of Block 1 (Lot 10 and partial Lots 11-16
only) of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, the
platted alley in said Block 1, Eames Addition, a small unplatted
triangular parcel, and the entire portion of the Colorado Midland
Railroad right-of-way which adjoins said Block 1, Eames Addition on
the Southwest. The Koch Lumber property is currently unimproved,
and contains a total of 62,015 square feet of land.
HOLLAND &DART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 3
Proposed Exchange
It is not an easy matter to assess the respective fair market
values of these properties. All of the City Lots lie within highly
restrictive zoning districts, 42 percent of the land is encumbered
by a long-term lease which has no capitalized value to the City,
and the City does not appear to have any legal access to the
remaining 58 percent of its land (ie. to the other six (6) City
Lots). The Koch Lumber property is not yet subdivided for develop-
ment purposes, and its questionable R-15 zoning classification is
the subject of litigation filed by Hans Cantrup in Civil Action No.
82CV44. Under these circumstances, the Applicant believes that
comparable square footage may well be closely comparable in value.
Accordin -the Applicant hereby proposes to convey to the
City roughl 21,084 square feet of the Koch Lumber property, com-
prised of th re Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way located
thereon and part' Ruse
13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1, in
exchange for t 20square feet contained in the City Lots. I
am enclosing f a survey map of the Koch Lumber property
which delineates the parcel which the Applicant proposes to deliver
to the City, and the parcel which will be retained by the Appli-
cant. In addition, the Applicant hereby agrees to the following
conditions to the consummation of the land trade:
(1) The negotiation and signing between the Aspen Ski Club
and the Applicant of a mutually satisfactory understznding-whereby
the Applicant agrees to construct for the Ski
Qn___a-n _z i te
selecte e�-e#-t�i 1 a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality and functionality to the one now
occupied by it on Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol Hill Addition, at
Applicant's sole cost and expense. In exchange, the Ski Club must
terminate its existin leasehold arrangement on these City Lots.
The exact timing of these commitments will have to be Worked out
with the Ski Club. Clearly, however, the Ski Club will have the
continued use of its present building for at least the 1984-85 win-
ter season.
(2) The dismissal
A_rtion_AQS V44 and all claims
All rights pertaining to 1s su
upon the closing of its purchase
ruptcy Estate.
and allegations
t wil e assigned to Applicant
transaction with the Cantrup Bank-
HOLLAND &HART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 4
We would appreciate your bringing this proposal to the atten-
tion of the appropriate City departments and officials as promptly
as possible. We will be available to discuss the matter further
with them at any time. It should be noted that any understanding
that may be reached between the City and the Applicant
will ntces
t
sarily have to be contingent upon (i) the closing by pp
its acquisition of the Koch Lumber property from the Cantrup Bank-
ruptcy Estate, and (ii) the eventual final approval by the City of
Applicant's P.U.D. Plan.
Thanks for your continuing professional cooperation and assis-
tance in this complex matter.
Very truly yours,
Arthur C. Daily
for HOLLAND & HART
Attorneys for the Applicants
ACD/jlf
cc: Mr. Sunny Vann
Doremus & Company
Mr. John Roberts
Mr. Robert Callaway
Mr. Alan Novak
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 1984)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
TO THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants") have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South
Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations
of the Funicipal Code including, but not limited to: a) a rezoning
to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned
Public and P.-15 (PUD) (L) ; and b) an exemption from the City's growth
management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units located on the
Aspen mountain PUD site; and
WHEREAS, in light of the unfavorable recomr::en6ations of the
Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those
portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15
(PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified,
pursuant to Section 24-11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen
Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City's
growth management allotment procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section
24-1.1 .4 (g) of the Punicipal Code, a development allotment of twelve
(12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 (Series
of 1984) ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of 1,7ill, Summit
L
Resolution No. 84-��
Page 2
Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain
PUD at regular meetings held on May 14th, flay 29th, June llth, June
2.5th, and July 9, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of f'_ill and 700
South Galena condominium components of the Aspen fountain PUD in
response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office, the
Plannina and Zoning Commission and City Council, including a significant
reduction in the overall height of both projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby grant conceptual PUD/subdivi-
sion approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8.7 of the f'unicipal
Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
The Applicants' entering into an agreement for the acquisition
of that portion of the Top of (till site currently owned
by the City, the terms of said agreement to include the
City's acquisition of the entire Koch Lumber property and
5
the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civil
p)
Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth
-ram.
therein.
2.
The negotiation of a mutually satisfactory agreement between
the Applicants and the Aspen Ski Club whereby the Applicants
agree to construct, at their sole expense on any site selected
and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality and functionality than
the building which the Club currently occupies. In exchange,
the Ski Club will terminate its existing leasehold agreement
with the City with respect to Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol
Hill Addition.
The Applicants' mitigation, to tree extent appropriate,
/ 4va,z& ticJ,(,f of any geological problems associated with the development
* &a-k ,au of the Top of Mill site which are identified as a result
�� of the Colorado Geological Survey's forthcoming evaluation
of geological hazards in the immediate site area, the details
of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD/subdivision submission.
h�5� 4. The Applicants' resolution of the Engineering Department's
4p6C,, concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal
areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes.
5. The vacation of Till Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all circulation and utility rights, the provision
of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised
in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as
to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere
with each utility's current or future needs.
6. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention ponds.
L
Resolution No. 84- O 3
Page 3
7. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor
elevation to the midpoint of the roof.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation
of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact
of the project as viewed from Mill Street, Lift 1-A and
the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' granting of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to the allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro-
priate by the City.
10. The Applicants' provision of 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.
11. The Applicants'
granting of
an acceptable
trail easement
across the Top
of Mill site
and the construction
of an
eight (8) foot
trail at such
time as the
City provides
appropriate connections to the
overall trail
system.
12. The Applicants'
provision of
ninety (90)
on -site parking
spaces for the residents of the
Top of Mill
project, as
opposed to the
eighty (80) spaces
prposed
in the original
application.
13. The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and following
construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the
700 South Galena project is expressly conditioned upon
the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation
to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
14. The Applicants' identification of all easements required
in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena
project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent
required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.
15. 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 prevent
and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the
form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for
a longer period of time than is reasonably necessary.
16. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being
reduced so as to comply with the twenty-eight (28) foot
height limitation of the underlying zone district.
17. The Applicants' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity
of the 700 South Galena project, to the extent feasible,
so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
immediate site area.
18. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.
a
Resolution No. 84- of
Page 4
19. The reconstruction of existing residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
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 Mountain PUD site.
20. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications, as revised,
not specifically amended or referred to above being made
a condition of this approval.
21. The expiration of Council's conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval, pursuant to Section 24-8.8 of the Municipal Code,
in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application
is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
24-8.11 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution.
DATED:
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify
that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution
adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a
meeting held , 1984.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Employee
Housing Proposal
DATE: July 23, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the Planning Office's
draft resolution granting conceptual PUD/subdivision approval to
the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components
of the Aspen Mountain PUD and to initiate discussion of the Applicants'
employee housing proposal. The Planning Office's comments and P&Z's
recommendations with respect to employee housing for the PUD can
be found in our June 25, 1984 memorandum to Council and in P&Z Resolution
No. 6, Series of 1984. Please bring these materials to your Monday,
July 23rd meeting.
The Applicants and the Planning Office are prepared to discuss the
revised employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD following
your review of the attached draft Resolution. Should you have any
questions, or if I can be of any assistance prior to your Monday
meeting, please feel free to contact me at the PlanniAng Office.
r
t
c�
I N D E-_.X
1. Referral Comments.
2. Joe Wells' February 16, 1984 Letter Requesting Tabling of the
Top of Mill Conceptual PUD/Rezoning.
3. Planning Office February 21, 1984 Memo to P&Z Tabling Top of
Mill to March 20, 1984.
4. Art Daley's March 1, 1984 Letter Re: Top of Mill/Koch Lumber
Land Trade.
5. Paul Taddune's March 9, 1984 Memo to City Council Re- Proposed
Koch Lumber Land Trade.
6. Al Bloomquist's March 12, 1984 memo Re: Proposed Land Trade.
7. Planning Office March 20, 1984 Memo to P&Z Re: Top of Mill/Summit
Place Conceptual PUD and Related Reviews.
8. Public Notice/Certificate of Mailing Re: Top of Mill Rezoning.
9. Planning Office March 27, 1984 memo to P&Z.
10. Art Daley's April 6, 1984 letter withdrawing R-15(PUD)(L) rezoning
request.
11. Planning Office's April 10, 1984 memo to P&Z.
12. Planning Office's April 10, 1984 FAR analysis of Aspen Mountain
PUD.
13. Planning Office's April 10, 1984 buildout analysis/Top of Mill.
14. Planning Office's April 17, 1984 draft resolution.
15. Planning Office's April 24, 1984 memo to P&Z and revised draft
resolution.
16. J.D. Muller's April 24, 1984 letter to P&Z Re: 700 S. Galena
conceptual PUD/subdivision review.
17. Jay Hammond's April 27, 1984 memo to Planning Office Re: 700
S. Galena Conceptupal PUD/Subdivision review.
18. Cantrup 700 S. Galena Subdivision Agreement.
19. Planning Office's May 8, 1984 memo to P&Z Re: Top of Mill, Summit
Place and 700 South Galena conceptual PUD/subdivision review
and revised draft resolution.
20. P&Z'w May 8, 1984 adopted resolution.
21. Planning Office's May 14, 1984 memo to Council Re: Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena conceptual PUD/subdivision
review.
22. Aspen Ski Club's May 17, 1984 letter to Bill Stirling Re: Ski
Club Facilities.
23. Jerry Blann's May 18, 1984 letter to Bill Stirling Re: Top of
Mill.
24. Art Daley's June 8, 1984 letter to Council Re: Street Vacations.
25. Planning Office's June 11, 1984 memo to Council Re: Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena conceptual PUD/subdivision
review.
vZ�
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Employee
Housing Proposal
DATE: July 23, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM : Z��41 --z
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the Planning Office's
draft resolution granting conceptual PUD/subdivision approval to
the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components
of the Aspen Mountain PUD and to initiate discussion of the Applicants'
employee housing proposal. The Planning Office's comments and P&Z's
recommendations with respect to employee housing for the PUD can
be found in our June 25, 1984 memorandum to Council and in P&Z Resolution
No. 6, Series of 1984. Please bring these materials to your Monday,
July 23rd meeting.
The Applicants and the Planning Office are prepared to discuss the
revised employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD following
your review of the attached draft Resolution. Should you have any
questions, or if I can be of any assistance prior to your Monday
meeting, please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office.
RESOLUTION NO. _
(Series of 1984)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
TO THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants") have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South
Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations
of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to: a) a rezoning
to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned
Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and b) an exemption from the City's growth
management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units located on the
Aspen Mountain PUD site; and
WHEREAS, in light of the unfavorable recommendations of the
Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those
portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15
(PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified,
pursuant to Section 24-11.2(a) of the Municipal Code, forty (40)
existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen
Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City's
growth management allotment procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section
24-1.1 .4 (g) of the Municipal Code, a development allotment of twelve
(12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 (Series
of 1984) ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill, Summit
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain
PUD at regular meetings held on May 14th, May 29th, June llth, June
25th, and July 9, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700
South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in
response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, including a significant
reduction in the overall height of both projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby grant conceptual PUD/subdivi-
sion approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8.7 of the Municipal
Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Applicants' entering into an agreement for the acquisition
of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned
by the City, the terms of said agreement to include the
City's acquisition of the entire Koch Lumber property and
the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civil
Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth
therein.
2. The negotiation of a mutually satisfactory agreement between
the Applicants and the Aspen Ski Club whereby the Applicants
agree to construct, at their sole expense on any site selected
and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality and functionality than
the building which the Club currently occupies. In exchange,
the Ski Club will terminate its existing leasehold agreement
with the City with respect to Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol
Hill Addition.
3. The Applicants' mitigation, to the extent appropriate,
of any geological problems associated with the development
of the Top of Mill site which are identified as a result
of the Colorado Geological Survey's forthcoming evaluation
of geological hazards in the immediate site area, the details
of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD/subdivision submission.
4. The Applicants' 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.
5. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all circulation and utility rights, the provision
of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised
in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as
to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere
with each utility's current or future needs.
G. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention ponds.
Resolu':ion No. 84-
Page 3
7. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor
elevation to the midpoint of the roof.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation
of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact
of the project as viewed from Mill Street, Lift 1-A and
the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' granting of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to the allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro-
priate by the City.
10. The Applicants' provision of a ten (10) foot, 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.
1: The Applicants' granting of an acceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site and the construction of an
eight (8) foot trail at such time as the City provides
appropriate connections to the overall trail system.
12. The Applicants' provision of ninety (90) on -site parking
spaces for the residents of the Top of Mill project, as
opposed to the eighty (80) spaces prposed in the original
application.
13. The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and following
construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the
700 South Galena project is expressly conditioned upon
the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation
to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
14. The Applicants' identification of, all easements required
in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena
project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent
required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.
15. 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 prevent
and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the
form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for
a longer period of time than is reasonably necessary.
16. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being
reduced so as to comply with the twenty-eight (28) foot
height limitation of the underlying zone district.
17. The Applicants' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity
of the 700 South Galena project, to the extent feasible,
so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
immediate site area.
18. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.
Resolution No. 84-
Page 4
19. The reconstruction of existing residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
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 Mountain PUD site.
20. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/Subdivision and residential GMP applications, as revised,
not specifically amended or referred to above being made
a condition of this approval.
21. The expiration of Council's conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval, pursuant to Section 24-8.8 of the Municipal Code,
in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application
is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
2.4-8.11 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution.
DATED:
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify
that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution
adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a
meeting held , 1984.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Employee
Housing Proposal
DATE: July 9, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORD! :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to conclude your discussion of
the various conceptual PUD concerns associated with the Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD and to initiate discussion of the Applicants' employee
housing proposal. The Planning Office's comments and P&Z's recommenda-
tions with respect to these topics can be f ound in our May 14 th,
June llth and June 5th memoranda to Council and in P&Z Resolutions
Nos. 5 and 6, Series of 1984. Please bring these materials to your
Monday, July 9th meeting.
To refresh your memory, there are three remaining issues with respect
to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena projects which
Council must resolve: 1) the question of compensation for street
vacations, 2) the proposed rezoning of the City -owned parcels at
the Top of Mill to L-2; and 3) the Koch Lumber land trade. To the
best of my knowledge, all other issues with respect to the residential
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD have been addressed by Council
at prior meetings. However, should Council raise any additional
issues, we will address them at this time.
The Applicants and the Planning Office are prepared to discuss the
revised employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD following
your resolution of the above issues. For a detailed discussion of
the Applicants' employee housing proposal, please refer to the Planning
Office's June 25, 1984 memorandum. Should you have any questions,
or if I can be of any assistance prior to your Monday meeting, as
always, please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Employee
Housing
DATE: June 25, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to continue your discussion of
the various conceptual PUD issues associated with the Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD. The Planning Office's comments and P&Z's recommendations
with respect to these issues can be found in our May 14, 1984 memorandum
to Council and the P&Z's resolution. Please bring these materials
as well as the Planning Office's June 11, 1984 memorandum and discussion
outline to Monday's meeting.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Planning and Zoning Commission has completed its review of the
Applicants' employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD.
The Applicants' original proposal has been revised to reflect the
reduction in the size of the proposed hotel and the abandonment of
the proposed Ute Avenue employee housing complex. The Commission's
recommendations and actions with respect to the Applicants' revised
employee housing proposal are contained in their attached resolution.
A more detailed discussion of the Applicants' revised employee housing
proposal is provided below.
The attached letters from Jim Curtis, dated April 23rd and April
30, 1984, outline the Applicants' revised employee housing generation
figures and employee housing proposal. Both the generation figures
and the employee housing proposal have been reviewed and endorsed
by the Housing Authority and Planning and Zoning Commission. It
should be pointed out, however, that further revisions to the generation
figures and revised proposal may be forthcoming as further refinement
of the lodge portion of the PUD continues. It should also be pointed
out that the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal is consistent,
in terms of the percentage of employees housed, with their original
lodge GMP representation. The major change to the Applicants' original
proposal involves the substitution of two (2) additional employee
housing projects for the proposed fifty (50) unit project to be built
on the Benedict/Larkin property on Ute Avenue.
As Jim's attached letters indicate, the revised proposal would house
one hundred and ninety-five (195) employees in four (4) separate
projects. To refresh your memory, the Commission, in its resolution
recommending conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the lodge portion
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, found that the conversion of the forty-
three (43) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed -restricted employee housing
would result in negligible growth impacts on the Community and that
said change -in -use was exempt from complying with the growth management
allotment procedures of the Municipal Code. No further review of
this component of the Applicants' employee housing proposal is required
at this time. A condition of the Commission's approval, however,
was that the Applicants submit additional information with respect
to the mitigation of potential parking problems at the Alpina Haus
as part of their lodge preliminary PUD/subdivision submission.
In addition to the Alpina Haus Lodge, the Applicants also propose
to convert and deed -restrict the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge to employee housing. The change -in -use of an individually
designated historic structure is exempt by definition from the City's
growth management allotment procedures. As a result, no specific
Page 2
review is required by the P&Z or Council to accomplish the proposed
change -in -use. The Commission, however, also identified a concern
with respect to parking problems at the Copper Horse and propose
to further review this issue in conjunction with the Applicants'
lodge preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. The appropriateness
of both the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus for employee housing purposes
is subject to P&Z and Council review in the context of the overall
Aspen Mountain PUD.
Together, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse will house eighty-nine
(89) employees, or approximately forty-five percent (45%) of the
Applicants' employee housing commmitment. The remainder of the employees
(106 employees) were originally proposed to be housed in an approximately
fifty (50) unit project to be constructed on Ute Avenue. With the
withdrawal of this proposal, the Applicants now intend to provide
the remainder of their employee housing commitment at the Airport
Business Center and in a new project to be constructed on East Cooper
Street. As outlined in the attached materials, the Ute City Place
project on East Cooper Street essentially involves the conversion
of a prior GMP approval to 100% deed -restricted employee housing
while the acquisition of existing rental housing at the Airport Business
Center would result in the deed -restriction of currently unrestricted
units.
From a procedural perspective, the Ute City Place project should
be considered a discreet and separate proposal from the prior GMP
approval. The project involves the construction of twenty-two (22)
new deed -restricted employee housing units exempt from the City's
growth management allotment procedures. As such, it is subject to
the special approval of the Council, based on the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Inasmuch as the prior Ute
City Place GMP approval involved full subdivision review and rezoning
to Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO), the Commission and Council must
find that the proposed revisions to the project are consistent with
the original conditions of subdivision and RBO approval.
No specific review by the Commission or Council is required for the
deed -restriction of the Airport Business Center to employee housing
guidelines. The Commission and Council, however, must find that
the proposed utilization of both the ABC and Ute City Place units
is consistent with the Applicants' relevant lodge GMP application
representations and is appropriate within the context of the overall
Aspen Mountain PUD approval. Further analysis of these two new components
of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal is provided
below.
UTE CITY PLACE
The original Ute City Place application received a GMP allocation
in the 1981 residential competition. The original applicant proposed
to develop twenty-two (22) units on a fifteen hundred (1500) square
foot parcel zoned R-MF. The project location is Lots C, D, E, F
and G, Block 118, City of Aspen (Cooper Avenue between West End and
Cleveland Avenues). Of the twenty-two (22) units proposed by the
Applicants, eight (8) were free-market and fourteen (14) were deed -
restricted employee housing units. The original application also
received full subdivision review and approval and was rezoned to
R-MF (RBO) in order to accommodate the density proposed. The project
was also condominiumized in order to allow sale of the individual
units.
The Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD propose to purchase the
Ute City Place site, make minor revisions in the original approved
project, and deed -restrict all of the units pursuant to the City's
employee housing guidelines. The revised project would house thirty-
seven (37) employees. Given the fact that the project will no longer
contain free-market units, an amendment to the prior GMP approval
will not be required. Instead, the Planning Office proposes to essen-
tially duplicate the procedural steps employed in the review of the
original Ute City Place project. Obviously, consideration of the
Page 3
Applicants' requests for exemption from growth management for the
construction of the twenty-two (22) units would also be required.
The specific steps will involve conceptual subdivision review by
the P&Z and Council, preliminary subdivision review by the P&Z and
final subdivision review by Council. In addition, a public hearing
will need to be held at the preliminary subdivision step in order
to consider the Applicants' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus
Overlay. Council would also take action on this request at the final
subdivision step. Should the Applicants be successful in the review
of the revised Ute City Place project, then a condition of final
subdivision approval would be the revocation of the prior GMP allocation.
Council's responsibility with respect to the Ute City Place proposal
is to consider the appropriateness of this component of the Applicants'
employee housing solution and of conceptual subdivision approval
as recommended by the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission.
Although the public hearing with respect to the RBO rezoning will
not occur until the preliminary subdivision step, P&Z considered
the appropriateness of the rezoning in its conceptual subdivision
review.
Based on the material submitted to date, the revised Ute City Place
proposal appears to be identical in most respects to the original
project which received preliminary subdivision approval by the P&Z
and final approval by the Council. The architecture is identical
to the prior proposal with the exception that the size of the free
market units has been reduced consistent with the City's employee
housing guidelines. As a result the overall FAR of the project and
the building footprint have been reduced substantially.
With respect to the revised project's eligibility for RBO rezoning,
the changes which the Applicants' have proposed make the project
even more consistent with the applicable criteria. Essentially,
the only reason RBO rezoning is required is to allow the level of
density proposed. Additional information with respect to the density
allowed under existing zoning as compared to the density proposed
will be available at your Monday meeting. The Planning Office supports
the utilization of the Ute City Place project as part of the Applicants'
employee housing solution subject to the conditions contained in
the attached P&Z resolution.
AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER APARTMENTS
No specific review by the Commission or Council are required for
the deed- restriction of the Airport Business Center units to employee
housing guidelines. The Planning and Zoning Commission, however,
endorsed the inclusion of the ABC units in the Applicants' employee
housing solution. The remainder of the Applicants' employee housing
commitment, approximately sixty-nine (69) employees would be met
by this proposal.
While the Commission debated the appropriateness of using the ABC
units extensively, both the Commission and the Housing Authority
endorsed this proposal based primarily on the fact that the inclusion
of these units in the Applicants' employee housing solution will
result in the deed -restriction of thirty-two (32) existing free-market
units. While these units currently serve an employee housing function,
there is no mechanism which insures their continued availability
for employee housing purposes. In fact, the owners of the Airport
Business Center units are currently discussing the appropriateness
of an application for condomini.umization with the Housing Authority.
Given the fact that utilization of these units as part of the Applicants'
employee housing solution would result in the deed -restriction of
previously unrestricted units, and that applicants are allowed to
meet their employee housing commitments throughout the metro area,
the Planning Office supports this proposal. The principal issue
which the Commission debated involved the transportation implications
associated with the housing of hotel employees at the Airport Business
Page 4
Center. Jim Curtis' April 19, 1984 letter, which is attached for
your review, addressed this concern to the Commission's satisfaction.
As the attached resolution indicates, the Commission's endorsement
of the ABC units is expressly conditioned upon the mitigation of
potential transportation related problems.
SUMMARY
Should you concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommenda-
tions, we would propose to include your actions with respect to the
Applicants' revised employee housing proposal in your resolution
granting conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD. The Planning Office is prepared to discuss the Applicants'
employee housing proposal in detail following your discussion of
the PUD's free-market residential components. Should you have any
questions, however, please feel free to contact me at the Planning
Office.
MEMORANDUM!
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: June 11, 1984
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to continue your discussion of
the various conceptual PUD concerns associated with the Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD. Hopefully, we can gain sufficient concensus with respect
to the various issues so as to allow the Planning Office to proceed
with the preparation of a draft resolution.
To facilitate your discussion, I have provided below a brief outline
of the major issues associated with the Applicants' proposal. The
Planning Office's comments and P&Z's recommendations with respect
to these issues can be found in our May 14, 1984 memorandum to Council
and the P&Z's resolution. In keepinq with Chic Collins' comments
from last week, I have not attached these do,.:-nents. Therefore,
you should bring your May 14th Council packet to .�nday's meeting.
Should you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance prior
to your Monday, June llth meeting, please feel free to contact me
at the Planning Office.
DISCUSSION OUTLINE
I. KOCH LUMBER LAND TRADE
II. CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION REVIEW
A. Site Design
i
B. Height
7'
C. Parking A-
f� LyrtfG>
itGa u : �:: /'�l/�j ��' 1/ J
D. Summit Street Extension /si7"w
E. Mill Street Vacation
F. Ski Club Activities
G. Trails l 71c.�r•�� 7/%
III. REZONING .�.1.,l�.«
A. Public to L-2 % (J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: June 11, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to continue your discussion of
the various conceptual PUD concerns associated with the Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen
Mountain PUD. Hopefully, we can gain sufficient concensus with respect
to the various issues so as to allow the Planning Office to proceed
with the preparation of a draft resolution.
To facilitate your discussion, I have provided below a brief outline
of the major issues associated with the Applicants' proposal. The
Planning Office's comments and P&Z's recommendations with respect
to these issues can be found in our May 14, 1984 memorandum to Council
and the P&Z's resolution. In keeping with Chic Collins' comments
from last week, I have not attached these documents. Therefore,
you should brinq your May 14th Council packet to Monday's meeting.
Should you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance prior
to your Monday, June llth meeting, please feel free to contact me
at the Planning Office.
DISCUSSION OUTLINE
I. KOCH LUMBER LAND TRADE
II. CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION REVIEW
A. Site Design
B. Height
C. Parking
D. Summit Street Extension
E. Mill Street Vacation
F. Ski Club Activities
G. Trails
III. REZONING
A. Public to L-2
DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 2900
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE (303) 295-8000
TELECOPIER (303) 295-8261
MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 1400
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166
TELECOPIER (406) 252-1669
ARTHUR C. DAILY
Aspen City Council
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
HOLLAND & HAFT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81811
TELEPHONE (303) 925.3476
June 8, 1984
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
SUITE 1200
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
T E LEPHONE[202) 466.7340
TELECOPIER (202)466-7354
WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 500
2020 CAREY AVENUE
CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001
TELEPHONE 1307) 632-2160
TELECOPIER (3071 778-8175
S. E.DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 1250
7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 50111
TELEPHONE (303) 741-1228
Re: Street Vacations - Aspen Mountain Lodge
Dear Mayor Stirling and City Council Members:
The suggestion has been made from time to time that the appli-
cants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge project "compensate" the City
for the rights -of -way being vacated within the hotel site area.
This Council resolved the issue in a fair and realistic manner in
Condition No. 6 of its Resolution No. 84-11 (lodge conceptual
approval), which requires that the applicants clarify in writing
the "nature and extent of the improvements to be undertaken by the
applicants in support of their request for the vacation of various
public rights -of -way and the granting of encroachment licenses ne-
cessitated by the Aspen Mountain PUD." This letter will carefully
identify those proposed improvements.
However, the idea that "additional compensation" is appropri-
ate for the street vacations was raised again recently, and the
applicants wish to take this opportunity to lay to rest certain
misapprehensions that appear to exist concerning the essential ele-
ments of the proposed street vacations.
A. What legal right or "interest" does the City actuall
have in a public street?
The governing Colorado statute is 1973 C.R.S. §31-23-107,
which provides that "all streets... described as for public use on
the map or plat of any city or town or any addition made to such
city or town are public property and the fee title thereto vested
in such city or town." This statute has been carefully examined by
HOLLAND & MART
June 8, 1984
Page 2
the courts, which have concluded that the "fee" held by the City is
a limited one, extending only to the surface of the street and so
much of the subsurface as is reasonably necessary for street and
highway purposes. Buell v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 321 F.2d 468
(loth Cir., 1963), and in the trial court at 205 F.Supp. 865 (D.C.
Colo., 1962). The same District Court goes on to say that the City
merely holds such limited fee "in trust for the general public and
also for the use of the abutting lot owners." An earlier Colorado
case had already held that the legislature intended to vest in the
City only "such estate or interest as is reasonably necessary to
enable it to utilize the surface and so much of the ground under-
neath it as might be required for laying gas pipes, building
sewers, and other municipal purposes", and that the City in that
case had no right whatsoever to object,to the mining and taking of
ores beneath the street by an adjoining landowner. City of
Leadville v. Bohn Mining Co., 37 Colo. 248 (1906). The Colorado
Supreme Court made a pertinent observation in this case, stating
that the statute's purpose is merely to clothe the municipality
with title to the surface of the streets for public use, and not
for the "profit or emolument of the City." The Bohn trial court
explained the rest of the theory, stating that the abutting land-
owner "owns the remaining interest in the street", which can only
mean the areas above and beneath the surface which are not rea-
sonably required for public purposes.
While the applicants apologize for this tedious tour through
the applicable Colorado law on the matter, it is probably the best
way to make the point that in vacating a public street the City is
giving up only a limited legal interest in that street, and any
related question of "compensation" must take this fact into consid-
eration. It should also be kept in mind that the City cannot
simply sell a no longer necessary platted right-of-way to the high-
est bidder; it can only vacate the street,'�with the title thereto
passing automatically by operation of law to the adjoining land-
owners. In fact, no sale is involved, no deed of conveyance
required. Once the city determines that a street is no longer
needed for public purposes, its public trust responsibilities have
been fulfilled and its "limited interest" therein may properly be
vacated back to the owners of the lands adjoining the area.
B. What authority does the City have to demand
compensation for a street vacation?
1. The City's power to vacate public rights -of -way
derives from 1973 C.R.S. §43-2-303. This statute simply allows a
HOLLAND & HART
June 8, 1984
Page 3
City to relinquish its rights to streets or alleys within the City,
and contains no provision whatsoever for the extraction of compen-
sation from the owners of adjacent lands.
2. Similarly, the Aspen Municipal Code contains no
authority for conditioning a street vacation on reimbursement of
the City for the "value" of the rights being relinquished. In
fact, to the extent that there is any inherent "value" in a vacated
right-of-way, Code Section 24-2.5 severely limits such value by
forever excluding from density or open space calculations the land
areas in a development tract acquired by vacation.
3. To the best of our knowledge, throughout the entire
history of street and alley vacations within the City of Aspen
neither a petitioner nor an adjoining landowner has ever been
required to reimburse the City for the area over which the City
relinquished its rights. It would seem totally arbitrary and
unfair to impose such a condition in this one instance. Nor are we
aware of any instance in which the City has required a developer
seeking a right-of-way vacation (or any developer, for that matter)
to accomplish and pay for public improvements which are not
directly necessitated by the developer's own project. For example,
in 1982 the City Council determined it to be inappropriate to
impose on the Hotel Jerome any responsibility for improving the
grade problem on adjacent Bleeker Street.
In sum, the applicants believe that the suggestion of "addi-
tional compensation" is without legal authority, is unsupported by
past or present City policy, and is otherwise unjustified and
discriminatory.
C. What exactly is the public giving up as a result of the
applicants' proposed street vacations?
1. Dean Street. Most of the proposed street area to be
vacated lies within this right-of-way, and its vacation would
appear to result in a net benefit to the public. With the excep-
tion only of parking, all existing "public uses" of this right-of-
way will be forever preserved, including vehicular and pedestrian
access and circulation, and all necessary subsurface utility
rights. The applicants, on the other hand, are committing not only
to the reconstruction of the pavement, sidewalks, curbs, gutters
and landscaping throughout the entire area being vacated, but will
also be forever responsible for the maintenance, repair, snow
removal, general cleaning, and regulation and enforcement for the
HOLLAND & HART
June 8, 1984
Page 4
entire area. Is there any "value" being relinquished by the public
here which is not more than adequately compensated by the extensive
financial responsibilities being assumed by the applicants?
2. Lawn Street. This is a short, dead-end street which was
theoretically necessary when it lay between Blocks 2 and 3 of the
Connor's Addition as originally platted, but which for years has
served largely as private access and parking for the adjoining
Cantrup properties. The street is of virtually no benefit to the
public, and it is thus difficult to assess any value to what the
public is relinquishing by vacating it. The similarly platted
alley to the South of Lawn Street was vacated some time ago by the
City as no longer needed for public purposes, and we assume that no
consideration was required at that time.
3. Southerly Tip of Mill Street. Only a very small piece of
this right-of-way is proposed for vacation, constituting the
street's "dead-end" against Aspen Mountain. It is our understand-
ing that this tip has never been improved in any way, and that it
therefore has never actually been utilized for public purposes.
The public would seem to be relinquishing no value whatsoever by
vacating it.
The applicants feel they have established that if there are in
fact any real "values" in the proposed street vacations, the bal-
ancing of such values already more heavily favors the public than
the applicants. Assuming for the moment, however, that there is
some residual benefit to the applicants to which a value can be
attached, let's examine the specific improvements which the appli-
cants are committing to make in the general area of the project
which will benefit the public in general.
D. Identification of "nature and
be undertaken by the applicants in support of their request for
vacation of various public rights -of -way ".
extent of improvements to
�4
1. As a result of the approval process, and in order to
meet Council concerns, the applicants have modified their site plan
to provide an additional 13,500 square feet of open space on CL
zoned land. This open space will feature a winter ice rink which
will be available to the public.
2. At the request of the City Engineer, the applicants
are dedicating to the City portions of their land adjoining Galena,
Mill and Monarch Streets, in strips up to 10 feet in width and
HOLLAND & HART
June 8, 1984
Page 5
comprising a total of 5,300 square feet, for purposes of widening
and straightening out those public rights -of -way.
3. All overhead utilities will be located below ground
within the project area. We quote the City Engineer's memo to the
Planning Director of 11/15/83: "The City Engineering Department
would view the site design as excellent in terms of undergrounding
of utiltities...".
4. The project proposes major improvements to the
City's water system. We quote from the above referenced City
Engineer's memo: "These improvements
water service in the area beyond the
result in an improvement of
neeas o
e pro
ect itse
The Galena main and the interconnect both serve to increase flows
and reliability in the area."
5. The site plan proposes a pedestrian/ski link between
Dean Street near Little Nell, the mountain to the south, and
Gilbert to the west. We again quote the City Engineer:
"Pedestrian circulation through the site both summer and winter is
greatly enhanced."
6. A complex and sophisticated area -wide drainage plan
has been designed for the project by Rea Cassens and Associates.
We quote once more from the City Engineer's memo: "The storm
drainage system for the project, as outlined in the Rea Cassens
report, is excellent in its adherence to the concepts outlined in
the City's own storm run-off management plan. This concept is
beneficial to the area as a whole."
7. The plan proposes major street improvements.
Quoting the City Engineer: "The site plan ;indicates minimal
conflicts with existing streets by new curb cuts and, in fact,
represents a reduction in overall conflicts by creating access to
parking at only two locations. The application also offers
substantial construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, crosswalks,
and pedestrian amenities as well as repairing of several sections
of the area streets. The plan represents a genuine enhancement of
the public streets and rights -of -way adjacent to the project."
8. The applicants offer up to $25,000 toward a develop-
ment plan for the Rubey Park and Transit Stop. We quote Jay
Hammond, City Engineer, a final time: "The Applicant's offer of
$25,000 toward development of a conceptual plan for Rubey Park
might also provide a real incentive for the Citv to resurrect its
plans for that area."
HOLLAND & HART
June 8, 1984
Page 6
On the basis of the foregoing, the applicants respectfully
submit that the cost or value of these area -wide street and other
improvements far exceed any value which may legitimately be given
to the rights -of -way being vacated, and request that the Council
approve the vacations without further compensation being required
therefor.
Very truly yours,
Art #UrC. D ly
for HOLLAND & HART
Attorneys for the Applicants
ACD/pal
Enclosures
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
Mr. Jay Hammond, City Engineer
Mr. Sunny Vann, Planning Director
Ella Neyland, Senior Vice -President
Mr. Robert Callaway
Messrs. John Doremus and Joe Wells
1 .:
I
a'
r
, s
T"
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE • AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925-1220
May 18, 1984
Mr. Bill Stirling, Mayor
City of Aspen
506 E. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge/ Top 11 Proposal
Dear Bill:
John Doremus has asked me to write a letter outlining
our agreements with the developer regarding the Top of
Mill Street Proposal.
The Aspen Skiing Company has had numerous discussions with
the developers to ascertain what impact, if any, the proposal
would have on skiing. The discussions have led to a formal
agreement which is acceptable to us and is awaiting
signatures by the principals in San Antonio. In essence,
it is our opinion that assuming the agreements are executed
as drafted, that the proposal will not compromise the skiing
on Aspen Mountain. Further, our agreements do not contemplate
a Downhill Finish in the Top of Mill area.
If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate
to call.
Sincerely,
�3�ra nn
Executive Vice President
Operations
JB/js
ASPEN MOUNTAIN 0 BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN 0 SNOWMASS 0 BRECKENRIDGE
l
Aspen Ski Clun, Inc.
P.O. Box 49
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925-3125
1983-84
Board of Directors May 1 7, 1984
John Keleher
President
Jerry Blann
1st Vice President
Dick Meeker
2nd Vice President
Don Helmich
Treasurer
Phyllis Yaw
Secretary
Kit Dayton
Carolyn Hayes
Jim Horn
Connie Madsen
Romeo Pelletier
Don Rayburn
Jeff Yusem
Honorary and
Lifetime Members
Ray Brown
John Denver
John Hayes
Ed Lyons
Tom Moore
Dick Parker
Tage Pedersen
Charles Racine
Ted Ryan
Don Stapleton
Ruth Whyte
Director and
Head Coach
Tim Petrick
Mr. Bill Stirling, Mayor
City of Aspen
130 Galena 'Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bi 1 1 :
I
MAY 1 1984 i
\ ASPEN / PITKiN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
Paul Taddune mentioned to me this morning that
the time has come for the Aspen Ski Club, Inc.
to let it's voice be heard concerning the
proposals by the Aspen Mountain Lodge developers
in regard to the land on which the ski club
building is located. I first met with Alan
Novak and his staff at the very beginning of the
planning process and have been kept abreast of
their progress from time to time. I also know
that you and the city council as well as the
planning staff and P & Z were aware that
resolving the location of the ski club would at
some time be a necessary part in completing the
entire puzzle. Because all parties involved
agreed in general that the ski club would be
taken care of, I have not attempted to intrude
upon the deliberations that have been so
critical in bringing this matter to a successful
conclusion until asked to do so.
It has always been our intent to cooperate with
the city and the developer in this endeavor. I
have personally- been in favor of a. quality hotel
such as is currently proposed and would not want
the ski club to be a hindrance to the
realization of such a facility.
It would not be detrimental to the operation of
the ski club if we were not located at our
present site. Because of the excellent
relationship we enjoy with the Aspen Skiing
Company, it is no longer necessary for us to
operate the rope tow which serves the lower part
of slalom hill which once was used for after
school training. Neither is the Willoughby Jump
a necessary part of our program. To the best of
my knowledge, that jump has only been used at
Winterskol or some such activity and never by
the ski club.
Bill Stirling, Mayor
page 2
May 17, 1984
I have discussed the relocation of the ski club
with various people, including yourself; the
developers; Jerry B1ann, who is on our board in
addition to being with the ski company; Spence
Videon, with the Aspen Resort association; and
Ramona Markaluna_, past president of the Aspen
Historical Society. Our choice of location for
the ski club is at the bottom of Lift One, at
the same spot that currently houses the computer
fac i 1 i ty for ARA. The gist of my converst i on
with interested parties has been that a new
facility be built which would provide the ski
club with new office and storage facilities, ARA
with new office space in addition to maintaining
the location of it's computer, and a small ski
museum to house the trophies which we have as
well as some of the memorabilia the Historical
Society has. The latter use ties in nicely with
the historical location of Lift One and the old
boat tow. One final consideration has to do
with the inclusion of employee housing for use
by the coaches of the ski club. It would be of
great service to the ski club, and I be 1 i eve of
some benefit to the developer, in satisfying
some � �f the requirements to provide employee
housing.
I envision this project as a
the skills and cooperation of
non-profit groups and private
believe it could be something
all be proud. I am available
at your convenience.
Yours very truly,
John G. Keleher
President
cc: Harold Schilling_
Paul Taddune
.—Sunny Vann
Spence Videon
Jahn Doremus
unique blending of
the city,
developer and
of which we can
to meet with you
CV,/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: May 14, 1984
To refresh your memory, the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of four distinct
development proposals: 1) an approximately 447 unit resort hotel;
2) the thirty-three (33) unit Top of Mill residential condominium
complex; 3) the twelve (12) unit 700 South Galena residential condominium
complex; and 4) a one (1) unit residential addition to the existing
Summit Place duplex. All of these development proposals are contained
within the Applicants' 11.7 acre PUD site. The Applicants' residential
submission is attached to facilitate your review of the Top of Mill,
Summit Place and 700 South Galena proposals. It should be noted,
however, that the various proposals have been revised in response
to P&Z and Planning Office concerns and that the original application
is, therefore, not necessarily up-to-date.
The proposed hotel successfully competed in the City's 1983 Lodge
GHP competition and has received conceptual PUD/subdivision approval
and a multi -year quota allocation from the Council. The Planning
and Zoning Commission has just completed its conceptual PUD/subdivision
review of the residential components of the Aspen !Mountain PUD and
its recommendations are contained in the attached resolution. The
purpose of your May 14th meeting is to initiate conceptual PUD/sub-
division review of the Applicants' residential proposal at the Council
level. The residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD will
also require a rezoning, a GMP exemption for the reconstruction of
existing residential units, and 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane
review. With the exception of the Applicants' request for rezoning,
these additional reviews are the responsibility of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and will be addressed in detail at preliminary
PUD/subdivision review.
The Applicants' employee housing proposal (required as a result of
their lodge and residential GMP allocations) is currently undergoing
review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission should
complete its review by the end of May and its recommendations should
be available prior to Council's completion of its conceptual PUD/sub-
division review of the residential components of the Aspen Mountain
PUD.
The proposed Top of Mill condominium complex consists of thirty-three
(33) single-family/duplex dwellings units and associated accessory
facilities. The units are approximately 3,000 s.f. in size, contain
3 and 4 bedrooms, and are located on approximately 5.5 acres at the
south end of the Aspen Mountain PUD site. Amenities include two
pools, extensive open space, ski access and below grade parking.
The site includes eight (8) City -owned lots in the Capitol Hill Addition
which the Applicants propose to trade for a portion of the Koch Lumber
property which they also own. This proposed trade is obviously subject
to Council approval and is outlined in detail in Art Daley's March
1, 1984 letter, a copy of which is attached for your consideration.
For purposes of their review, the Planning and Zoning Commission
assumed that the Applicants would be able to negotiate a successful
trade. The proposed trade is obviously essential to the Applicants'
project and, therefore, should be addressed by Council concurrently
with its review of the Top of Mill proposal.
The Summit Place Townhouses, originally proposed by Hans Cantrup
as a fourplex and presently under construction at 750 S. Mill Street,
will be completed as a triplex in order to provide a ski and pedestrian
Page 2
trail link west of the building. The third unit, as well as the
thirty-three (33) unit Top of Mill complex, will replace the greater
part of forty (40) existing and previously demolished residential
units located on the Aspen Mountain PUD site. The remaining six
(6) unit residential credit will be utilized to develop the six (6)
residential units currently proposed as part of the resort hotel.
The proposed twelve (12) unit 700 South Galena complex successfully
competed in the 1983 residential GPIP competition and has been awarded
a residential allocation by the Council. The site contains approximately
21,600 s.f. and is located just below the Durant Condominiums on
the east side of Galena Street and immediately adjacent to the proposed
resort hotel. The three story complex will contain one-, two -and
three -bedroom units and an additional level of sub -grade parking.
CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION REVIEW
To be eligible for PUD approval, an applicant must demonstrate the
reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the
design requirements of the PUD regulations, the proposed development's
lack of adverse impacts, and the plan's compliance with the intent
and purpose of the Planned Unit Development regulations. The purpose
and intent of the regulations is to encourage flexibility, innovation
and variety in the development of land so as to create a more desireable
environment than would be possible through strict application of
the zoning code. In our opinion, this application is consistent
with these objectives and with the design requirements of the PUD
regulations.
In order to achieve PUD design objectives, the PUD regulations permit
variations in most of the area and bulk requirements of the zoning
code. No variation, however, is allowed in permitted uses or density.
While a rezoning of the Applicants' land is requested in conjunction
with the Top of Mill complex, the proposed single-family/duplex use
is currently allowed under existing zoning. Inasmuch as the Applicants'
proposal also makes use of City -owned parcels currently zoned Public,
a rezoning of these lands will obviously be required in the event
the proposed land trade is accomplished. The major variations from
the area and bulk requirements which the Top of Mill, Summit Place
and 700 South Galena components of the Aspen Mountain PUD will require
involve the applicable FAR and height requirements of the underlying
zone districts and a reduction in required parking. All of the elements
of the Applicants' proposal, however, can be accomplished within
the flexibility provided for in the PUD regulations.
As the Applicants point out in their application, "Any comparison
between the level of development proposed in the Aspen Mountain PUD
and that permitted under the area and bulk requirements of the Code
is highly interpretive as the Code includes no language regarding
the calculation of maximum development allowed for proposals lying
in more than one zone district nor mixed use projects including both
lodge and residential development." The Planning Office generally
concurs with this statement and believes, as do the Applicants, that
the City's decisions with respect to the Applicants' PUD proposals
should place emphasis primarily on the appropriateness of the proposals,
the acceptability of their impacts, and the extent to which physical
modifications are required and can be made to make the proposals
acceptable.
The Council approved a maximum external FAR for the entire Aspen
Mountain PUD in its resolution granting conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval to the proposed hotel. The Council, however, retained the
right to revise its conditions of conceptual approval following its
review of the residential components of the PUD. As the residential
components are consistent with the approved FAR, this memorandum
focuses primarily on design related concerns and various technical
issues which should be addressed by the Applicants prior to preliminary
PUD/subdivision submission. The Planning Office, however, has completed
a detailed review of the external FAR associated with this PUD and
is prepared to discuss its findings in detail at a subsequent meeting
C
Page 3
should Council wish to reconsider this issue. The P&Z has reviewed
the Planning Office's FAR calculations and has elected to place no
further conditions with respect to FAR on the residential components
of the PUD.
While the Planning Office feels that the Top of Mill, Summit Place
and 700 South Galena proposals are consistent with the spirit and
intent of our PUD regulations, there are a number of issues which
we identified in our memorandum to the P&Z which Council should also
consider. The Planning Office's and Commission's comments with respect
to these issues are outlined below.
Site Design/Visual Impact
In general, the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena sites
are well planned, resulting in reduced visual impact, the retention
of useable open space and existing vegetation, and excellent pedestrian
and vehicular access. The following, however, outlines several site
design/visual impact related issues which have been identified by
the Planning Office and the Commission.
Top of Mill/Summit Place
The Top of Mill site lies at the southern terminus of Mill Street
at the base of Aspen Mountain. The site consists of two distinct
areas, the lower part which lies between the Mountain Queen parking
structure and Mill Street, south of Summit Street, and the upper
part which consists of a natural bowl starting at the present termination
of Mill Street. Because of the natural contours of the site and
the height of existing development, the Applicants believe that most
of the buildings in the Top of Mill complex will not be seen from
the City. The complex's single-family/duplex configuration will
further reduce its visual impact and will provide a logical transition
from the adjacent multi -family uses to the open space areas at the
base of the Mountain.
With respect to visual impact, the Planning Office believes the site
to be well planned and responsive to the high visual vulnerability
of this portion of Aspen Mountain. The use of architectural clusters,
minimal building footprints, and the provision of parking below grade
reduces site coverage and results in significant amounts of usable
open space for the complex's residents. While the Planning Office
believes the Applicants have gone to considerable lengths to address
the issue of visual impact, it is difficult to adequately access
the success of their design given the level of detail submitted to
date. Additional information has been requested as part of the Appli-
cants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission to enable the Planning
Office and P&Z to more accurately gage the visual impact of the project.
All of the thirty-three (33) single-family/duplex units and accessory
structures proposed for the Top of Mill site are subject to 8040
greenline review procedures. With the exception of visual impact
considerations, the 8040 greenline criteria address themselves primarily
to Engineering concerns. The Engineering Department has reviewed
the Applicants' conceptual PUD/subdivision submission and the Applicants
are currently developing additional information in response to the
Engineering Department's comments. The Planning and Zoning Commission
will conduct a formal 8040 greenline review concurrent with their
consideration of the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission.
The additional information requested will allow both the Planning
Office and the Commission to better determine the extent of grading
that will be required to accommodate the Top of Mill complex, the
height of the units above finished grade, and the proposal's overall
visual impact. Specific changes which the Commission has requested
in order to minimize the visual impact of the Top of Pill proposal
include a reduction in the height of the condominium units, revisions
to the site plan so as to enhance the view through the project to
the ski area, the retention of existing mature vegetation, and the
installation of supplemental landscaping.
Paae 4
Both the Planning Office and the Engineering Department have identified
at least two additional issues which warrant further attention by
the Applicants and which should be addressed in greater detail in
their preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. These issues include
the adequacy of access for fire protection purposes and the impact
of the proposed Top of Mill complex on adjacent Ski Club activities
and the Willoughby ski jump. While the Applicants have represented
that state-of-the-art fire protection techniques will be employed
in the project and that a "fire station" will be located at the southern-
most portion of the site, this issue needs to be explored further
by the Applicants in conjunction with the Fire Department. Similarly,
the construction of this project will directly impact the Aspen Ski
Club rope tow and future utilization of the Willoughby ski jump.
This issue should be resolved with the Ski Company and additional
information submitted for consideration in conjunction with the Appli-
cants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission.
700 South Galena
The 700 South Galena complex complies with all applicable area and
bulk requirements of the underlying zone district with the exception
of height. Approval of the project, therefore, will require variation
of the maximum allowable height, a variation permissable under the
PUD regulations. The maximum height of the underlying L-2 zone district
is twenty-eight (28) feet, while the height of the 700 South Galena
project, as originally proposed, averaged approximately thirty-eight
(38) feet. The extent of the variation requested under PUD was a
major concern of both the Planning Office and the P&Z. As a result,
the Applicants have revised their conceptual architecture and the
Commission's attached resolution reflects a substantial reduction
in the project's overall height.
It should also be noted that the level of development proposed for
the Top of Mill site exceeds the L-2 zoning requirements for the
21,600 s.f. site and, therefore, the project may only be constructed
in conjunction with the overall Aspen Mountain PUD. Twelve (12)
units with twenty-four (24) bedrooms and a total adjusted floor area
of 21,073 s.f are proposed for the site. However, if the multi -family
development proposal were based solely on the 21,600 s.f. site, Section
24-3.7(k) of the Code would permit no more than one bedroom per 1,000
s.f. of land area or a maximum of twenty-one (21) bedrooms. In the
event the Aspen Mountain PUD is not approved, the 700 South Galena
component would require a GMP amendment in order to allow its construc-
tion. Since the 700 South Galena project is an integral component
of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD, neither the Planning Office nor
the Commission has a problem with respect to this issue at this time.
Additional issues which were addressed by the Planning Office and
the P&Z and which are reflected in the Commission's attached resolution
include drainage and slope stability, the identification of easements
required in conjunction with the construction of the project, and
the desireability of realigning Galena Street in the vicinity of
the project so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
general site area.
Circulation/Parking Requirements
Top of Pull/Summit Place
The Engineering Department concurs with the Applicants' contention
that the existing road network in the vicinity of the Top of Mill/Summit
Place complex is adequate to handle the traffic generated by these
two projects. In fact, replacement of the forty (40) existing residential
units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site by the thirty-three (33) unit
Top of Mill complex and one unit Summit Place addition may result
in a net decrease in traffic generated in the project area, due primarily
to the potential change in occupancy characteristics of the Applicants'
proposal.
Page 5
While a change in the occupancy characteristics of the PUD's residential
dwelling units may result in a reduction in traffic in the Top of
Mill area, both the Engineering Department and the Planning Office
are concerned about circulation and accessibility in the general
vicinity of the Top of Mill site. For some time, the City has pursued
extending Summit Street between Mill and Monarch Streets so as to
improve overall circulation and emergency access in this part of
the City. The Top of Mill site plan proposes the elimination of
the Summit Street link in order to accommodate the pedestrian and
ski trail from the Mountain to the Hotel. The Engineering Department
does not support the elimination of the possibility of the Summit
Street extension at this time, feeling that it is particularly important
to provide alternative access to the many properties on South Monarch
and that the extension would benefit overall circulation as well
as emergency access in that area. The Engineering Department suggests
that further exploration of this issue with respect to acceptable
alternatives, involving the Applicants, the Engineering Department
and the Fire Department, should be condition of PUD approval.
The Applicants are requesting a reduction in the total number of
parking spaces required for the Top of Mill complex from 138 to 80
spaces, or approximately two (2) spaces per unit plus guest parking.
The Applicants have provided considerable information in their application
in support of a reduction and have also undertaken an updated survey
to further substantiate their request. Based on the information
submitted to date, the Engineering Department, Planning Office and
P&Z support the Applicants' request for a reduction in overall parking.
Should Council wish to explore this issue further, additional, however,
information will be provided.
Street Vacation
The vacation of the southernmost tip of South Mill Street will be
required to implement the Applicants' Top of Mill proposal. The
vacation of public rights -of -way is accomplished through ordinance
of City Council. However, given the implications of such requests
on the overall street network of the City, the Council typically
requests input from the Planning and Zoning Commission to facilitate
their review. The Engineering Department has reviewed the Applicants'
request and has concluded that the proposed vacation would not adversely
impact the general area from a circulation standpoint. The proposed
vacation involves approximately 2,800 s.f. and would be used for
accessing the Top of Mill complex. No residential structures are
proposed for the vacated area. Subject to the adequate provision
of access to the site and appropriate utility easements, the Engineering
Department has no problem with the vacation of this portion of this
portion of Mill Street.
Inasmuch as the right-of-way which is to be vacated may contain numerous
existing utilities, the Engineering Department recommends that each
utility franchised in the City, regardless of whether or not they
maintain utility easements in the right-of-way in question, sign
off on the requested vacation in order to verify that the loss of
this right-of-way will not interfere with their current or future
needs. Similarly, the Planning Office would request that the Applicants
identify those improvements and/or public benefits which will accrue
from the development of the overall PUD which would offset the City's
vacation of this portion of Mill Street.
REZONINGS
The Aspen Mountain PUD application includes a request for several
rezonings, two of which are directly related to the Top of Mill proposal.
The Applicants originally requested a rezoning to L-2 for the City -
owned lots which are zoned Public and are involved in the proposed
Koch Lumber land trade, and for the balance of the Top of bill site
up to the 8040 elevation which is presently zoned R-15 (PUD)(L).
The attached exhibits depict the existing and proposed zoning for
the parcels in question. The Applicants, following an initial discussion
Page 6
of their rezoning proposals by the Commission, withdrew their request
for rezoning to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently
zoned R-15 (PUD)(L). In order to accomplish the Top of Mill proposal,
it will obviously be necessary to effectuate the proposed land trade
and to rezone those City -owned lots currently zoned Public. The
Applicants continue to request a rezoning to L-2 for the City -owned
lots. Both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission,
however, recommend that in the event the land trade is accomplished,
that the parcels in question be rezoned to R-15 (PUD) (L) . The Planning
Office's and Commission's reasoning with respect to this recommendation
is as follows:
1) While the proposed development is consistent with the intent
of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations
Transition land use category applied to this area in the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required
to achieve the proposed development;
2) The primary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable
them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio
available in the L-2 zone district. Since the FAR provisions
of the Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PUD
regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of
the requested variation is inappropriate; and
3) The L-2 zone district permits multi -family residential
uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes, and
therefore, does not guarantee that development will occur
consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION/RECONSTRUCTION
The Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD are requesting an exemption
from growth management for the development of the Top of Mill/Summit
Place complexes. Specifically, the Applicants are requesting an
exemption pursuant to Section 24-11 .2 (a) of the zoning regulations
for the reconstruction of forty (40) residential dwelling units.
These units either currently exist on the Aspen Mountain PUD site
or have been previously demolished and verified by the Building Depart-
ment. As discussed earlier, the Top of Mill/Summit complex will
replace thirty-four (34) of the forty (40) existing or previously
demolished residential dwelling units. The Applicants, with the
assistance of the Building Department have inventoried these units
and have submitted to the Planning Office a request for their verifi-
cation. After careful review of the Applicants' documentation, the
Planning Office and Building Department have agreed to the verification
of forty (40) residential dwelling units. A detailed breakdown of
these units is available should you require additional information.
While no specific P&Z or Council action is required with respect
to this request for GMP exemption, the Planning Office suggests that
any conceptual PUD approval with respect to the Top of !•till/Summit
Place complex include the following conditions which are consistent
with the reconstruction provisions of Section 24-11.2(a) of the Code:
1. The Applicants should be limited to the reconstruction
of no more than the verified total of forty (40) residential
dwelling units;
2. The reconstruction of these residential units must be accom-
plished within five (5) years from the date of demolition;
and
3. The reconstruction of the demolished residential units
should be limited to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
No exemption is required for the 700 South Galena complex as this
project received a quota allocation in the 1983 residential GMP competi-
tion.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR THE TOP OF MILL, SUtIITIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AND
FECOMMENDING A REZONING TO R-15(PUD)(L) FOR THAT PORTION OF THE
TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND OPINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution No. 5
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants"), have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill and Summit Place condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals including 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review
and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site
currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD)(L); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning
to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R-
15 (PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission") did consider the Applicants' requests
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the Top of t?ill and Summit
Place condominiums, 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review,
and rezoning from Public to L-2 at meetings held on March 20th, March
27th and April 17, 1984, and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted
on April 10, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect
to the Applicants' request for 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane
review until its consideration of the Applicants' preliminary PUD/sub-
division submission, given the technical nature of the various review
criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately
assess project impacts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-11.3(f) of the Municipal Code,
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-
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 component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7, Series
of 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did review, Section 24-11.3(f) of the
Municipal Code notwithstanding, the 700 South Galena condominium
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD with respect to the conceptual
PUD/subdivision criteria of the Municipal Code at meetings held on
April 24th, May 1st and May 8, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700
South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in
response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office and
Commission, including a significant reduction in the overall height
of both projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant
conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and
24-8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and
700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' acquisition of that portion of the Top
of Mill site currently owned by the City.
2. The Applicants' 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.
3. The Applicants' submission of a detailed proposal, acceptable
to the Aspen Ski Club, for the relocation of the Ski Club's
facilities.
4. The vacation of Pill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all utility rights, the provision of appropriate
utility easements, and each utility franchised in the City
signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that
the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each
utility's current or future needs.
5. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention ponds.
Resolution No. 84-
Page 3
6. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
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-family
units located at the southern terminus of Mill Street in
order to expand the view through the project from the Street
to the ski area.
B. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
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 Mill Street,
Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' provision of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro-
priate by the City.
10. The Applicants' granting of an acceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site so as to provide access, to
the extent feasible, to the base of Little Nell and Lift
1-A.
11. The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and following
construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the
700 South Galena project should be expressly conditioned
upon the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation
to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
12. The Applicants' identification of all easements required
in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena
project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent
required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.
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 prevent
and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the
form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for
a longer period of time than is necessary.
14. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units not
exceeding a maximum of thirty-four (34) feet along the
projects' south facade, a maximum of thirty-nine (39) feet
along the north facade and a maximum of forty-three (43)
feet in any other location as compared to the maximum height
allowed in the underlying L-2 zone district of thirty-three
(33) feet, all as measured from natural grade to the ridge
of the roof and as shown on the Applicants' revised elevations
dated April 27, 1984. These restrictions are to be noted
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 feasible,
so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
general site area.
16. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.
17. The reconstruction of existing residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
Resolution No. 84-
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 Mountain PUD site.
18. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision and residential GMP 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 Top of Mill site currently owned by the City and does
hereby recommend instead that the parcel (s) be rezoned to R-15 (PUD) (L) ,
at such time as the parcel(s) may be conveyed to the Applicants,
for the following reasons:
1. While the proposed development is consistent with the intent
of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations
Transition land use category applied to this area in the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required
to achieve the proposed development.
2. The primary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable
them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio
available in the L-2 zone district. Since the FAR provisions
of the Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PUD
regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of
the requested variation is inappropriate.
3. The L-2 zone district permits multi -family residential
uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes and,
therefore, does not guarantee that development will occur
consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on May , 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
By
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
Perry Harvey, Chairman
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700
South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Revised
Employee Housing Proposal
DATE: May 8, 1984
Attached for your review and consideration is the latest draft of
your resolution recommending conceptual PUD/subdivision approval
for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The resolution also recommends
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. I have incorp-
orated the additional conditions with respect to 700 South Galena
which you requested at your May 1st meeting.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to review and amend as required
the revised resolution and to formally review the Applicants' revised
employee housing proposal. The Planning Office's comments with respect
to the Applicants' revised proposal are outlined below.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The attached letters from Jim Curtis, dated April 23rd and April
30, 1984, outline the Applicants' revised employee housing generation
figures and employee housing proposal. Both the generation figures
and the employee housing proposal have been reviewed and endorsed
by the Housing Authority. It should be pointed out, however, that
further revisions to the generation figures and revised proposal
may be forthcoming as further refinement of the lodge portion of
the PUD continues. It should also be pointed out, that the Applicants'
revised employee housing proposal is consistent, in terms of the
percentage of employees housed, with their original lodge GMP repre-
sentation. The major change to the Applicants' original proposal
involves the substitution of two (2) additional employee housing
projects for the proposed fifty (50) unit project to be build on
the Benedict/Larkin property on Ute Avenue.
As the attached materials indicate, the revised proposal would house
195 employees in four (4) separate projects. To refresh your memory,
the Commission, in its resolution recommending conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval for the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD, found that
the conversion of the forty-four (44) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed -
restricted employee housing would result in negligible growth impacts
on the community and that said change -in -use was exempt from complying
with the growth management allotment procedures of the Municipal
Code. No further review of this component of the Applicants' employee
housing proposal is required by the Commission at this time. A condition
of your approval, however, was that the Applicants submit additional
information with respect to the mitigation of parking problems at
the Alpina Haus as part of their lodge preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
In addition to the Alpina Haus Lodge, the Applicants also propose
to convert and deed -restrict the fourteen (14) unit Copper Horse
Lodge to employee housing. The change -in -use of an individually
designated historic structure, however, is exempt by definition from
the City's growth management allotment procedures. As a result,
no specific review is required by the P&Z to accomplish the proposed
change -in -use. The Commission, however, also identified a concern
with respect to parking problems at the Copper Horse and proposed
to further review this issue in conjunction with the Applicants'
lodge preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. The appropriateness
Page 2
of both the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus for employee housing purposes
is subject to P&Z and Council review in the context of the overall
Aspen Mountain PUD.
Together, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse will house 89 employees,
or approximately forty-five percent (45%) of the Applicants' employee
housing commitment. The remainder of the employees (106 employees)
were originally proposed to be housed in an approximately 50 unit
project to be constructed on Ute Avenue. With the withdrawal of
this proposal, the Applicants' now intend to provide the remainder
of their employee housing commitment at the Airport Business Center
and in a new project to be constructed on East Cooper Street. As
outlined in the attached materials, the Ute City Place project on
East Cooper Street essentially involves the conversion of a prior
GMP approval to 100 percent deed -restricted employee housing while
the acquisition of existing rental housing at the Airport Business
Center would result in the deed -restriction of currently unrestricted
units.
From a procedural perspective, the Ute City Place project should
be considered a discrete and separate proposal from the prior GMP
approval. The project involves the construction of 22 new deed -restricted
employee housing units exempt from the City's growth management allotment
procedures. As such, it is subject to the special approval of the
Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion. Inasmuch as the prior Ute City Place GMP approval involved
full subdivision review and rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay
(RBO), the Commission must find that the proposed revisions to the
project are consistent with the original conditions of subdivision
and RBO approval.
No specific review by the Commission is required for the deed -restriction
of the Airport Business Center units to employee housing guidelines.
The Commission, however, must find that the proposed utilization
of both the ABC and Ute City Place units is consistent with the Appli-
cants' relevant lodge GMP application representations and is appropriate
within the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD approval. Further
analysis of these two new components of the Applicants' revised employee
housing proposal is provided below.
UTE CITY PLACE
The original Ute City Place application received a GDTP allocation
in the 1981 residential competition. The original Applicant proposed
to develop twenty-two (22) units on a 1500 s.f. parcel zoned R-MF.
The project location is lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, City of
Aspen (Cooper Avenue between West End and Cleveland Avenues). Of
the twenty-two (22) units proposed by the Applicant, eight (8) were
free market, and fourteen (14) were deed -restricted employee housing
units. The original application also received full subdivision review
and approval and was rezoned to R-MF (RBO) in order to accommodate
the density proposed. The project was also condominiumized in order
to allow sale of the individual units.
The Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD propose to purchase the
Ute City Place site, make minor revisions in the original approved
project, and deed -restrict all of the units pursuant to the City's
employee housing guidelines. The revised project would house thirty-
seven (37) employees. Given the fact that the project will no longer
contain free market units, an amendment to the prior GMP approval
will not be required. Instead, the Planning Office proposes to essen-
tially duplicate the procedural steps employed in the review of the
original Ute City Place project. Obviously, consideration of the
Applicants' request for exemption from growth management for the
construction of the twenty-two (22) units would also be required.
The specific review steps will involve conceptual subdivision review
by the P&Z and Council, preliminary subdivision review by the P&Z
and final subdivision review by the Council. In addition, a public
hearing will need to be held at the preliminary subdivision step
Page 3
in order to consider the Applicants' request for rezoning to Residential
Bonus Overlay. Council would also take action on this request at
the final subdivision step. Should the Applicants be successful
in the review of the revised Ute City Place project, then a condition
of final subdivision approval would be the revocation of the prior
GMP allocation.
The purpose of tonight's meeting with respect to the Ute City Place
proposal is to consider the appropriateness of this component of
the Applicants' employee housing solution and of recommending conceptual
subdivision approval to City Council. Although the public hearing
with respect to the RBO rezoning would not occur until preliminary
subdivision review, P&Z should also comment with respect to the appro-
priateness of the rezoning at this time. Based on the materials
submitted to date, the revised Ute City Place proposal appears to
be identical in most respects to the original project which received
preliminary subdivision approval by the P&Z and final approval by
City Council. The architecture is identical to the prior proposal
with the exception that the size of the free market units has been
reduced consistent with the City's employee housing guidelines.
As a result, the overall FAR of the project and the building footprint
have been reduced substantially. A detailed analysis of the area
and bulk requirements of both the original and revised project will
be available at your Tuesday meeting.
With respect to the revised project's eligibility for RBO rezoning,
the changes which the Applicants have proposed make the project even
more consistent with the applicable criteria. Essentially, the only
reason RBO rezoning is required is to allow the level of density
proposed. Additional information with respect to the density allowed
under existing zoning as compared to the density proposed will also
be available at your Tuesday meeting. The Planning Office supports
the utilization of the revised Ute City Place project as part of
the Applicants' employee housing solution subject to the attachment
of appropriate conditions.
AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER APARTMENTS
No specific review by the Commission is required for the deed -restriction
of the Airport Business Center units to employee housing guidelines.
The Planning Office believes, however, that the Commission should
make a recommendation to Council as to the appropriateness of the
inclusion of the ABC units in the Applicants' employee housing solution.
The remainder of the Applicants' employee housing commitment, approxi-
mately sixty-nine (69) employees, would be met by this proposal.
Based on preliminary discussions to date, the Commission appears
to be divided with respect to this issue. It should be pointed out,
however, that the Housing Authority has endorsed this proposal, based
primarily on the fact that the inclusion of these units in the Applicants'
employee housing solution will result in the deed -restriction of
thirty-two (32) existing free market units. While these units currently
serve an employee housing function, there is no mechanism which insures
their continued availability for employee housing purposes. In fact,
the owners of the Airport Business Center units are currently discussing
the appropriateness of an application for condominiumization with
the Housing Authority.
Given the fact that the utilization of these units as part of the
Applicants' employee housing solution would result in the deed -restriction
of previously unrestricted units, the Planning Office supports this
Applicants' proposal. The principal issue which we have identified
at this time involves the transportation implications associated
with the housing of hotel employees at the Airport Business Center.
Jim Curtis' April 19, 1984 letter, which is attached for your review,
addresses this concern and we are prepared to discuss it in further
detail at your Tuesday meeting. Any endorsement by the Commission
of the Applicants' use of the ABC units should be conditioned upon
the specific measures to be taken to mitigate transportation problems.
Page 4
SUMMARY
Should you concur with the Planning Office recommendations, we propose
to prepare a draft resolution endorsing the Applicants' revised employee
housing proposal and specifically recommending conceptual subdivision
approval for the revised Ute City Place project. The resolution
would outline the Applicants' proposal in detail and contain any
conditions you might wish to add with respect to your endorsement.
Suggested conditions for which the Planning Office would develop
specific language would include, for example, the timing of the Appli-
cants' acquisition of the various properties, the execution of appropriate
deed- restrictions, the mitigation of transportation related problems,
etc. This resolution could be prepared for your May 22nd regular
meeting and could be forwarded to Council independent of your resolution
with respect to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena
projects. Obviously, there are alternative approaches which you
may wish to take. The Applicants' will be available at your Tuesday
meeting to discuss this issue as well as any other questions your
might wish to raise with respect to their revised employee housing
proposal.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR THE 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
Resolution No.
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants"), have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill and Summit Place condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals including 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review
and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site
currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD)(L); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning
to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R-
15 (PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission") did consider the Applicants' requests
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the Top of Mill and Summit
Place condominiums, 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review,
and rezoning from Public to L-2 at meetings held on Parch 20th, March
27th and April 17, 1984, and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted
on April 10, 1984; and
VIHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect
to the Applicants' request for 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane
review until its consideration of the Applicants' preliminary PUD/sub-
division submission, given the technical nature of the various review
criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately
assess project impacts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-11.3(f) of the Municipal Code,
any project needing PUD or subdivision approval which has received
a development allotment may be deemed by the Pl.anninq Office to have
satisfied the conceptual presentation requirements of the City' s
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
P13D and subdivision regulations; and
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 component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7, Series
of 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did review, Section 24-11.3(f) of the
Municipal Code notwithstanding, the 700 South Galena condominium
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD with respect to the conceptual
PUD/subdivision criteria of the Municipal Code at meetings held on
April 24th, May 1st and May 8, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant
conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and
24-8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and
700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' acquisition of that portion of the Top
of Mill site currently owned by the City.
2. The Applicants' resolution of the Engineering Department's
concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal
areas of the Top of Dill site for fire protection purposes.
3. The Applicants' submission of a detailed proposal, acceptable
to the Aspen Ski Club, for the relocation of the Ski Club's
facilities.
4. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all utility rights, the provision of appropriate
utility easements, and each utility franchised in the City
signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that
the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each
utility's current or future needs.
5. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention ponds.
6. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
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-family
units located at the southern terminus of Mill Street in
order to expand the view through the project from the Street
Resolution No. 84-
Page 3
to the ski area.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
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 Mill Street,
Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' provision of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro-
priate by the City.
10. The Applicants' granting of an acceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site so as to provide access, to
the extent feasible, to the base of Little Nell and Lift
1-A.
11. The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and following
construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the
700 South Galena project should be expressly conditioned
upon the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation
to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
12. The Applicants' identification of all easements required
in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena
project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent
required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.
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 prevent
and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the
form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for
a longer period of time than is necessary.
14. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units not
exceeding a maximum of thirty-four (34) feet along the
projects' south facade, a maximum of thirty-nine (39) feet
along the north facade and a maximum of forty-three (43)
feet in any other location, all as measured from natural
grade to the ridge of the roof and as shown on the Applicants'
revised elevations dated April 27, 1984.
15. The Applicants' continuing to explore, in conjunction with
the Engineering Department, the feasibility of realigning
Galena Street in the vicinity of the 700 South Galena project
so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
general site area.
16. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.
17 The reconstruction of existing residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
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 Mountain PUD site.
18. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications not speci-
fically referred to above being made a condition of this
approval.
Resolution No. 84-
Page 4
Section 2
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council deny
the Applicants' request f or a rezoning f rom Public to L-2 of that
portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned by the City and does
hereby recommend instead that the parcel (s ) be rezoned to R-15 (PUD) (L)
at such time as the parcel(s) may be conveyed to the Applicants,
for the following reasons:
1. While the proposed development is consistent with the intent
of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations
Transition land use category applied to this area in the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required
to achieve the proposed development.
2. The primary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable
them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio
available in the L-2 zone district. Since the FAR provisions
of the Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PU D
regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of
the requested variation is inappropriate.
3. The L-2 zone district permits multi -family residential
uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes and,
therefore, does not guarantee that development will occur
consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on May , 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
O/
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
Perry Harvey, Chairman
r_:�: c •::d ci 4 _5 .0 _r" " PR -2_8_1989
I:oeepfon No. ������, Lorct'ra P-ianc--, �;!'i.� C-_). Rcco.—J3Z
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TA,
1N,
ncD
C6p
THIS AGREEMENT, made this _ 2.8 day of ft1982 01
by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herei _tdit- referred
to as City) and HBC Investments (hereinafter referred to as
Subdivider)
W -I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted to the City for
approval, execution, and recordation, a final plat (hereinafter
referred to as the "Plat") concernin _the —development of a
project known as the�94 Galena Street" --
Project
Street�roject
("Project") on a parcel of real property owne by the subdivider
and located at 700 South Galena Street, and formally described
as Lot 16 and Parcel B, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivisions,
City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1982, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the Project
subject to certain specific conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council will approve, execute, and
accept for recordation the plat on the further condition that
Subdivider execute this Agreement formally acknowledging it
acceptance of all the conditions and requirements imposed by the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises,
covenants, and conditions contained herein, and the approval,
execution and acceptance of the plat for recordation by the City
of Aspen, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
improvements on the above -described property, the Subdivider
shall provide as follows:
a. With regard to slope stabilization during
excavation and construction, the Subdivider shall provide a
comprehensive engineering design for both temporary and
permanent earth -retaining structures (and the monitoring
thereof during excavation and construction). Said design
and monitoring system shall be signed and sealed by a
licensed geotechnical engineer and approved by the City
Engineer.
If the earth -retaining design finally approved by
the City Engineer requires temporary or permanent
encroachment on neighboring property or City right-of-way,
the Subdivider shall secure all of the permits, licenses
and/or easements of the neighboring property owners and/or
the City as required by law.
b. With regard to surface and subsurface drainage
during excavation, construction and occupancy, the
Subdivider shall provide a comprehensive engineering design
for said drainage. Said design shall include provisions
for on -site retention of storm flows (including dry wells,
retention wells, and planted diversion berm) and for
filtration of the drainage to remove mud and construction
debris. Said design shall be signed and sealed by a
licensed geotechnical engineer and approved by the City
Engineer.
If the drainage design finally approved by the
City Engineer requires an overflow connection to storm
sewer, the Subdivider shall enter into a separate agreement
with the City to extend, all at Subdivider's cost, the
existing storm sewer up Galena Street to the Project, all
to the City's specifications for such storm sewer
C. With regard to consistency of the amended GMP
application and City approvals with the building plans to
be submitted, the Subdivider shall submit said building
plans to the City Planning Office for verification of
compliance of those plans with the amended GMP application
and the binding plat approvals of the City Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council.
d. With regard to all utilities required for the
project, if the submitted project construction plans or
City or utility company requirements provide for utility
installations in property locations not now burdened by
easements, Subdivider shall be required to convey the
relevant utility easements in standard form at no cost to
the City or utility companies.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
("CO") for the Project, the Subdivider shall provide as
follows:
a. The twelve employee units at the 925 East Durant
phase of this joint project must be built, deed -restricted
to City low-income, rental/resale guidelines and covered by
valid City certificates of occupancy.
b. The Project must contain all design features and
amenities as identified in the amended GMP application for
the Project and required as conditions of approval in the
P&Z and City Council including, but not limited to, the
following:
n,on425 taGL172�
(i) Twenty-six (26) underground parking spaces and
one (1) surface parking space, until such time as the 10
spaces for the Continental Inn are removed pursuant to a
separate written agreement by the subdivider and approved
by the City of Aspen.
(ii) Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the site retained
as open space.
(iii) Energy conservation features (with required
R-values) as required by the P&Z in its preliminary plat
approval of March 2, 1982.
(iv) Social -facilities including a day care center,,
recycling facilities and indoor/outdoor pool.
(v) Site design as a three-story straight line
configuration, as presented in the amended GMP application
and approved by Aspen City Council.
(vi) Heated sidewalks, six feet in width, along the
entire South Street frontage.
(vii) Curb and gutter along the entire South Galena
Street frontage.
(viii) Elevators and stairs from the underground garage
to all three floors and building and site design to
facilitate access for handicapped persons.
3. With respect to the following improvements: temporary
and permanent earth retaining structures, and temporary and
permanent water drainage systems as described in paragraph 1
above, and curb and gutter and the heated sidewalks as described
in paragraph 2 above, to the extent required by Section 20-16 of
the Aspen Municipal Code, Subdivider agrees to provide a
guarranty for no less than one hundred (100) per cent of the
current estimated cost of the improvements, as that cost shall
be computed by the City Engineer or approved by the City
Engineer based on cost estimates supplied to him by the
applicant's engineers or technical representatives. Said
guaranty shall be provided to the City prior to delivery to
Subdivider of a building permit for this project. Said
guarranty shall.be in such form and amount as approved by the
City Attorney and City Engineer but shall provide at least as
follows: The guaranty shall be in the form of an irrevocable
sight draft from a financially responsible lender or an
irrevocable letter of commitment from a financially responsible
lender; and said guaranty shall give the City the unconditional
right, upon default by the Subdivider, to withdraw funds upon
demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any
improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon
by any party. In addition, Subdivider hereby agrees to warrant
for one year all such improvements that may be accepted by the
City under Section 20-16.
4. Construction on the 700 South Galena phase of the
joint project must begin as early in 1982 as is practicable,
allowing for the spring soil conditions. The Subdivider
acknowledges that he is bound by the construction completion
schedule and permit expiration provisions found in Section
7-141(d) of the Aspen Municipal Code (which amends Section
302(d) of the Uniform Building Code). Subdivider also agrees
that prior to delivery to him of the building permit (although
the permit may be issued) either (i) Subdivider's contractor
shall purchase, execute and be bound by a performance completion
bond, or (ii) Subdivider himself will obtain such a bond as
required by the final plat approval of the Aspen City Council.
Any such completion bond shall be sufficient to complete the
project as approved upon default of either Subdivider or his
contractor and shall name the City as a beneficiary and a copy
shall be delivered to the City. If Subdivider violates said
Section 7-141(d), then the Subdivider, in addition to the
penalties provided under that section, shall pay to the City as
liquidated damages $200.00 per day for each day he is in
violation of the provisions of Section 7-141(d) even if such
violation is excused or a variance granted therefore by
appropriate City officials or boards. Such damages have been
agreed to between the parties hereto as required to mitigate the
impact on the neighborhood caused by such delay in construction.
5. Subdivider acknowledges that final plat approval for
this Project (and prior preliminary approvals) creates no right
of reasonable reliance as to a favorable determination or other
independent approvals required including, but not limited to, a
Residential Bonus Overlay application or requests for permits,
licenses and easements from the City as provided in paragraph
"l.a." hereinabove, although an RBO has always been anticipated
and planned by the subdivider in conjunction with this project
and the 925 East Durant Street site, and such plans made known
to the City of Aspen.
6. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and shall
inure to the benefit of the Subdivider and the City and their
respectivesuccessors and assigns.
7. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
8. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section or the
application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the
Agreement and the validity of any such provision, paragraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under any other
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
10K 425 t 725
9. The Subdivision Agreement contains the entire
understanding and agreement between the parties herein with
respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be
altered or amended from time to time only by written instrument
executed by each of the parties hereto.
10. Any notices required to be given to the parties to
this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given if personally
given or deposited in the United States mail to the parties by
registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below:
City of Aspen: Subdivider or its Successors
City Manager - or Assigns:
130 South Galena Street HBC Investments
Aspen, Colorado 81611 P.O. Box 388
17
MEMORANDUM
TO: SUNNY VANN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: JAY HAMMOND, CITY ENGINEERING..'
DATE: APRIL 27,1984
RE: 700 SOUTH GALENA CONCEPTUAL P.U.D.
During last Tuesday's meeting of the City Planning and Zoning
Commission, a number of issues were raised regarding that portion
of the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. comprising 700 South Galena. Some
of these issues were rather sophisticated due, in part, to our
prior experience with the site during the Cantrup era. It would
seem appropriate, at this time, to suggest two conditions to
conceptual approval that require specific action on the part
of the applicants prior to preliminary approval.
1. Concerns expressed regarding the stability of the excessive
slope as well as potential drainage problems would point to
the need for at least preliminary soils and water table investig-
ations on the site at this time. Spring runoff would be an
excellent time to undertake work to investigate the concerns
expressed by the Tipple Inn Condominium Association. In addition,
preliminary soils work should point to solutions addressing
slope stability both during and following construction.
2. The prior proposal for 700 South Galena created some problems
relative to construction easements and permanent utility easements.
This site plan would appear to create less conflict in these
areas but should address easement needs, particularly along
the easterly property line, in some detail.
JH/co/700So.GalenaCon.P.U.D.
/.;
24 April 1984
Planning & Zoning
of the City of
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado
HAND DELIVERED
J.D. MUL.LER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4361
ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
TELEPHONE: 303/925-1923
Commission
Aspen
Street
Re: 700 South Galena project
To the Commission:
At their annual meeting on April 4, 1984, the members of the
Tipple Inn Condominium Association authorized me to object for
them to variances, variations or other changes from the area and
bulk requirements of the L-2 zone district which the applicants
for the new 700 South Galena project might request, either in the
form of a variance application before the Board of Ajustment, a
rezoning, a special review, an SPA or --as it has happened --in the
form of a PUD application before you and the City Council. While
individual Tipple Inn owners may object to the project as a
whole, the condominium association objects to the project insofar
as it exceeds what could be built under "existing underlying
zoning," that is, the area and bulk requirements listed in
Section 24-3.4 for the L-2 zone, with no changes.
The present project was given a GMP allotment on March 12,
1984 of 12 free market units and 9 off -site employee units. If
you assume the statements and drawings in the GMP application are
still an accurate statement of the area and bulk specifications
of the project, the project exceeds what could be built under
existing underlying zoning in at least two ways:
1. the proposed building is approximately 38 feet high while
the maximum height allowed in the L-2 zone district is 28
feet, making the project ten feet higher than allowable;
and,
2. the project has 24 bedrooms on 21,600 square feet, but the
maximum density in L-2 [minimum lot area per dwelling unit]
computed by 1-,2- and 3-bedroom requirements, is:
Planning and Zoning Comm.
Page 2
3 1-bedrooms = 1,250/1
6 2-bedrooms = 2,100/2
3 3-bedrooms = 3,630/3
required square feet =
shortage =
bdr x 3 = 3,750
bdr x 6 = 12,600
bdr x 3 = 10,890
27,240
5,640
24 April 1984
[The 700 South Galena project formerly proposed by Hans and June
Cantrup was within the height limitation and had 17 bedrooms.
The Cantrup building had a total square footage of 20,450 (94.7%
of allowed 1:1 FAR), as opposed to the present project's 21,073
(97.6% of FAR).]
In addition to objecting to the above area and bulk "extras"
which have been added to the former Cantrup project, our
Association re -registers the concerns expressed about the
previous project's placement and construction, which this
Commission and the City Council agreed with to the extent of
including them as requirements in the Cantrups' subdivision
agreement for 700 South Galena, namely:
I. the production of a comprehensive engineering design for
temporary and permanent earth -retaining structures and the
monitoring of those structures during excavation and
construction (including the securing of all appropriate
easements, permits and licenses from surrounding landowners
such structures and/or excavation measures might require),
all to address the problem of slope stability on the
project site;
2. the production of a comprehensive engineering design with
regard to seepage, surface and subsurface runoff, and
drainage during excavation, construction and occupancy of
the project (including, where necessary, the provision of
dry wells, retention wells, and planted diversion berms for
storm flows, and for filtration of drainage to remove mud
and construction debris); and,
3. the agreement by the developer to a completion schedule for
construction of the project and further agreement to the
execution of a performance completion bond and late
penalties, all to prevent damage to the surrounding
landowners in the form of an unsightly and/or unsafe
construction area in close proximity, for a longer period
of time than is necessary.
We request that a water study similar to the study the
applicant has made for the Top of Mill and Spar Complex project
be done for the 700 South Galena project, with special emphasis
on the historical seepage problem. We also request that an
engineering study be submitted by the applicant prior to approval
of the project addressing the stability of the area with specific
Planning and Zoning Comm.
Page 3
24 April 1984
recommendations on the method of excavation and backfilling of
the project to insure sufficient lateral and subjacent support of
surrounding property. We request that these recommendations be
made conditions of the approval of the project, and carried
forward as part of a subdivision agreement, as was done with the
prior project.
We object to the incorporation of the 700 South Galena
project in the "overall" PUD of which this application forms a
part. The allowance of height in excess of the L-2 zone
requirement and density in excess of the L-2 zone requirement has
no land use justification. This parcel of property is distinct
from -he other parcels in use and situs. Its only relation to
the age and other sites is common ownership at the present time
and the possibility of future common management. If these
considerations --common condominium and/or guest occupancy
management and related ownership --are sufficient to grant PUD
variations at 700 South Galena, the concept of PUD as a method of
adapting development to "a particular site" has no limits. The
true "site" is small and the project is unrelated to land uses on
the other sites in any way sufficient to affect the PUD
considerations on those sites; and conversely, those sites have
insufficient land use effect on 700 South Galena to affect its
PUD considerations.
Even PUD variations must be "harmoniously organized in
relation to each other and to surrounding property" [§24-8.2].
The 38-foot height variation is at odds with the heights of the
two buildings which adjoin the project site at grade; both the
Tipple Lodge and the Tipple Inn conform to the 28-foot limitation
of the L-2 zone district.
Section 24-8.3(c) states that "the overall project shall not
exceed the allowable density in the zone district in which the
PUD lies." Considered as a separate PUD application, the 700
South Galena project could not ask for more than 21 bedrooms
under the "maximum" maximum density requirements of §24-3.7(k),
and even fewer under the density computed by bedroom -sized units
set out above, which latter is the standard properly applicable
to the site; a variation to allow 24 bedrooms would simply not be
lawful under a separate PUD. Only by aggregating its acreage with
that of other sites can the 700 South Galena project request a
variation to 24 bedrooms. (For purposes of this letter we are
assuming that the aggregate computation is correct.)
PUD variations must meet the objectives of Article VIII of
the Municipal Code, which are set out in §24-8.1. Reading through
the six objectives shows that the 700 South Galena project is
simply not the type of project to which a PUD variation was meant
to be applied were it considered alone; and, there is no good
land use reason to consider it as a part of other sites. It may
Planning and Zoning Comm. 24 April 1984
Page 4
be argued that a better design is the exchange for any "extras"
in height and density. This assumes that you have to accept the
whole package or none at all. The PUD can still be granted, but
it can be granted for a 700 South Galena project no higher than
28 feet and no more dense than a non-PUD or a PUD on 21,600
square feet in L-2 would be.
Thank you for considering our comments and requests.
S ' �cerely,
*i
J.�I ler
JDMcc
Copies to: Board of Managers, T.I.C.A.
Mr. Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer
-Mr. Sunny Vann, Planning Director
Mr. John Doremus
'5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain PIJD - Top of Mill, Summit Place
and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision
Review and Revised Employee Housing Proposal
DATE• April 24, 1984
Attached for
your review
and consideration is a revised draft of
a resolution
recommending
conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval for
the 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. I have incorporated
the additions
and changes
you requested
at your April 17th meeting.
With the
exception of
specific conditions
with respect to the 700
South Galena
project, I believe
the resolution
to be complete and
up-to-date.
The purpose of
tonight's meeting
is to:
1) Initiate discussion of the Applicants' revised employee
housing proposal,
2) Review the 700 South Galena project with respect to the
conceptual PUD/subdivision criteria of the Ptunicipal Code,
3) Review and amend as required the revised draft resolution.
Given the fact that May 14th is the earliest date at which Council
can review the residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD,
I would suggest that you refrain from forwarding your resolution
with respect to the Top of Mill until such time as you have comlpeted
your review of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal.
Your recommendations with respect to their proposal could then be
incorporated in the Top of Mill resolution and forwarded to Council
for consideration at their May 14th meeting.
The Planning Office's initial comments with respect to the Applicants'
revised employee housing proposal are outlined below. We have also
included an overview of potential conceptual PUD/subdivision concerns
with respect to 700 South Galena project.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The attached letters from Jim Curtis, dated April 17th and April
19, 1984, respectively, outline the Applicants' proposed revisions
to their original employee housing proposal. Essentially, the Applicants
propose to abandon the Benedict/Larkin project on ilte Avenue, replacing
it with deed -restricted units at the Airport Business Center and
a new project to be constructed on East Cooper Street. While the
Planning Office has not reviewed the specific details of this new
proposal, we generally support the basic concept.
The Ute City Place project on Fast Cooper Street involves the conversion
of a prior GMP approval to 100% deed -restricted employee housing
while the acquisition of existing rental housing at the Airport Business
Center would result in the deed -restriction of currently unrestricted
units. The principal issue which we have identified at this time
involves the transportation implications associated with housing
hotel employees at the Airport Business Center. The Applicants'
April 19th letter addresses this concern and we will be prepared
to discuss it in detail at such time as formal review of the Applicants
Page 2
revised proposal occurs.
No formal action with respect to the Applicants' revised employee
housing proposal can be taken tonight. Should you agree conceptually
with the Applicants' revisions, a detailed memorandum addressing
the review requirements of the Municipal Code will be prepared by
the Planning Office and formal review could be conducted by the
Commission at your regular May 8th meeting. The Applicants must
secure permission to submit an application on behalf of the current
owners of the two properties or place the properties in question
under option prior to formal action by the Commission. In addition,
the Housing Authority must take formal action, tentatively scheduled
for the Authority's Thursday, April 3rd meeting, with respect to
the revised proposal and the Planning Office must review the specifics
surrounding the prior GMP approval of the Ute City Place project.
The Ute City Place project involves the construction of twenty-two
(22) new deed -restricted employee housing units. As such, it is
subject to special approval of the Council, based on the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Inasmuch as the Ute City
Place project involves an RBO rezoning, the Commission must find
that the proposed revisions to the project are consistent with the
original conditions of P.BO approval. No specific review by the Commission
is required for the deed -restriction of the Airport Business Center
units to employee housing guidelines. The Commission, however, must
find that the proposed utilization of the ABC units is consistent
with the Applicants' lodge GMP application and is appropriate within
the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD.
700 SOUTH GALENA - CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Attached for your review and consideration is the 1983 Residential
GMP Project Profile and Planning Office recommended scoring for the
700 South Galena residential component of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
Generally speaking, the impacts of a proposed project are reflected
in the scores which the project received in the GMP process. Similarly►
receipt of a GMP allocation would tend to indicate that the majority
of those impacts have been successfully mitigated.
As the Planning Offices' recommended scoring reflects, no major defic-
iencies of a conceptual nature with respect to the proposed project
were noted. In fact, the Planning Offices' recommended scoring with
respect to public facilities and services were increased based on
the Applicants' clarification that the project would only be built
as submitted in conjunction with the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain
PUD. The 700 South Galena project also clearly exceeds the underlying
zoning requirements for parking and open space.
It should be pointed out, however, that the level of development
proposed exceeds the L-2 zoning requirements for the twenty-one thousand
six hundred (21,600) square foot site and may only be permitted in
conjunction with the development of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD.
Twelve (12) units with twenty-four (24) bedrooms and a total adjusted
floor area of twenty-one thousand seventy-three (2.1,073) square feet
are proposed for the site as part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. However,
if the multi -family development plans were based solely on the 21,600
square foot site, Section 24-3.7k of the Municipal Code would permit
no more than one bedroom per 1,000 square feet of land area or a
maximum of twenty-one (2.1) b-•drooms. In the event the Aspen Mountain
PUD is not approved, the 700 South Galena project would require a
GMP amendment in order to allow its construction.
As the attached project profile indicates, the 700 South Galena project
essentially complies with all applicable area and bulk requirements
of the underlying zoned district. The only variation required under
the PUD regulations with respect to 700 South Galena is the project's
height. The maximum height of the underlying L-2 zone district is
Page 3
2.8 feet while the proposed project appears to average approximately
35 feet on the attached conceptual drawings. As the Planning Offices'
recommended scoring points out, however, the massing, articulation
of units, and materials create a desirable transition between the
proposed hotel and residential units to the southeast and the scale
is compatible with other structures in the area. The Applicants'
are prepared to discuss the height at your Tuesday meeting should
this be a major concern.
Neither the Planning Office nor the Engineering Department have identified
further conceptual issues which should be addressed at this time.
The Applicants, however, will present the 700 South Galena project
at your Tuesday meeting, and should you have any additional concerns,
they can easily be incorporated into your resolution. Should you
have any questions prior to your April 2.4th meeting, please feel
free to contact me at the Planning Office.
DRAFT
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR THE 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
Resolution No.
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants"), have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill and Summit Place condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals including 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review
and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site
currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD)(L); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning
to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R-
15 (PUD)(L); and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Comi<iission") did consider the Applicants' requests
for conceptual PUD/subdivisi-:-: approval of the Top of Fill and Summit
Place condominiums, 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review,
and rezoning from Public to L-2 at meetings held on I"arch 20th, r'arch
27th and April 17, 1984, and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted
on April 10, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect
to the Applicants' request for 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane
review until its consideration of the Applicants' preliminary PUD/sub-
division submission, given the technical nature of the various review
criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately
assess project impacts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-11 .3 (f) of the Municipal Code,
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
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2
PUD and subdivision regulations; and
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 component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7, Series
of 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did review, Section 24-11..3(f) of the
Municipal Code notwithstanding, the 700 South Galena condominium
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD with respect to the conceptual
PUD/subdivision criteria of the Municipal Code at a special meeting
held on April 24, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant
conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and
24-8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and
700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' acquisition of that portion of the Top
of Mill site currently owned by the City.
2. The Applicants' 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.
3. The Applicants' submission of a detailed proposal, acceptable
to the Aspen Ski Club, for the relocation of the Ski Club's
facilities.
4. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all utility rights, the provision of appropriate
utility easements, and each utility franchised in the City
signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that
the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each
utility's current or future needs.
5. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan including information with respect to the
extent and nature of the grading required to construct
the proposed retention ponds.
6. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
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-family
units located at the southern terminus of Mill Street in
order to expand the view through the project from the Street
Resolution No. 84-
Page 3
to the ski area.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
mature vegetation on the Top of Mil]. site and the installation
of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact
of the project, in particular as viewed from Mill Street,
Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' provision of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro-
priate by the City.
10. The Applicants' granting of an acceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site so as to provide access, to
the extent feasible, to the base of Little Nell and Lift
1-A.
11 The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.
12.. The reconstruction of existinq residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
24-11.2 (a) of the Punicipal Code, being accomplished within
five (5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted
to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
13. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision and residential GMP 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 Top of Mill site currently owned by the City and does
recommend instead that the parcel(s) be rezoned to R-15 (PUD) (L)
at such time as the parcel(s) are conveyed to the Applicants for
the following reasons:
1. While the proposed development is consistent with the intent
of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations
Transition land use category applied to this area in the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required
to achieve the proposed development.
2. The primary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable
them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio
available in the L-2 zone district. Since the FAR, provisions
of the Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PUD
regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of
the requested variation is inappropriate.
3. The L-2 zone district permits multi -family residential
uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes and,
Resolution No. 84-_
- Page 4
therefore, does not guarantee that development will occur consistent
with the adopted Land Use Plan.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on April _ , 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
Perry Harvey, Chairman
r�
DRAFY
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR THE 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
Resolution No.
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants"), have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Mill and Summit Place condominium
components of the Aspen Nountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals including 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review
and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of r'ill site
currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission") did consider the Applicants' requests
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, 8040 Greenline and Mountain
View Plane review, and rezoning at regular meetings held on ('.arch
20th and March 27, 1984, and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted
on April 10, 1984, at which time evidence and testimony were presented
with respect to the Applicants' request for rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect
to the Applicants' request for 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane
review until its consideration of the Applicants' preliminary PUD/sub-
division submission, given the technical nature of the various review
criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately
assess project impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning
to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R-
15 (PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section
24-11.4 (g) of the P"unicipal Code, a development allotment of twelve
(12) residential units to the 700 South Calena condominium component
of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7, Series
of 1984; and
Resolution No. 84-
Page 2,
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office (hereinafter referred
to as the "Planning Office") has recommended that conceptual PTJD/sub-
division review by the Commission of the 700 South Galena condominium
component of the Aspen Mountain PUP be waived, pursuant to Section
24-11.3(f) of the Municipal Code, as a result of the project's successful
receipt of a development allotment.
N041, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby concur with the Planning Office recommendation
and waive conceptual PUD/subdivision review by the Commission for
the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen mountain
PUD.
Section 2
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant
conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections 2.0-10 and
24-8.7 of the municipal Code, to the Top of still, Summit Place and
700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen mountain PUD
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' acquisition of that portion of the Top
of Mill site currently owned by the City.
2. The Applicants' 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.
3. The Applicants' submission of a detailed proposal, acceptable
to both the Aspen Ski Club and Skiing Company, for the
relocation of the Ski Club's facilities.
4. The vacation of rill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all utility rights, the provision of appropriate
utility easements, and each utility franchised in the City
signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that
the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each
utility's current or future needs.
5. The Applicants' submission of a detailed storm drainage
plan including information with respect to the extent and
nature of the grading required to construct the proposed
retention ponds.
6. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.
7. The reconstruction of existing residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
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 rountain PUD site.
Resolution No. 84-
Page 3
8. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications not speci-
fically referred to above being made a condition of this
approval.
Section 3
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 Top of P1ill site currently owned by the City and does
recommend that, instead, the parcel (s) be rezoned to R-15 (PUD) (L)
at such time as the parcel(s) are conveyed to the Applicants for
the following reasons:
1. While the proposed development is consistent with the intent
of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations
Transition land use category applied to this area in the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required
to achieve the proposed development.
2. The primary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable
them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio
available in the L-2 zone district. Since the FAR provisions
of the "Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PU D
regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of
the requested variation is inappropriate.
3. The L-2. zone district permits multi -family residential
uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes and,
therefore, does not guarantee that development will occur
consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on April , 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND TONING COMMISSION
Py
ATTEST:
Barbara Morris, Deputy City Clerk
Perry Harvey, Chairman
13
TOP OF MILL
POTENTIAL UNIT BUILDOUT
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
April 10, 1984
LOT 3 TOP
OF MILL
1. jot area.
R-15
(PUD)(L) =
75,628
s.f.
L-2
=
45,000
s.f.
Public
=
14,500
s.f.
Conservation
=
105,000
s.f.
240,128
s.f.
2. Potential
unit buildout.
R-15
(PUD)(L)1
3 duplex lots
@ 20,000 s.f./lot =
6
units
2 single-family
lots @ approx.
15,000 s.f./lot =
2
units
L-2
45,000 s.f. lot
area/3,000 s.f.
floor area/unit2 = ±15 units
Conservation
Applicants' 94,000
s.f. parce13 = 1 unit
City's 11,000 s.f.
parce13 = 1 unit
TOTAL
±25 units
lAssumes 14,500 s.f. Public parcel rezoned to R-15 (PUD)(L).
2No minimum lot area requirement for single-family/duplex units in
the L-2 zone district; number of units allowed is a function of unit
size and allowable floor area. Assumes 3,000 s.f. of floor area
per dwelling unit as proposed by applicants.
Code allows one single-family unit on a non -conforming lot of record.
1
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
FLOOR AREA AND FLOOR AREA RATIO ANALYSIS
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
April 10, 1n84
LOT
1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE
1.
Lot area excluding vacated rights-of-way.l
?11.,2.54 s.f.
2.
Lot �,,r.ea including vacated rights -of -way.
241,107 s.f.
3.
Proposed external floor area.2
310,0115 s.f.
4.
Allowable external floor area uncler existing
zoning excluding vacated rights -of -way.
229,309 s.f.
L-1 floor area
(21,009 s.f. n 1:1 FAR) _ 21,089
s.f.
L-2 floor area
(172,112 s.f. @ 1:1 FAR) = 1.72,1.1.2
s.f.
CL floor area
(18,054 s.f. @ 2:1 FA^) = 36,10R
s.f.
5.
Allowable internal FAR under existing 7= inq
excluding vacated rights-of-way.3
229,309 s.f. floor area/211,2.54 s.f. lot
area
6.
Allowable external floor area under existing
zoning including vacated rights-of-vray.
263,674 s.f.
L-1. floor area
(26,368 s.f. 0 1:1 FAR) = 26,36"
s.f_.
L-2 floor area
(192,172 s.f. n, 1:1 FAR) = 192,172
s.f.
CL floor area
(22,567 s.f. 0 2:1 FAR) = 45,134
s.f.
7.
Allowable external FAR under existing zoning
including vacated rights -of -way.
1.09:1
263,674 s.f. floor area/241,107 s.f. lot
area
8.
Proposed external. FAR excluding vacated
rights -of -way.
1.47:1.
310,275 s.f. floor area/211,254 s.f. lot
area
9.
Proposed external F "I including vacated
rights -of -way.
I.29:1
310,275 s.f. floor area/241,107 s.f. lot
area
LOT
2 SUMMIT PLACE CONDOMINIUMS
1.
Lot area.
5,360 S . f .
2.
Allowable external FAR under existing zoning.
1:1
3.
Allowable floor area under existing zoning.
5,360 s.f.
4.
Proposed external floor area.`
7,668 s.f.
5.
Proposed external FAR.
1.43:1
P a q e 2
LOT 3 TOP OF MILL CONDOMINIUMS
1.. Lot area excluding vacated right -of-: ay.5
Lot area including vacated right -of --way.
3. Lot area excluding vacated right-of-way
and land zoned Conservation.6J
4. Lot area including vacated right-of-way
and excluding land zoned Conservation.
5. Proposed external floor area.
6. Allowable external floor.area under existing zoning
excluding vacated right-of-way and land zoned
Conservation.7
L-2 floor area
(45,000 s.f. 0 1:.1 FAP)
R-15 (PUD) (L) floor area
(90,128 s.f. lot
area/15,000 s.f./lot =
approximately 6 single-
family lots) ��33
45,000 s.f.
6 lots 0 approximately
4,500 s.f. floor area/lot = 27,000 s.f.
7. Allowable external FAR under existing zoning excluding
vacated right-of-way and land zoned Conservation.
72,000 s.f. floor area/135,128 s.f. lot area
8. Allowable external floor area under existing zoning
including vacated right-of-way and excluding
land zoned Conservation.
L-2 floor area
(45,000 0 1:1 FAR)
R-15(PUD)(L) floor area
(92,813 s.f. lot
area/15,000 s.f./lot =
approximately 6 single-
family lots)
5 Lots @ approximately
A,500 s.f. floor area/lot
_ 45,000 s.f.
= 22.,500 s. t.
1 lot C approximately
4,670 s.f. floor area = 4,67n s.f.
9. Allowable external FAR under existing zoning
including vacated right-of-way and excluding
land zoned Conservation.
72.,170 s.f. floor area/137,813 s.f. lot Prea
10. Proposed external FAR excluding right-of-wa,,,,
and land zoned Conservation.
101,000 s.f. floor area/135;128 :•.f-. lot area
240,128 s.f.
242,813 s.f.
135,128 s.f.
137,01.3 .f.
1.01.,0n0 s.f.
72,000 s.f.
+0.53.1
r 72,1.70 s.f.
+0.52:1.
0.75:1.
Page 3
1.1. Proposed external FAR including right-of-way
and excluding land zoned Conservation. 0.73:1
1.01,000 s.f. floor area/1.37, 213 s.f. lot area
12. Proposed external FAR. excluding right-of-way
and including land zoned Conservation. 0.42:1
101,000 s.f. floor area/240,1.2S s.f. lot area
13. Proposed external FAR including rights -of -way
and land zoned Conservation. 0.42:1
101,000 s.f. floor area/242.,813 s.f. lot area
LOT 4 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUMS
1. Lot area. 21,600 s.f.
2. Proposed external floor area. 19,260 s.f-.
3. Allowable external floor area under existing L-2
zoning. 21.,600 s.f.
21,600 s.f. @ 1:1 FAR,
4. Proposed external FAR.
1`',2 0 s.f. floor area/21,600 s.f. lot area
0.89:1
TOTAL
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
1. Lot
area excluding vacated
rights -of -way.
478,342.
s.f.
2. Lot
area including vacated
rights -of. -way.
510,880
s.f.
3. Lot
area excluding vacated
rights -of -way and
land
zoned Conservation.
373,342
s.f.
4. Lot area including vacated rights -of -way and
excluding land zoned Conservation. 405,880 s.f.
5. Proposed external floor area.9 438,2.03 s.f.
6. Allowable external floor area under existing zoning
excluding vacated rights -of -way and land zoned
Conservation. •i-328,269 s.f.
7. Allowable external FAR, under existing zoning
excluding vacated rights -of -way and land zoned
Conservation. +0.88:1
328,269 s.f. floor area/373,342 s.f. lot �rca
8. Allowable external floor area under existing zoninci
including vacated rights -of -way and excluding
land zoned Conservation. ±362,804 s.f.
9. Allowable external FAR under existing zoning
including vacated rights -of -way and excl.uelinr
land zoned Conservation. +0.89:1.
362,804 s.f. floor area/405,880 s.f. lot area
10. Proposed external FAR excluding rights -of -way
and land zoned Conservation. 1.17:1
438.203 s.f. floor area/373:'^.? !.f. lot area
Page 4
11. Proposed external FAR including rights -of -way
and excluding land zoned Conservation. 1.08:1
438,203 s.f. floor area/405,880 s.f. lot area
12. Proposed external. FAR excluding rights -of -way
and including land zoned Conservation. 0.92:1
438,203 s.f. floor area/478,342 s.f. lot area
13. Proposed external FAR including rights -of -way
and land zoned Conservation. 0,96:1
438,203 s.f. floor area/510,860 s.f. lot area
Footnotes
1 21,654 s.f.. of Dean Street and 7,199 s.f. of Lawn Street.
2 Conceptual PUD/subdivision. approval (subject to review of remainder
of PUD, City Council. Resolution I -To. 84-11, Series of 1984) .
?-?hile the Municipal Code makes no specific reference to the exclusion
of vacated lands in FAR calculations, Section 2.4-2.5 states in part
that " . . . in determining land available for development, there
shall be excluded from the calculation of allowable density or required
open space those areas of the development tract acquired by vacation."
Density (i.e., dwelling units/acre) with respect to lodge uses is
a function of allowable FAR. which in turn is a function of site area.
It would appear to follow, therefore, that vacated lands are excluded
from the calculation of allowable FAR for lodge uses since they must
be excluded from the calculation of allowable density "in determining
land available for development." Substantiation of this inter}Dretation,
however, falls within the area of Council policy.
4 Approximately 5,112 s.f. currently exist on Lot 2.
5 2.,685 s.f. of South Mill Street.
6 105,000 s.f. of land above the 804O elevation is zone,: Conservation.
7 In those cases in which a buildings site is located in more than
one zone district, a structure's maximum external floor area is the
sum of the allowable external floor areas for those Portions of the
site in each zone district, provided, however, that the structure
or use in question is permitted in each zone district and that each
district has an applicable external floor area limitation. Lodge
uses are prohibited in the C, Conservation zone district. As result,
that portion of the site zoned Conservation theoretically, could
not be used for purposes of calculating external floor area for structures
or uses permitted elsewhere on the property. Furthermore, there
is no external floor area limitation imposed on the Conservation
zone district and, therefore, no ability to aggregate allowable external
floor area as outlined above. From a practical perspective, inasmuch
as external FAR is a numerical statement of the relationship of the
size of a structure to its building site, it would seem logical in
mixed use PUD's to compare total building square footage to total
building site. The Municipal Code is essentially silent with respect
to the above issues, and, therefore, any interpretation is subject
to Council policy.
8 The 90,12.0 s.f. lot area assumes, for purposes of this analysis,
that the 14,500 s.f. of City -owned lard will be conveyed to the applicants
and rezoned from Public to R-15 (PUD) (L) . While the 90,128 s.f. R-
15 (PUD)(L) parcel could also be subdivided in a single-family/duplex
lot configuration, the subdivision depicted produces the maximum
allowable external floor area and has, therefore, been used. for compar-
ison purposes.
Page 5
n Conceptual. PUD/subdivision approval (subject to review of remainder
of PUD, City Council Resolution No. 84-11, Series of 1984).
PIF MORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
P.E: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual
PUD and related reviews
DATE: April 10, 1984
The purpose of tonight's meeting was originally to consider the appli-
cants request for a rezoning to L-2 for the City owned lots which
are involved in the proposed Koch Lumber land trade and which are
presently zoned Public and for the balance of the Top of rill site
up to the 8040 elevation which is presently zoned R-15 (PUD) (L).
The applicants, however, have withdrawn their request for rezoning
of the R-15 (PUD) (L) parcel in view of the fact that the proposed
rezoning is not essential to the development of the Top of rlill proposal.
A rezoning of the existing Public parcels will still be required,
and the applicants would like to take advantage of tonight's published
public hearing for consideration of this request.
The Planning Office is prepared to discuss density/FAR issues surrounding
the Top of Mill proposal at your Tuesday, April loth meeting. Following
this discussion, it would be helpful for P&Z to identify those remaining
issues associated with the Top of dill proposal which you would like
addressed at your next meeting. The architects for the project are
currently addressing various concerns voiced by staff and the P&Z
and should have revisions forthcoming in the near future.
Please bring the Planning Office's ;larch 20, 1984 P&Z memorandum
to your Tuesday meeting. Should you have any questions prior to
Tuesday, please contact me at the Planning Office.
ro
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
SUITE 2900
600 EAST MAIN STREET
SUITE 1200
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (303) 575-8000
TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476
TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340
TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261
TELECOPIER (202) 466-7354
BILLINGS, MONTANA OFFICE
LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 1400
HOLLAND & HART & KITE
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
A WYOMING PARTNERSHIP
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
618 GRAND AVENUE
TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166
LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070
TELECOPIER(406) 252-1669
TELEPHONE(307) 742-8203
TELECOPIER (307) 792-7618
April 6, 1984
ARTHUR C. DAILY
(303) 925-3476
Mr. Sunny Vann, Planning Director
City/County Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Top of Mill -- Withdrawal of Rezoning Request
Dear Sunny:
In its present form before the Planning and Zoning Commission,
our Residential GMP Submission for the Top of Mill project includes
a request that the City rezone from R-15 (PUD)(L) to L-2 a portion
of the Top of Mill land area. At the time the Submission was pre-
pared, it was felt that the inherent vagueness of the existing R-15
(PUD)(L) designation under the Municipal Code recommended the sub-
stitution of a clearer and more functional zoning category. More-
over, the L-2 designation appeared to be substantially more compat-
ible with both the zoning classification and the actual use of
neighboring properties.
One consequence, however, would be a perceived increase in
allowable F.A.R., and it is this factor that seems to be causing
doubts about the propriety of the rezoning proposal. In light of
our conviction that the P.U.D. regulations are sufficiently flexi-
ble to allow approval of the proposed Top of Mill development with-
out violation of any existing Code restrictions or requirements, we
have concluded that the rezoning request is superfluous. The
uncertainties relating to the R-15 (PUD)(L) category will disappear
in any case once a P.U.D. Plan for the entire area receives final
approval.
HOLLAND & HART
April 6, 1984
Page 2
For these reasons, we hereby withdraw the subject rezoning
request. We do wish to preserve, however, our request that the
portion of the "City Lots" presently zoned Public be rezoned L-2,
such rezoning to become effective upon the consummation of the pro-
posed land trade between the City and the Applicants.
Very truly yours,
Arthur C. Daily
for HOLLAND & HART
Attorneys for the Applicants
ACD/jlf
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
Doremus and Company
Mr. John Roberts
Mr. Robert Callaway
Mr. Alan Novak
N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissin
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Hill Conceptual PUD Review
DATE: March 27, 1984
Please bring your March 20, 1984 memorandum with regard to this appli-
cation to the Work Session.
N
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
1984I hereby certify that on this _Z& day of �uk
1 a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage
prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached
list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning
Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public
notice.
- Qu4x " I a
JaneW Lynn We stein
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill Rezoning
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
April 10, 1984, at 5:00 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commiss%on, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider a request
to rezone the upper portion of the Top of Mill site above Fifth Avenue
Condominiums. The current zoning designation for this portion of
land is R-15 (PUD) (L) and the applicants request that this property
be rezoned to L-2. The applicants are also requesting L-2 zoning
for lots owned by the City which are being considered for a land
trade (Koch Lumber Property) with respect to this application, which
land is presently zoned Public. The two areas include 85,511 sq. f t. of
land area.
For further information contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 283.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 22, 1984.
City of Aspen Account.
Bob J. Scarborough `
600 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
• Valdamar nark
515 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
David G. Elmore
10001 East Evans
Denver, CO 80231
Robert Prentis Morris
Box 9069
Aspen, CO 81612
Hans R. & June Cantrup
Box 1188
Aspen, CO 81612
Durant Condominium Assn.
Condominium Rental
Management, Inc.
747 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81.611
Fifth Avenue Condo. Assn.
Condominium Rental
Management, Inc.
747 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Fashing Haus Condominium
Condominium Rental
Management, Inc.
747 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Mountain Oueen Condo. Assn.
Box 8880
Aspen, CO 81612
700 Monarch Condo. Assn.
c/o Stirling Homes
600 E. Thin St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Joe Cabell
1765 Ala-Monan Blvd.
Honolulu, Hawaii
Christopher P. Hemmeter
Hemmeter Center
Honolulu, Hawaii 96819
Spar Consolidated
Mining and Development
Company
28 State St.
Boston, MA 02910
74-1 S• � � -
a4lw� coQlbt�
_7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill./Summit Place Conceptual
PUD and Related Reviews
DATE: March 20, 1984
To refresh your memory, the Aspen Mountain PIlD consists of four distinct
development proposals: 1) an approximately 447 unit resort hotell;
2) the 33 unit Top of Mill residential condominium complex; 3) the
12 unit 700 S. Galena residential condominium complex; and 4) a one
unit residential addition to the existing Summit Place duplex. All
of these development proposals are contained within the applicants'
11.7 acre PUD site. The applicants' proposed conceptual lot plan
and an aerial photo of the properties in question are attached to
facilitate your review of the Top of Mill/Summit Place proposals.
The proposed resort hotel successfully competed in the City's 1983
Lodge GMP competition, and P&Z has recommended conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval and the award of a multi -year allocation to City Council.
In addition, the P&Z has granted a change -in -use exemption for the
conversion of the 44 unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed -restricted employee
housing, and has further recommended that Council award the 44 units
removed from the lodge inventory as a result of the conversion to
the applicants. The applicants' request for rezoning to CL (Commercial
Lodge) of the Chase Duplex., Hillside Lodge, etc. has been withdrawn.
Their requests for rezoning to R-6 (RBO) of the Benedict/Larkin parcel
and an exemption from growth management for the construction of approx-
imately 50 employee housing units thereon have been tabled pending
Council action with respect to the proposed resort hotel. The P&Z's
recommendations are currently being considered by the Council.
The proposed 12. unit 700 S. Galena complex successfully competed
in the 1983 Residential Gr�IP competition and has been awarded a residential
allocation by the Council. Given the relatively discreet nature
of this development proposal and its successful receipt of a development
allocation, the Planning Office proposes to waive conceptual PUD/sub-
division review pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code.
The purpose of your r,:arch 20th meeting is to initiate conceptual
PUD/subdivision review of the 33 unit Top of Mill complex, and the
Summit Place addition. These two proposals will also require a rezoning,
a GMP exemption for the reconstruction of existing residential units,
and 8040 greenline and mountain view plane review. These additional
review requirements should be considered in conjunction with the
applicants' request for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval. The
Planning Office's comments with respect to the above review requirements
are outlined below.
CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION
The proposed Top of Mill condominium complex consists of 33 single
family/duplex dwelling units and associated accessory facilities.
The units are approximately 3,000 s.f. in size, contain three and
four bedrooms and are located on approximately 5.5 acres at the south
end of the Aspen Nountain PUD site. Amenities include two pools,
ski access and below grade parking. The site includes eight (8)
City -owned lots in the Capitol Bill Addition which the applicants
lNote: The applicants original proposal of 480 lodge units has been
reduced to 447 lodge units and 6 residential units to be constructed
in conjunction with the resort hotel.
117
or
VACA
� � dry' //f�i'/ _" : � /•%_T ��� —
' 77
SUN
I
8UMMIT-- BTRa
CONDOMINIUMS
10 Sp FT.
'—\—'-
�� 'r . {F
JUNIATA 8TN66T
_--
�� .720
C)
A
\,` � F` _� - .pas- ` . �� • �...�
-- - - DEAN SI: VACATION
Ton
DURANT AVRINR
`ASPM NOUNTA I.OD('
4 I•AWN ST.
_ -- F-..-
irF
� ,I • +.r L J�Ir
0[VYINO TITL[ CONSULTANTS 0 AWING NO
ASPEN MOUNTAIN
.iN,��N.�• 1
.rN. A�iA
The Lodge -Galena-Top Of Mill LOTrLrlrl
American Century Corporation OATS I DECEMMM 1909 - — ,_ —j
57
7
y �;s
• a7t
IMP
+
Tops � APA 17
.� z
'� � � � � J! ..r�. �a 1�'.,. �5' ,.yiq.` •• � `�, `" iMlr- ,'a: a.r:J�/�. +.q
i 'w rt; •
IM
S. Gal
r
qbr , 1-tea
i :Z
i � Pamy, l4��,•
rA6.
,may +.r +► ;w � � � o . � f t
� Ye♦4 "`fir P'?e - �$'� Y a ! � �. t � 1 �r�` -1 �,"��;;�. �:. ,. _.
i.NsV� e o,
.star-,y`A.!`s/„+✓..�- /
NNW-
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place
Conceptual PUD and Related Review
March 20, 1984
Page 2
propose to trade for a portion of the Koch Lumber property which
they also own. This proposed trade is obviously subject to Council
approval; however, for purposes of this review, you should assume
Council's consent.
The Summit Place Townhouses, originally proposed as a fourplex and
presently under construction at 750 S. Pfill Street, will be completed
as a triplex in order to provide a ski and pedestrian trail link
west of the building. The third unit, as well as the 33 unit Top
of Mill complex will replace the greater part of the 40 existing
and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen Mountain
PUD site. The remaining six unit residential credit will be held
in reserve by the applicants for possible use at a later date.
To be eligible for PUD approval, an applicant must demonstrate the
reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the
design requirements of the PUD regulations, the lack of adverse impacts
of the proposed development, and the plan's compliance with the intent
and purpose of the Planned Unit Development regulations. The purpose
and intent of the regulations is to encourage flexibility, innovation
and variety in the development of land so as to create a more desirable
environment than would be possible through strict application of
the zoning code. In our opinion, this application is consistent
with these objectives and with the design requirements of the PUD
regulations.
In order to achieve PUD design objectives, the PUD regulations permit
variations in most of the area and bulk requirements of the zoning
code. No variation, however, is allowed in permitted uses or density.
While a rezoning is requested in conjunction with the Top of Mill
complex, the proposed single family/duplex use is currently allowed
under existing zoning. The major variations from the area and bulk
requirements which the Top of Mill/Summit Place portion of the Aspen
Mountain PUD will require involve the applicable FAR and height require-
ments of the underlying zone districts and a reduction in required
parking. All of the elements of the applicants' proposal, however,
can be accomplished within the flexibility provided for in the PUD
regulations.
As the applicants point out in their application, "Any comparison
between the level of development proposed -in the Aspen Mountain PUD
and that permitted under the area and bulk requirements of the Code
is highly interpretive as the Code includes no language regarding
the calculation of maximum development allowed for proposals lying
in more than one zone district nor for mixed use projects including
both lodge and residential development." The Planning Office essentially
concurs with this statement and believes, as do the applicants, that
the City's decisions with respect to the applicants' PUD proposals
should place emphasis primarily on the acceptability of the impacts
of the proposals and the extent to which physical modifications are
required and can be made to make the proposals acceptable.
The extent to which the FAR of underlying zone districts should be
varied for the Aspen Mountain PUD is currently under consideration
by the Council. In view of the lack of Council resolution with respect
to the lodge portion of this PUD, and the implications of that resolution
with respect to FAR in general, the Planning Office has not addressed
this issue in this memorandum. Instead, we have focused primarily
on design related concerns and various technical issues which should
be addressed by the applicants prior to preliminary PUD submission.
Hopefully, Council will resolve its FAR concerns concurrent with
your review of the Top of "-till/Summit Place proposals. The Planning
Office will provide additional information with respect to FARs in
subsequent memorandums.
While the Planning Office feels that the Top of Bill/Summit Place
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place
Conceptual PUD and Related Review
March 20, 1984
Page 3
proposals are basically consistent with our PUD regulations, there
are a number of issues which should be considered by the P&Z. The
Planning Office's comments with respect to these issues are outlined
below.
Site Design/Visual Impact
The Top of Mill site lies at the southern terminus of Mill Street
at the base of Aspen mountain. The site consists of two distinct
areas, the lower part which lies between the Mountain Queen parking
structure and Mill Street, south of Summit Street, and the upper
part which consists of a natural bowl starting at the present termination
of Mill Street. Because of the natural contours of the site and
the height of existing development, the applicants believe that most
of the buildings at the top of Mlill will not be seen from the City.
The complex's single family/duplex configuration will further reduce
the visual impact and provide a logical transition from the adjacent
multi -family uses to the open space areas at the base of the Mountain.
With respect to visual impact, the Planning Office believes the site
to be well planned and responsive to the high visual vulnerability
of this portion of Aspen Mountain. The use of architectural clusters,
minimal building footprints, and the provision of parking below grade
reduces site coverage and results in significant amounts of usable
open space for the complex's residents. While the Planning Office
believes the applicants have gone to considerable lengths to address
the issue of visual impact, it is difficult to adequately assess
the success of their design given the level of detail submitted to
c'.ate. Additional information should be provided as part of the appli-
cants' preliminary PUD submission to enable the Planning Office to
more accurately gage the visual impact of the project.
Both the Planning Office and the Engineering Department have identified
at least two additional issues which warrant further attention by
the applicants which should be addressed in greater detail in their
preliminary PUD submission. These issues include the adequacy of
access for fire protection purposes and the impact of the proposed
Top of Mill complex on adjacent Ski Club activities and the Willoughby
ski jump. While the applicants have represented that state-of-the-
art fire protection techniques will be employed in the project and
that a "fire station" will be located at the southernmost portion
of the site, this issue needs to be explored further by the applicants
in conjunction with the Fire Department. Similarly, the construction
of this project may directly impact the Aspen Ski Club rope tow and
future utilization of the Willoughby ski jump. This issue should
be resolved with the Ski Company and additional information submitted
fcr consideration in conjunction with the applicants' preliminary
PUD submission.
Circulation/Parking Requirements
The Engineering Department concurs with the applicants' contention
that the existing road network in the vicinity of the Top of mill/Summit
Place complex is adequate to handle the traffic generated by these
two projects. In fact, the replacement of the 40 existing residential
units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site by the 33 unit Top of Mill complex
and one unit Summit Place addition may result in a net decrease in
traffic generated in the project area, due primarily to the potential
change in occupancy characteristics of the applicants proposal.
While a change in the occupancy characteristics of the PUD's residential
dwelling units may result in a reduction in traffic in the Top of
Mill area, both the Engineering Department and the Planning Office
are concerned about circulation and accessibility in the general
vicinity of the Top of Mill site. For some time, the City has pursued
extending Summit Street between gill and Monarch Streets so as to
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place
Conceptual PUD and Related Review
March 20, 1984
Page 4
improve overall circulation and emergency access in this part of
the City. The Top of Mill site plan proposes the elimination of
the Summit Street link in order to accommodate the pedestrian and
ski trail from the Mountain to the hotel. The Engineering Department
does not support the elimination of the possibility of the Summit
Street extension at this time, feeling that it is particularly important
to provide alternative access to the many properties on South Monarch
and that the extension would benefit overall circulation as well
as emergency access in that area. The Engineering Department suggests
that further explanation of this issue involving the applicants,
the Engineering Department and the Fire Department with respect to
acceptable alternatives should be a condition of conceptual PUD approval.
The applicants are requesting a reduction in the total number of
parking spaces required for the Top of Mill/Summit Place complex
from 138 to 80 spaces. The applicants have provided considerable
information in their application in support of a reduction and are
also currently undertaking an updated survey to further substantiate
their request. While both the Engineering Department and Planning
Office basically support the applicants' request, the results of
the updated survey should be submitted for further consideration
as part of their preliminary PUD submission. In the event the survey
indicates a need for additional parking in the Top of Mill/Summit
Place complex, the applicants have agreed to address this need as
required.
Street Vacation
The vacation of the southernmost tip of South Mill Street will. be
required to implement the applicants' Top of Mill proposal. The
vacation of public rights -of -way is accomplished through ordinance
of City Council. However, given the implications of such requests
on the overall street network of the City, the Council typically
requests input from the Planning and Zoning Commission to facilitate
their review. Consequently, the applicants are requesting your con-
sideration of the proposed street vacation as a part of the Top of
Mill conceptual PUD review. The Engineering Department has reviewed
the applicants' request and has concluded that the proposed vacation
would not adversely impact the general area from a circulation stand-
point. The proposed vacation involves approximately 2,800 s.f. and
would be used for accessing the Top of Mill complex.. No residential
structures are proposed for the vacated area. Subject to the adequate
provision of access to the site and appropriate utility easements,
the Engineering Department has no problem with the vacation of this
portion of Mill Street.
Inasmuch as the right-of-way which is to be vacated may contain numerous
existing utilities, the Engineering Department recommends that each
utility franchised in the City, regardless of whether or not they
maintain utility easements in the right-of-way in question, sign -off
on the requested vacation in order to verify that the loss of this
right-of-way will not interfere with their current or future needs.
Similarly, the Planning Office would request that the applicants
identify those improvements and/or public benefits which will accrue
from the development of the overall PUD which would offset the City's
vacation of this portion of Mill Street.
REZONINGS
The
Aspen Mountain PUD application, as amended, includes a
request
for
three rezonings, two of which are directly related to
the Top
of
Mill proposal. The
applicable zoning regulations require that
the
Planning and Zoning
Commission conduct a public hearing to
consider
rezoning
requests and
report its recommendations to City
Council
for
their consideration.
A public hearing has been published
for
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of till/Summit Place
Conceptual PUD and Related Review
March 20, 1984
Page 5
April loth and adjacent property owners will be notified. The Planning
Office is prepare to provide a brief overview of the requested rezonings
at your Tuesday, March 20th meeting. P&Z consideration of the applicants'
requests, however, should be deferred until the public hearing.
The applicants' specific rezoning requests are examined below.
R-15 (PUD (L) and Public to L-2
The applicants are requesting a rezoning to L-2 for the City -owned
lots which are involved in the proposed Koch Lumber land trade and
which are presently zoned Public, and for the balance of the Top
of Mill site up to the 8040 elevation which is presently zoned R-
15 (PUD)(L). The applicants' attached exhibits depict the existing
and proposed zoning for the parcels in question.
Rezoning applications by private applicants are typically heard by
the Planning and Zoning Commission only during meetings scheduled
by the Commission for this purpose in the months of April and October
of each year. An applicant, however, may request either the Planning
and Zoning Commission or City Council to sponsor their request for
rezoning thereby circumventing the twice yearly restriction. The
applicants, in order to allow consideration of their rezoning request
in conjunction with their Top of Mill conceptual PUD/subdivision
application, are requesting that the P&7 sponsor their application
for rezoning to L-2.
In reviewing a request for rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission
is required to consider the following evaluative criteria: 1) The
compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone
district and land uses; 2) the impacts of the rezoning upon traffic,
parking and utilities; 3) the impacts on air and water quality; 4)
the community need for the rezoning; 5) the compatibility of the
proposed rezoning with the 1966 Az9e1LArea__Q era] Plan as amended;
and 6) the extent to which the proposed rezoning will promote the
health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors
to the City of Aspen.
The applicants' principal argument in favor of this rezoning is that
the single-family/duplex units to be constructed on the rezoned parcels
are consistent with the intent of the Recreation/Accommodations Transition
land use category applied to this area in the 1973 Aspen Land_Us-e
Plan which calls for accommodations development of limited height,
bulk and scale. While both the intent of the L-2 zone district and
the proposed single-family/duplex development are consistent with
the intent of our adopted land use plan, the applicants' primary
reason for requesting this rezoning apparently is to enable them
to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio available in the
L-2 zone district. By utilizing the district's 1:1 external FAR
ratio, the applicants can reduce, at least statistically, the overall
FAR of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
As noted in the conceptual PUD discussion, the applicants are requesting
a variation from the underlying FAR requirements of the applicable
zone districts. Obviously the greater FAR allowed in the L-2 zone
district would make the FAR of the overall PUD appear smaller than
if we were to attempt to calculate FAR under existing R-15 (PUD)
(L) zoning. Inasmuch as the underlying FAR requirements of any zone
district may be varied pursuant to the PUD regulations, and taking
into consideration that the proposed uses are permitted uses in the
existing zone district, we see no community benefit in rezoning that
portion of the site currently owned by the applicants from R-15 (PUD)
(L) to L-2 simply to produce a more favorable FAR figure. The Planning
Office, therefore, recommends that you deny the applicants' request
for sponsorship of the R-15 (PUD) (L) rezoning and recommend denial
to City Council. Should Council accept the proposed land trade,
the Planning Office would recommend that P&Z endorse a request for
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place
Conceptual PUD and Related Review
March 20, 1984
Page 6
rezoning of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned
Public to R-15 (PUD) (L) .
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION/RECONSTRUCTION
The applicants of the Aspen Mountain PUD are requesting an exemption
from growth management for the development of the Top of Mill/Summit
Place complex. Specifically, the applicants are requesting an exemption
pursuant to Section 24-11.2(a) of the zoning regulations for the
reconstruction of 40 residential dwelling units. These units either
currently exist on the Aspen Mountain PUD site or have been previously
demolished and verified by the Building Department.
As discussed under CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION, the Top of r1ill/Summit
Place complex will replace 34 of the 40 existing or primarily demolished
residential dwelling units. The applicants, with the assistance
of the Building Department, have inventoried these units and have
submitted to the Planning Office a request for their verification.
After careful review of the applicants' documentation, the Planning
Office and Building Department have agreed to the verification of
40 residential dwelling units. A detailed breakdown of these units
is available should you require additional information.
While no specific P&Z or Council action is required with respect
to this request for GM P exemption, the Planning Office suggests that
any conceptual PUD approval with respect to the Top of mill/Summit
Place proposal include the following conditions which are consistent
with the reconstruction provisions of Section 24-11.2(a) of the Code:
1. The applicants should be limited to the reconstruction
of no more than the verified total of 40 residential dwelling
units;
2. The reconstruction of these residential units must be accom-
plished within five (5) years of the date of demolition;
3. The reconstruction of the demolished residential units
should be limited to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
The intent of the City's 8040 Greenline regulations is "to provide
for review of all development above the 8040 greenline within the
City of Aspen and all development 50 yards below the 8040 greenline
so as to aid in the transition of development from urban uses to
the adjacent agricultural and forestry uses; to insure that all develop-
ment is compatible with the prevailing slopes; to provide for the
least disturbance to the terrain and other natural land features
of the area; to guarantee availability of utilities and adequate
access; to reduce the impact of development on surface runoff, the
natural water shed, and air pollution; to avoid losses due to avalanches,
unstable slopes, rockfall and mudslides; and to enhance the natural
mountain setting." The P&Z is responsible for the above review and
is required to submit its recommendations to the Building Department.
No permit shall issue or development occur which is not in compliance
with the approved plan.
As shown on the attached proposed zoning map, the 8040 greenline
extends through the Top of Mill site. Similarly, the conceptual
PUD plan indicates that all of the 33 single family/duplex units
and accessory structures proposed for the Top of Mill site are subject
to 8040 greenline review procedures and, furthermore, that five (5)
of the thirty-three (33) units have been sited between the 8040 greenline
and the 8050 elevation.
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Hill/Summit Place
Conceptual PUD and Related Review
March 20, 1984
Page 7
With the exception of visual impact considerations, the 8040 greenline
review criteria address themselves primarily to engineering concerns.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision submission and has provided the following comments:
1. Water service to the Top of Mill portion of the Aspen Mountain
PUD site is impacted by the elevation of the structures.
The applicants have indicated a willingness to install
booster pumps to service the project in order to guarantee
fire flows in the area. The design of any such booster
system should be subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineering and Water Departments.
2. The Engineering Department's review of the Top of riill
site design has raised the question of adequate access
to the upper units for fire and emergency purposes. The
application suggests the construction of a "fire station"
at the south end of the site. Further comment from the
Fire Department should be solicited to ascertain the accept-
ability of such a system. Fire fighters would be required
to haul hoses and equipment some distance through the project
to access a problem in the southernmost structures. Elevator
and stair access from the parking facility could also be
impaired by a major fire.
3. Preliminary soils investigations by a soils consultant
has indicated the existence of recent fill on the Top of
Mill site as well as mine tailings and the potential for
subsidence associated with past mining activity. The applicants
should be required to pursue detailed investigation of
these potential problems and address the techniques necessary
to mitigate any hazards that are identified.
4. The proposed retention ponds and other drainage facilities
designed to address the need for storage of off -site unpolluted
runoff from Aspen Mountain appear to be somewhat cramped
as proposed. The Engineering Department feels, however,
that the basic concept of site drainage is in order and
anticipates that further refinement of the site plan will
suggest better siting for the various facilities needed.
It should also be noted that the applicants control a sub-
stantial parcel to the north and that some of the drainage
associated with the residential portion might be handled
on the lodge parcel. The Engineering Department's concern
regarding the difficulty of placing retention ponds on
the Top of Mill site should be explored further by the
applicants in conjunction with the City staff.
The remainder of the engineering related review criteria appear to
have been adequately addressed at the conceptual level at this time.
The Engineering Department, however, reserves the right to comment
further pending the submission of more detailed engineering plans
as part of the applicants' preliminary PUD submission. Given the
technical nature of many of the review criteria, and the need for
more detailed information in order to adequately assess the proposals'
impacts, the Planning Office recommends that P&Z's formal action
with respect to the applicants' request for 8040 greenline review
be deferred until preliminary PUD consideration.
With respect to those review criteria which are primarily visual
considerations, the Planning Office believes that the unique nature
of the Top of rill site greatly facilitates screening of the proposed
project so as to reduce undesirable visual impacts and maintain the
open character of Aspen Mountain. The applicants' site plan successfully
clusters the single-family and duplex structures so as to minimize
roads, increase open space, and preserve Aspen Mountain as a scenic
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of P1ill/Summit Place
Conceptual PUD and Related Review
March 20, 1984
Page 8
resource. The Planning Office, however, would also like to review
the preliminary PUD submission so as to better determine the extent
of grading that will be required to accommodate the proposed Top
of Mill complex, the height of the units above finish grade and the
proposal's overall visual impact. Ile, therefore, also reserve the
right to comment further with respect to the appropriateness of 8040
greenline approval.
MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW
The intent of the City's view plane procedures is "to protect from
obstruction mountain views from designated parks and other public
places to increase the beauty of Aspen and the enjoyment of its residents
and visitors, to strengthen the City's environmental heritage, enhance
its tourist industry and maintain property values, and to promote
the general prosperity and welfare of the community."
Ilhen a view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum
allowable building height below that otherwise provided for in the
Municipal Code, all development of areas so affected are required
to proceed according to PUD regulations in order to provide maximum
flexibility in building. The Planning and Zoning Commission, however,
may exempt an applicant from PUD requirements when it determines
that the view plane "does not so affect the development site as to
require application of PUD or that the affects of the view plane
may be otherwise accommodated."
As the attached Wheeler Opera House View Plane map indicates, the
view plane is described in such a way that as the topography rises
in the lodge district, the ground plane itself actually penetrates
the view plane (at an approximate elevation of 7990 feet) in the
vicinity of Summit Street. The applicants' contend, and the Planning
Office generally agrees, that the City's intent in adopting the view
planes was to establish a review procedure to examine, on a case -
by -case basis, proposals for building sites near the origin of the
view plane, where construction to the full height allowed under zoning
could block out all or a significant portion of the view of the mountains
beyond. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the applicants
believe, and the Planning Office agrees, that the angle of the Wheeler
Opera House View Plane was most likely chosen in response to potential
development on the sites between the Opera House and Magner Park,
which could have had a dramatic impact on the view from the Wheeler
of the surrounding mountains. Given the fact that the ground plane
itself actually penetrates the view plane at the 7990 foot elevation,
it is reasonable to assume that the view plane was not developed
to control development in the upper portions of the lodge district.
The City's 8040 greenline review procedures more adequately address
the visual impacts of development in these areas.
As the applicants point out, City mapping of the view planes on adopted
zoning maps supports this position. The view planes historically
have been terminated on the maps when maximum heights permitted under
zoning are reached. The applicants further contend that if the City's
interest in regard to the Wheeler View Plane was to suggest that
no development be appropriate above elevation 7990 feet, then the
City's decisions to apply L-2 zoning to extensive amounts of land
above that elevation, and the adoption of a 28 foot height limit,
was inconsistent with the former intent.
The applicants accurately note that an exemption from PUD require-
ments was granted on March 18, 1975 to the Hyman Avenue Corporation
for the building at 315 E. Hyman Avenue (i.e., the Mason & Morse
Building), to allow a building height greater than that permitted
under strict compliance with the Wheeler Opera House View Plane.
This previous decision by the City has effectively raised the angle
of the view plane along the building's roof line so that construction
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Pill/Summit Place
Conceptual. PUD and Related Review
March 20, 1984
Page 9
occurring beyond is no longer visible. Given the fact that the "effec-
tive" view plane intercepts the Top of Mill site well above the 8060
elevation, the Planning Office believes that view plane considerations
with respect to the Top of gill complex are moot for all practical
purposes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The above discussion summarizes the Planning Office's preliminary
comments with respect to the applicants' Top of Mill/Summit Place
proposals. The Planning Office is continuing to review the applicants'
submission and additional comments may be generated as a result of
that review, the P&V s consideration of the applicants' proposal,
and Council's continuing discussion of the lodge portion of the Aspen
fountain PUD. Specific Planning Office recommendations with respect
to the above reviews, and preliminary conditions of approval, if
appropriate, will be provided at a later date. The Commission's
consideration of the applicants' proposals will most likely be continued
until your March 27th work session and, subsequently, to your 1'.pril
3rd regular meeting.
Should you have any questions with respect to the above material
or the Aspen Mountain PUD in general prior to our March 20th meeting,
please do not hesitate to give me a call in the Planning Office.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
• FROM: Al Blomquist, Councilmember
RE: Koch Lumber Trade
DATE: March 12, 1984
The letter of March 1, 1984 by Art Daily offers a land trade worthy
of Council consideration. I suggest the .following counter offer:
1. Site Offered to City
2. Retained Parcel
3. Koch Site Total
4. Vacated Streets to PUD -
5.
6. Site offered to City
7.
21,084
sq.
ft.
40,931
sq.
ft.
62,015
sq.
ft.
32.512 sq. ft.
SUB TOTAL 29,503 sq. ft.
- 21,084 sq. ft.
SUB TOTAL 8,419 sq. ft.
8. Part of Water Tank Parcel - 8,419 sq. ft.
9. FINAL BALANCE..... 0 An "even" trade
The RESULT is the total Koch site for a City Park. Any density and
FAR might be transferred if a part of the PUD, at current R-15
values. The water tank parcel would also help the FAR (slope?).
(I.don't know the status of the alley on the Koch site.)
NOTE: The entire hillside below the water tank and contiguous
along the East edge of the Top of Mill site is city property. The
8,419 square feet to be severed would round out the Top of Mill
boundaries and give the development owned greenbelt protection
and improve its exclusivity.
1. The vacated streets are currently "open space" available to
the public. Vacating them would deny their open space use
by the public. Some grounds for asking replacement do exist.
2. Vacated streets may not be counted in the FAR calculations,
but the Koch parcel may be counted if added to the PUD.
3. The part of the Water Tank site is not needed for water tank
purposes and would help "buffer" the Top of Mill project.
4. The Koch parcel is ideal for a public park and the benefits
are proper per the PUD conceptual scheme, i.e., the clustering
of buildings in one place to leave open space in another place.
It is also consistant with the purpose of FAR.
klm
cc: Art Daily
Paul Taddune
5
CITE
O�
130
asp
DATE: March 9, 1984
TO: Members of City Council
City Manager
Planning Director--
FROM: City Attorney
ASPEN
MEMORANDUM
treet
11611
TNAR2 1984
1 L _
AWN Pi7K1Al CO. -
PLANNING OFFICE
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge Project: Proposed Land Trade
Encl: Letter from Art Daily, dated March 1, with attachment
Forwarded herewith for _your review and comment is the March 1,
1984, letter from Art Daily on behalf of the Aspen Mountain Lodge
project which proposes to trade a portion of the Koch Lumber
property for the eight Capitol Hill Addition lots presently owned
by the City.
As you will note, the applicant also proposes to construct for the
Ski Club, on any site selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new
building of at least equal size and of better quality and func-
tionality to the one now occupied by the Ski Club on Lots 14 and
15, at applicant's sole cost and expense;'and to dismiss with
prejudice Civil Action No. 82-CV-44 and any and all claims and
allegations set forth therein.
The proposal also points out that any understanding that may be
reached between the City and the applicant will necessarily have
to be contingent upon (i) the closing by the applicant of its
acquisition of Koch Lumber property from the Cantrup Bankruptcy
Estate, and (ii) the eventual final approval by the City of the
applicant's PUD plan.
This proposal should be discussed as an agenda item at some appro-
priate time, and I would appreciate hearing your thoughts in this
regard.
PJT/mc
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
600 EAST MAIN STREET
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
SUITE 2900
SUITE 1200
DENVE R, COLORADO 80202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
WASHINGTO N, D. C.20006
TELEPHONE (303) 575-8000
TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476
TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340
TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261
TELECOPIER (202) 466-7354
BILLINGS, MONTANA OFFICE
LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 1400
HOLLAND d HART 6 KITE
175 NORTF�!7TH STREET
aw
/j
March 1 1984
wwroui.a nrHc.ewi•
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
618 GRAND AVENUE
TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166
LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070
TELECOPIER (406) 252-1669
TELEPHONE (307) 742-8203
TELECOPIER (307) 792-7618
ARTHUR C. DAILY
(303) 925-3476
Paul Taddune, Esq., City
Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Proposed Land Trade
Dear Paul:
The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project's P.U.D. Plan includes in its
proposed development area eight (8) Capitol Hill Addition Lots
which are presently owned by the City of Aspen (the "City Lots"),
it being mutually understood between the Applicant and the City
that the Applicant must submit a proposal for the acquisition of
the City Lots, which is deemed acceptable to the City, before the
P.U.D. Plan as currently structured can receive final approval.
For the past several years there has been informal discussion of a
possible land trade involving a conveyance to the City of a portion
of the "Koch Lumber" property, situated at the corner of Cooper
Avenue and Garmisch Street, in exchange for the City Lots. The
Applicant believes that a trade along these lines can be developed
which will be both fair and beneficial to both parties, and desires
to submit the following proposal for the City's consideration.
The pertinent facts concerning these two (2) properties are
set forth below.
1. City Lots
(a) Lots 7 and 8 were acquired by the City by Trea-
surer's Deed on March 1, 1948 for the sum of $14.18. They are
zoned "Conservation", and to the best of our knowledge they have
not been put to any use by the City, whether public or otherwise.
(b) Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 were acquired by the City by
Quitclaim Deed on January 10, 1941 for an apparently nominal con-
sideration. Lot 9 is zoned Conservation, while Lots 10, 11 and 12
HOLLAND & HART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 2
are divided by the zoning district line so as to be zoned partially
Conservation and partially "Public". Here again, we are not aware
of any use of these Lots by the City.
(c) Lots 14 and 15 were acquired by the City by Trea-
surer's Deeds on March 1, 1948 for the sums of $21.39 and $16.39,
respectively. They lie entirely within the Public zoning district,
and have been leased to the Aspen Ski Club for a period of fifty
(50) years commencing August 10, 1981 at a rental of Ten Dollars
($10.00) per year. The Ski Club has constructed a building on the
property which it uses as a skier training center and for office,
storage and other related purposes.
(d) A Survey Engineers survey map of the area
establishes the following square footages for the City Lots:
Lot
7
1,211
sq.
ft.
Lot
8
1,856
sq.
ft.
Lot
9
3,142
sq.
ft.
Lot
10
1,913
sq.
ft.
Lot
11
1,887
sq.
ft.
Lot
12
2,121
sq.
ft.
Subtotal:
Lot 14
Lot 15
Subtotal:
Total City Lots:
2. Koch Lumber Property
12,130 sq. ft.
5,093 sq. ft.
3,637 sq. ft.
8,730 sq. ft.
20,860 sq. ft.
This property was acquired by Hans Cantrup on April 23,
1979, for the sum of $300,000.00, and is presently zoned R-15. It
is comprised of all of Block 62 (Lots A -I only) of the City and
Townsite of Aspen, all of Block 1 (Lot 10 and partial Lots 11-16
only) of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, the
platted alley in said Block 1, Eames Addition, a small unplatted
triangular parcel, and the entire portion of the Colorado Midland
Railroad right-of-way which adjoins said Block 1, Eames Addition on
the Southwest. The Koch Lumber property is currently unimproved,
and contains a total of 62,015 square feet of land.
HOLLAND & HART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 3
Proposed Exchange
It is not an easy matter to assess the respective fair market
values of these properties. All of the City Lots lie within highly
restrictive zoning districts, 42 percent of the land is encumbered
by a long-term lease which has no capitalized value to the City,
and the City does not appear to have any legal access to the
remaining 58 percent of its land (ie. to the other six (6) City
Lots). The Koch Lumber property is not yet subdivided for develop-
ment purposes, and its questionable R-15 zoning classification is
the subject of litigation filed by Hans Cantrup in Civil Action No.
82CV44. Under these circumstances, the Applicant believes that
comparable square footage may well be closely comparable in value.
Accordingly, the Applicant hereby proposes to convey to the
City roughly 21,084 square feet of the Koch Lumber property, com-
prised of the entire Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way located
thereon and partial Lots 13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1, in
exchange for the 20,860 square feet contained in the City Lots. I
am enclosing for your use a survey map of the Koch Lumber property
which delineates the parcel which the Applicant proposes to deliver
to the City, and the parcel which will be retained by the Appli-
cant. In addition, the Applicant hereby agrees to the following
conditions to the consummation of the land trade:
(1) The negotiation and signing between the Aspen Ski Club
and the Applicant of a mutually satisfactory understanding whereby
the Applicant agrees to construct for the Ski Club, on any site
selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality and functionality to the one now
occupied by it on Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol Hill Addition, at
Applicant's sole cost and expense. In exchange, the Ski Club must
terminate its existing leasehold arrangement on these City Lots.
The exact timing of these commitments will have to be worked out
with the Ski Club. Clearly, however, the Ski Club will have the
continued use of its present building for at least the 1984-85 win-
ter season.
(2) The dismissal with prejudice by the Applicant of Civil
Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth therein.
All rights pertaining to this suit will be assigned to Applicant
upon the closing of its purchase transaction with the Cantrup Bank-
ruptcy Estate.
HOLLAND &HART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 4
41e would appreciate your bringing this proposal to the atten-
tion of the appropriate City departments and officials as promptly
as possible. We will be available to discuss the matter further
with them at any time. It should be noted that any understanding
that may be reached between the City and the Applicant will neces-
sarily have to be contingent upon (i) the closing by Applicant of
its acquisition of the Koch Lumber property from the Cantrup Bank-
ruptcy Estate, and (ii) the eventual final approval by the City of
Applicant's P.U.D. Plan.
Thanks for your continuing professional cooperation and assis-
tance in this complex matter.
Very truly yours,
Arthur C. Daily
for HOLLAND & HART
Attorneys for the Applicants
ACD/j 1 f
cc: Mr. Sunny Vann
Doremus & Company
Mr. John Roberts
Mr. Robert Callaway
Mr. Alan Novak
i
e
HOLLAND & HART
Al To i,Nf_YS AI . ',.V
DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
1875 EYE STREET. N. W.
600 EAST MAIN STREET
SUITE 2900
SUITE 1200
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (303) 575-8000
TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476
TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340
TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261
TELECOPIER (202) 466.7354
BILLINGS. MONTANA OFFICE
LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 1400
HOLLAND d HART 6 KITE
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
March 1 1984
Awrow ----
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
618 GRAND AVENUE
TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166
LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070
TELECOPIER (406) 252-1669
TELEPHONE (307) 742-8203
TELECOPIER (307) 792-7618
ARTHUR C. DAILY
(303) 92 5 —3476
Paul Taddune, Esq., City
Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Proposed Land Trade
Dear Paul:
The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project's P.U.D. Plan includes in its
proposed development area eight (8) Capitol Hill Addition Lots
which are presently owned by the City of Aspen (the "City Lots"),
it being mutually understood between the Applicant and the City
that the Applicant must submit a proposal for the acquisition of
the City Lots, which is deemed acceptable to the City, before the
P.U.D. Plan as currently structured can receive final approval.
For the past several years there has been informal discussion of a
possible land trade involving a conveyance to the City of a portion
of the "Koch Lumber" property, situated at the corner of Cooper
Avenue and Garmisch Street, in exchange for the City Lots. The
Applicant believes that a trade along these lines can be developed
which will be both fair and beneficial to both parties, and desires
to submit the following proposal for the City's consideration.
The pertinent facts concerning these two (2) properties are
set forth below.
1. City Lots
(a) Lots 7 and 8 were acquired by the City by Trea-
surer's Deed on March 1, 1948 for the sum of $14.18. They are
zoned "Conservation", and to the best of our knowledge they have
not been put to any use by the City, whether public or otherwise.
(b) Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 were acquired by the City by
Quitclaim Deed on January 10, 1941 for an apparently nominal con-
sideration. Lot 9 is zoned Conservation, while Lots 10, 11 and 12
HOLLAN D & HART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 2
are divided by the zoning district line so as to be zoned partially
Conservation and partially "Public". Here again, we are not aware
of any use of these Lots by the City.
(c) Lots 14 and 15 were acquired by the City by Trea-
surer's Deeds on March 1, 1948 for the sums of $21.39 and $16.39,
respectively. They lie entirely within the Public zoning district,
and have been leased to the Aspen Ski Club for a period of fifty
(50) years commencing August 10, 1981 at a rental of Ten Dollars
($10.00) per year. The Ski Club has constructed a building on the
property which it uses as a skier training center and for office,
storage and other related purposes.
(d) A Survey Engineers survey map of the area
establishes the following square footages for the City Lots:
Lot
7
1,211
sq.
ft.
Lot
8
1,856
sq.
ft.
Lot
9
3,142
sq.
ft.
Lot
10
1,913
sq.
ft.
Lot
11
1,887
sq.
ft.
Lot
12
2,121
sq.
ft.
Subtotal:
Lot 14
Lot 15
Subtotal:
Total City Lots:
2. Koch Lumber Property
12,130 sq. ft.
5,093 sq. ft.
3,637 sq. ft.
8,730 sq. ft.
20,860 sq. ft.
This property was acquired by Hans Cantrup on April 23,
1979, for the sum of $300,000.00, and is presently zoned R-15. It
is comprised of all of Block 62 (Lots A -I only) of the City and
Townsite of Aspen, all of Block 1 (Lot 10 and partial Lots 11-16
only) of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, the
platted alley in said Block 1, Eames Addition, a small unplatted
triangular parcel, and the entire portion of the Colorado Midland
Railroad right-of-way which adjoins said Block 1, Eames Addition on
the Southwest. The Koch Lumber property is currently unimproved,
and contains a total of 62,015 square feet of land.
HOLLAND & HART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 3
Proposed Exchange
It is not an easy matter to assess the respective fair market
values of these properties. All of the City Lots lie within highly
restrictive zoning districts, 42 percent of the land is encumbered
by a long-term lease which has no capitalized value to the City,
and the City does not appear to have any legal access to the
remaining 58 percent of its land (ie. to the other six (6) City
Lots). The Koch Lumber property is not yet subdivided for develop-
ment purposes, and its questionable R-15 zoning classification is
the subject of litigation filed by Hans Cantrup in Civil Action No.
82CV44. Under these circumstances, the Applicant believes that
comparable square footage may well be closely comparable in value.
Accordingly, the Applicant hereby proposes to convey to the
City roughly 21,084 square feet of the Koch Lumber property, com-
prised of the entire Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way located
thereon and partial Lots 13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1, in
exchange for the 20,860 square feet contained in the City Lots. I
am enclosing for your use a survey map of the Koch Lumber property
which delineates the parcel which the Applicant proposes to deliver
to the City, and the parcel which will be retained by the Appli-
cant. In addition, the Applicant hereby agrees to the following
conditions to the consummation of the land trade:
(1) The negotiation and signing between the Aspen Ski Club
and the Applicant of a mutually satisfactory understanding whereby
the Applicant agrees to construct for the Ski Club, on any site
selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality and functionality to the one now
occupied by it on Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol Hill Addition, at
Applicant's sole cost and expense. In exchange, the Ski Club must
terminate its existing leasehold arrangement on these City Lots.
The exact timing of these commitments will have to be worked out
with the Ski Club. Clearly, however, the Ski Club will have the
continued use of its present building for at least the 1984-85 win-
ter season.
(2) The dismissal with prejudice by the Applicant of Civil
Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth therein.
All rights pertaining to this suit will be assigned to Applicant
upon the closing of its purchase transaction with the Cantrup Bank-
ruptcy Estate.
HOLLAND &HART
Paul Taddune, Esq., City Attorney
March 1, 1984
Page 4
We would appreciate your bringing this proposal to the atten-
tion of the appropriate City departments and officials as promptly
as possible. We will be available to discuss the matter further
with them at any time. It should be noted that any understanding
that may be reached between the City and the Applicant will neces-
sarily have to be contingent upon (i) the closing by Applicant of
its acquisition of the Koch Lumber property from the Cantrup Bank-
ruptcy Estate, and (ii) the eventual final approval by the City of
Applicant's P.U.D. Plan.
Thanks for your continuing professional cooperation and assis-
tance in this complex matter.
Very truly yours,
141, Cl
Arthur C. Daily
for HOLLAND & HART
Attorneys for the Applicants
ACD/j 1 f
cc: Mr. Sunny Vann
Doremus & Company
Mr. John Roberts
Mr. Robert Callaway
Mr. Alan Novak
S
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Top of Mill - Rezoning (Public Hearing), 8040 Greenline
and Conceptual PUD Review
DATE: February 21, 1984
As the attached letter indicates, the applicants of the Top of Mill
project (Aspen Mountain PUD) have requested that their application for
rezoning, 8040 Greenline and Conceptual PUD review be tabled. The
purpose of the requested tabling is to allow the applicants additional
time to address the City Council's concerns with respect to the hotel
portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD. As your February 21st meeting is a
published public hearing for consideration of the applicants' request
for rezoning, the Planning Office recommends that you open the public
hearing with respect to this matter and continue it to your second
regular meeting in March. We also recommend that you table the
additional review requirements associated with the Top of Mill project
to the same meeting. The date of the continued public hearing will be
March 20, 1984.
N
Doremus & company
608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 • telephone: (303) 925-6866
February 16, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Director, Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny:
As you know, the development team for the Aspen Mountain PUD
has been focusing in recent days on revisions that clearly must
be made in the Lodge program in order to address City Council's
concerns with the Project.
This is obviously a crucial period for the Lodge project and we
do not feel that we can adequately prepare for a presentation
to the Council of the most recent revisions to the Lodge
proposal and at the same time concern ourselves with the Top of
Mill project.
Therefore we are requesting that consideration by P&7, of Top of
Mill and the related rezoning request be tabled in order to
give us adequate time to deal with the remaining issues on the
hotel and then turn our attention to the Top of Mill and any
other unresolved issues of the PUD.
Sincerely,
Joe Wells
JW/jb
FEE To� �u.kD
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
City Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Housing Office
Building Department (Jim Wilson)
Parks Department
Fire Chief
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP
Submission
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, Rezoning,
8040 Greenline and View Plane Review
DATE: December 8, 1983
Enclosed herewith is the application submitted by American Century
Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, Mr.
Alan Novak and Mr. Robert Callaway. This application consists of
two actual cases, 700 S. Galena, a 1984 Residential GMP submission,
and the Top of Mill which is a PUD/Subdivision submission which also
requires rezoning, 8040 greenline review and view plane review.
The GMP portion of this application (700 S. Galena) is a request to
construct a 12 unit condominium project at 700 S. Galena. This is
the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD submission.
Also included in this submission is the applicants' request to
reconstruct approximately 33 residential units at the Top of Mill.
This portion of the request also requires PUD/Subdivision, 8040
greenline review, rezoning and view plane review.
The Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP por-
tion of this submission has been scheduled before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on January 17, 1984. The Aspen Mountain PUD -
Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, rezoning, 8040 greenline and view
plane review will be scheduled shortly thereafter. In order for
the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presenta-
tion, we would appreciate having your comments returned to the
Planning Office no later than December 30, 1983.
Thank you.
CI1'
13
as
August 25, 1983
Chris Neuswanger
TNT Marketing, Inc.
P.O. Box 576
Vail, Colorado 86157
Re: Summit Place Townhouses
Dear Chris:
PEN
e e t
611
Pau I J. Taddu tic
City Attorney
Gary S. Esary
Assistant City Attorney
Peggy Carlson
Administrative Assistant
In response to your letter of August 22, 1982, I am enclosing a
copy of a letter I wrote on the same subject to a representative
of another prospective purchaser.
To emphasize the point, it is my recollection that the street
dedication and paving, to be done by the developer at no cost to
the City, was in exchange for the unique easement/right-of-way
arrangement and to mitigate the impact upon the neighborhood and
the City of the exceptional bulk of the finished four-plex. The
value of the easement/right-of-way and the cost of the paving was
not to be subtracted from park dedication fees, utility hook-up or
utility connection charges, building permit fees, real estate
transfer tax or other reltated City fees.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Gary S. Esary
Assistant City Attorney
GSE/mc
Enc.
cc: Paul Taddune (w/ encl.)
Wayne Chapman
Sunny Vann
.11 Drueding (w/ encl.)
Spencer Schiffer (w/ encl.)
CITY:OF-ASPEN
130 south gal.en ". treet
aspen:; Colorado'":81611
303-925`=2020
HAND DELIVERED
August 16, 1983
Paul J. Taddunc
City Attorney
G;iry S. Esary
Assistant City Attorney
Peggy Carlson
Administrative Assistant
This is in response to your letter to me of August 4, 1983, in
this matter.
This project has had a long and convoluted history of land -use
review. I first became involved in it in September, 1981, when I
was associated with Grueter & Edmondson, then acting City Attor-
ney.
The issues presented below have certain sub -issues and interre-
lated issues, but I think any difference of opinion in regard to
the present development rights of the referenced project will cen-
ter on the following:
Background -- Summit Street easement/dedication/construction -- I
have never confirmed the calculations that the' present Summit
Place lot (without adjustments) contains sufficient F.A.R. allow-
ance for the planned four-plex. However, it is clear that if the
Summit Street right-of-way was dedicated to the City prior to
construction of the four-plex, the resultant decrease in the lot
size would decrease the allowble F.A.R. and make the fourth unit
impractical. Even without subtraction of the right-of-way, the
the planned four-plex is a very bulky building and objectionable
to some in the neighborhood. The applicant suggested a compromise
in which the City would first take an easement for Summit Street,
at no cost to the City, (instead of a right-of-way dedication).
Then the area of the easement could be used for F.A.R. purposes.
At some point after construction had begun, the applicant would
then dedicate the right-of-way, at no cost to the City, making the
four-plex non -conforming as to F.A.R.
August 16, 1983
Page Two
Finally, to mitigate the effect of the bulk of the . building on the
neighborhood, the applicant would then pave Summit Street (with
sidewalk and curb and gutter) at no cost to the City.
1. The first dispute between the City and the applicant was the
calculation of the park dedication fee. The City's recollection
of the deal was the easement dedication arrangement plus the bulk
for a free right-of-way and paving, period. Any park dedication
fee would have to be calculated and paid separately. The appli-
cant says that the value of the right-of-way should be subtracted
from the park dedication fee due.
My personal recollection is that the City's position is correct
and Wayne Chapman agrees with my recollection. Further, Wayne
says that he would not be disposed to recommend such a reduction
in the park dedication fee.
2. The second problem area is the right to the fourth unit,
assuming the F.A.R. problem is handled. The applicant has a
duplex by right. He built a garage for a four-plex underground
and then got permission to deck the extra garages under a no -reli-
ance "build at your own risk" arrangement. The third unit comes
from the previously -existing unit on the property, as evidenced by
the Fred Crowley inventory letter. The fourth unit was to have
been transferred from the contiguous "Snow Chase" property. The
City's recollection of the arrangement was that the "Snow Chase"
unit be transferred in exchange for a deed -restriction on the
"Snow Chase" lot "sterilizing" that lot from future development by
any method other than future GMP applicaton. The applicant's
position is that the Snow Chase lot will be deed -restricted but
still available for single-family residence development and any
GMP exemptions that may apply.
3. The Subdivision Agreement is in draft but has not been
finalized. There are a number of possibly troublesome issues that
will have to be solved by the agreement, including the timing of
the Summit Street easement/dedication, the value of the paving
costs and security for the paving, and related documents to be
attached as exhibits (grant of right-of-way, deed -restriction,
etc.).
To sum up, although the concept of the four-plex development has
been agreed to by the City, there are many issues crucial to the
development that have not been worked out and, as reported above,
over which substantial disagreements have arisen. Even if an
August 1 ;-1983
Page Three
applicant were to agree to the City's position on 'all these
issues, it would take some time for the City staff to get together
the numbers necessary to review and/or draft the agreements and
issue the building permits (legal description of easement/dedica-
ton, final F.A.R. calculations, paving costs, estimates, calcula-
tion of park dedication fee, etc.).
This information is provided as a courtesy to you in response to
your request. The information in it is taken from the City Attor-
ney's files and is the best of my personal recollection and
opinion of the status of the project and related issues. Any dif-
ferences of opinion or interpretation between the City and any
applicant will ultimately be decided through the public process
and you are advised not to rely to your detriment on information
not contained in the public record. It is my intent to provide
information to be helpful to all parties in their negotiations but
not to bind the City (as I have no authority to do) to actions and
positions not actually taken by administrative, legislative or
quasi-judicial authority of the City Council.
If you need any additional information, please so request in writ-
inq.
VeU VLlly yours,
Ga Y�Kzt>ity
A sisAt ney
r
cc.-�Paul Taddune
Wayne Chapman
Sunny Vann
Spencer Schiffer
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering �'
o
1984 E
,SPFN / PITKIN CO. ,
, :_ANNING OFFICE
DATE: January 24, 1984
Aspen Mountain Project Residential Subdivision, P.U.D.,
RE: Rezoning, 8040 Greenline
--------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application, and made a site
inspection, the Engineering Department would offer the
following comments relative to the various reviews
required:
Conceptual Subdivision and P.U.D.
The application and associated mapping is quite adequate
for conceptual subdivision and P.U.D. purposes.
1. The application indicates that the residential portions
of the project are to be condominiumized. Condominiumization
will require recordation of a plat following construction
and prior to sale of the units. The platting will serve
to delineate common areas and how various elements will be
defined for ownership purposes. The applicants should be
required to dedicate the various proposed trail alignments
to the City.
2. The submission goes to considerable length to justify
their request for a reduced parking requirement for the
project. While their arguments are certainly well researched
and probably valid, we are considerably less comfortable with
the parking reductions requested for the residential projects
(particularly for the Top of Mill portion) in view of their
distance from the transit routes and the longer term nature
of the residential unit occupancy.
One possible solution may be to require the applicant to
provide limo service on a regular basis to encourage short-
term users of the condominiums not to use their cars. We
would also suggest taking the applicants up on their offer of
supporting a survey of lodge and condominium parking demand.
Updated data of this nature may suggest revision of our
current code requirements.
3. Some clarification of how the proposed Top of Mill
project will impact existing site characteristics such as the
Willoughby jump and the ski club rope tow and slalom hill
would be helpful. It would appear this project may preclude
use of these various facilities.
Page Two
January 24, 1984
Aspen Mountain Project Residential Subdivision, P.U.D.
Rezoning, 8040 Greenline
4. We have no special concerns relative to the P.U.D.
at this time except to note that the proposed building
heights of 34 to 36 feet is in excess of the 28 feet allowed
in the proposed L-2 zone.
Rezoning
Concurrent with this submission, the applicants are requesting
a rezoning of the Top of Mill site from R-15(PUD) (L) to
L-2. The major impact of the rezoning relative to engineering
concerns is the increased density permitted on the site
due to upzoning to L-2. Problems relative to site access
(further discussed in the 8040 Greenline review) are
aggravated by the density of the project. Reductions
in density at the Top of Mill may be necessary to facilitate
fire and emergency access to all units.
8040 Greenline
Several concerns are raised by the project when considered
relative to 8040 Greenline criteria.
1. Water service to the Top of Mill portion of the site
is impacted by the altitude of the structures. The
applicant has indicated a willingness to install booster
pumps to service the project in order to guarantee adequate
fire flows in the area. The design of any such booster
system shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Engineering and Water Departments.
2. Our review of the Top of Mill site design has raised
the question of adequate access to the upper units for
fire and emergency purposes. The submission suggests
the construction of a "fire station" at the south end of
the site. Further comment from the Fire Department should
be solicited to ascertain the acceptability of such a
system. Fire fighters would be required to haul hoses and
equipment some distance through the project to access a
problem in the southerly structures. Elevator and stair
access from the parking facility could be impaired by a
major fire.
3. Preliminary soils investigations by a soils consultant
have indicated the existance of recent fill on the Top of
Mill site as well as mine tailings and the potential for
underground excavation associated with past mining activity.
The applicant should be required to pursue detailed inves-
tigation of these potential problems addressing the
techniques necessary to mitigate any hazards that are
identified.
Page Three
January 24, 1984
Aspen Mountain Project Residential Subdivision, Q.U.D.,
Rezoning, 8040 Greenline
4. Greenline review recommends "reduction of building
height and bulk to maintain the open character of the
mountain." This goal is in conflict with the applicants
desire to construct buildings in excess of the height
restrictions associated with the proposed zoning.
Mountain View Plane
The City Engineering Department has no particular concerns
relative to view plane review at this time. The applicant's
analysis of the existing Wheeler View Plane as well as its
current obstruction by the Hyman Avenue (Mason and Morse)
building would appear to be proper.
JH/co
cc: Dan McArthur
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: March 15, 1984
RE: Top -of -Mill Residential P.U.D.
Pursuant to our discussions of yesterday, I would supply the
following supplemental comments regarding the Aspen Mountain
Project's proposed Top -of -Mill residential P.U.D. Please
consider these additional comments in conjunction with my
memorandum to you of January 24 regarding this project.
1. Summit Street - During review of the Lodge application we
touched briefly on the issue of "closing" the Summit Street
extension between Mill and Monarch Streets as it impacts area
circulation and emergency access. The Top -of -Mill site plan
proposes eliminating the Summit Street link in order to accommodate
the pedestrian and ski link to the mountain from the lodge. We
do not support the elimination of the Summit Street link at this
time, feeling that it is particularly important in providing
alternative access to the many properties on South Monarch
benefitting overall circulation as well as emergency access to
that area. It is our opinion that while the street should
remain passable it should still be possible to maintain the
pedestrian/skier link across the street.
As a condition of approval, I would suggest further discussion
of this matter between our office, the Fire Department, and the
applicant regarding acceptable alternatives.
2. Drainage - I am inclined to agree that proposed detention
Ponds and other drainage facilities are somewhat cramped on the site
plan. We feel, however, that the concepts for the site drainage
are in order and anticipate that further refinement of the site
plan will suggest better siting for the various facilities needed.
It is also significant to note that the applicants control a
substantial parcel to the north and that some of the drainage
associated with the residential portion might be handled on the
lodge parcel. Our concerns regarding the difficulty of placing
pond areas on the Top -of -Mill should be considered by the applicant
at this time.
3. Skier Access - My investigations of existing topography do
not indicate a convenient skier access from the site to Little
Nell. Further investigation of this may be appropriate, however,
as there already exist easements in the Anthony Acres area.
4. Vacation of South Mill Street - The proposed vacation of the
Page 2
March 15, 1984
Top -of -Mill Residential P.U.D.
southerly tip of South Mill Street is an item involving the
granting of approximately 2,800 square feet of public Right -of
way to the applicant's. The vacated area would be used for the
access roadway onto the site and will not support structures.
The area proposed for vacation is a small stub of right-of-way
that is of little value to area circulation or utility needs.
Subject to the adequate provision of access to the site and
utility easements on the project plat, this department has no
particular problem with the the vacation of the southerly tip
of Mill Street.
JH/co
�('a-vYl`. C'� woo-►�D'� � ; �,ti �-r�1.1-ri.
P
� C-J� d�o�f- � ; s i�Y` --�
l
olf a-4y (L YL( e-
o "4wcz .
-A 0- C Q14-r-13 CL � � 1�� p
t I I `--
�
�\&q OA� Q- af rrT, r .,Rf
Y
P
(II
r
' - off' vb�' '-aF• �� t'� �.0�.`�. � �� $4� vim,
7
be_ 4 4�Q- o-t c k,,. rtr4 Wog.
,j 0.\ue— 4o (��Q,a, C, rC 0 1c lT,
� � UI,C(`�A� �o `�1/� b � � �lJ� U � � � � Q.O..ds?it1'�Q•tl�
t-v�- �
10
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
'City Engineer
City Water Department
Aspen Metro Sanitation District
Housing Office
Building Department (Jim Wilson)
Parks Department
Fire Chief
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP
Submission
Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, Rezoning,
8040 Greenline and View Plane Review
DATE: December 8, 1983
Enclosed herewith is the application submitted by American Century
Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, Mr.
Alan Novak and Mr. Robert Callaway. This application consists of
two actual cases, 700 S. Galena, a 1984 Residential GMP submission,
and the Top of Mill which is a PUD/Subdivision submission which also
requires rezoning, 8046 greenline review and view plane review.
The GMP portion of this application (700 S. Galena) is a request to
construct a 12 unit condominium project at 700 S. Galena. This is
the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD submission.
Also included in this submission is the applicants' request to
reconstruct approximately 33 residential units at the Top of Mill.
This portion of the request also requires PUD/Subdivision, 8040
greenline review, rezoning and view plane review.
The Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP por-
tion of this submission has been scheduled before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission on'January 17, 1984. The Aspen Mountain PUD -
Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, rezoning, 8040 greenline and view
plane review will be scheduled shortly thereafter. In order for
the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presenta-
tion, we would appreciate having your comments returned to the
Planning Office.no later than December 30, 1983.
Thank you.
iy�
-y.p CrR�-�?p [� ?1tP AL) 4-in�yR')u
/�- C. 5 I,> ,
CITY
130 soO
aspe'Q.t,
T -., ASPEN
F, 1 8* street
WATER DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: SUNNY VANN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD 700 S. GALENA
If the applicant adheres to our recommendations as set forth in our 9/28/83
letter to Doremus & Co. on page 73 of the application, we have no additional
comments to make pertinent to this application.
JM:lf
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Dept.
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officerk4
DATE: January 25, 1984
TO: Top of Mill
700 S. Galena
1) Top of Mill Is the city still interested in an easement for
Summit Street? (See attached letters from Gary Esary)
2) Both Top of Mill and 700 S. Galena refer to open space or
green space percentages. I question whether the calculations consider
all the criteria of Section 24-3.7(d).
3. The applicant does not specify the setbacks on these projects.
When will these be addressed in enough detail to determine compliance.
4. Applicant on page 113 refers to height above finished grade.
Section 24-3.7(g) calculates height from "natural undisturbed ground
slope."
5. I question whether "stack parking" is permitted in the garage below
700 S. Galena project.
6. The applicant should be aware of the pending park dedication
fees. A bedroom count should be made of existing residential units
to be demolished.
Sunny, I realize that variances can be given because of the PUD nature
of this project. In reviewing the submission, I feel that all
approvals should be detailed reference height, setbacks, open
space, etc. This Department can comment more when we get a detailed
submission.
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
Jim Wilson, Building Official
BD/ar
134 R4254
V l/
p�p^
lnnunn�
COOPER AVENUE
DLOCK. 70 - A5PF-N
i
1
9
n�
V O
0
M�M
lug
II �-
O 20 40 (0 90
�>✓� i d , zof
NOTICE According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action
based upon any defect in this survey within six years after you first discover
such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey
be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown
hereon.
Alpine Surveys
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303 925 2688
Surveyed Revisions
1�Client
Drafted 2 84
Title f E)Ff�-'T"I �W
Job
M L2/M EMS
btz.
I