HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mt Pud Lot 3&5.A696
.
r1
(""l
.nI:.C.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director 1>. V\
RE:
Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Conceptual Review - Continued Public Meeting
DATE:
August 20, 1996
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has held several public meetings (03.19.96, 04.09.96, 04.23.96
and 05.15.96) to review the conceptual PUD Plan application for Lot 5 ("The Grande Aspen Site") of the
Aspen Mountain PUD. . At that time, staff prepared several staff reports detailing the project and
compliance with applicable criteria. At the August 8, 19~ meeting regarding Lot 3 ("Top of Mill"), staff
indicated that a draft of proposed conditions for Lot ~ould be prepared by staff for review by the
Commission. The intent of staff is to allow the Commission an opportunity to review the proposed
conditions, and that a joint resolutiO~W;Uld be prepared for approval on September 3, 1996.
6tb FI""~ t+'\oflov. Fb\l. 'QollL.''fU~ ,e...~,,~....
PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The project is being processed as a four-step application, with reviews
occurring at different steps. Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below.
Stepl-P&Z
Conceptual PUD
Step 2 - Council
Conceptual PUD
Step3-P&Z
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Rezoning
Conditional Use
8040 Greenline
Viewplane
Step 4 - Council
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Rezoning
March - August 1996
September 1996
Not Scheduled
Not Scheduled
Notes: Italics represent public hearings
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Sunny Vann and John Sarpa
LOCATION: Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 5 is located on Dean Street south of the ice rink between
Mill and Galena Streets, and extending south to the Alpenblick condominiums. The parcel includes a
portion of the Dean Street right-of-way, which was vacated in connection with the original PUD approval.
ZONING: L/TR PUD, (LodgefTourist Residential, mandatory PUD review) A small area of the vacated
Dean Street right-of-way is zoned CL, Commercial Lodge.
1
r-.,
n
LOT AREA: 86,605 gross square feet. When the vacated right-of-way is subtracted from the total lot area,
the net lot area for the purposes of calculating FARis reduced to 73,070 s.f.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The current proposal calls for the development of 30 multi-family units on
Lot 5. Twenty units will be located within a single, high-density, multi-family structure along vacated Dean
Street (the "Dean Street Building"). Just south of the Dean Street building, 10 townhouse units are
clustered into two primary structures of five units each, fronting on Mill Street and Galena Street. Dean
Street will be closed to vehicular traffic and converted to a landscaped pedestrian mall, which is intended to
link the Ritz-Carlton and Lot 5 to the gondola plaza. The maximum FAR allowed on the site per the PUD
agreement is approximately 115,000 square feetl. The current proposal calls for approximately 96,000
square feet of FARon the lot.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff has previously submitted referral comments from Environmental
Health, Engineering and Housing. In addition, staff submitted additional research that was provided by
former Planning Director Alan Richman.
STAFF COMMENTS
Relevant Issues to be Addressed By Conditions:
I. Bulk and Mass: The Deane Street Building has components that are of a magnitude that
still concern staff. As currently proposed, the height of the Dean Street Building is approximately 42 feet,
which exceeds underlying zoning by approximately 14 feet. Although staff recognizes the applicant's
efforts in reducing the structure from the original proposal of 55 feet, the proposed height is significantly
greater than underlying zoning or the existing Grand Aspen Hotel. In addition, the overall width of the
structure is over 250 feet, which results in a building envelope which extends from Galena to Mill Street.
From an urban design perspective, the structure represents similar impacts of the Ritz in terms of an
imposing facade inconsistent with the relatively small scale of Aspen.
In effect, the structure extends the scale and urban design of the Ritz Carlton east along Dean Street to
Galena. Efforts have been made to retain the varied rooflines to soften the impacts of the structure. Staff
would suggest that additional efforts be used to minimize the bulk and mass of the structure, but typical
design solutions are compromised by the intent of the applicant to retain 30 units on Lot 5. In short, the
reliance of the applicant on the previously allocated 47 units between Lots 3 and 5 is driving the bulk and
mass proposed for Lot 5. The Mill Street/Galena Street buildings are proposed for 28 feet, which is
consistent with underlying zoning. The architectural design of the Mill/Galena structures do not appear to
represent an incompatible use with the existing neighborhood.
2. Impact on Public Spaces: The project currently proposes a curvilinear landscaped plaza
along the vacated right-of-way of Dean Street to provide an enhanced pedestrian path from the Ritz to the
Little Nell Plaza. This linkage has been a priority for the City for some time. Staff s concern with the
proposed Dean Street pedestrian mall as proposed is the private nature of the proposed project, in the
context of a very public setting adjacent to the Ice Rink, proximity to Ruby Park and the downtown core.
1 Established in Section E. of the Amended PUD/Subdivision Agreement, included within the application.
2
r1
The project's public aspect is reduced by the applicant's intent of only using free market allocations and
abandoning plans to use 50 hotel/lodge credits approved with the original PUD.
The possibility of animating the mall by including first floor commercial development was rejected by the
Planning Commission, in part due to the necessity to compete for additional GMQS commercial allocations.
The applicant and staff have conceptually discussed the potential of modifying the prior PUD agreement to
allow for an expansion of commercial uses or pedestrian amenities on the Ice Rink site, which in- from
staff's perspective is extremely underutilized. Staff would suggest that these discussions continue, and any
proposed changes to the PUD agreement in regards to the Ice Rink be included within the Final PUD
submittal.
3. Rezoning Request for Lot 3: A point introduced by Joe Edwards, attorney for an adjacent land
owner, is in regards to the proposed text and map amendments necessary for the project's proposed density
on the Mill Street site. Both the applicant's attorney and the City Attorney will be available to address these
issues at the continued hearing. Staff would point out the there is precedence for rezoning within the PUD,
specifically the rezoning that took place for Lot 6 to develop the Ice Rink. In addition, the portion of the
PUD agreement cited by Mr. Edwards in his August 13, 1996 letter on page I reads in fuIlll.s follows (see
letter attached as Exhibit A):
5. Any and all development applications for Lot 3, 5 and 6 shall comply with the provisions of all land
use and building regulations effective at the time of application except to the extent that the provisions of
the PUD agreement pertaining to the developments of Lot 3, 5 and 6 supersede~~~~~tegulations.
The agreement also includes the following clause immediately following the above citation:
}
6. The provisions of paragraph 5 above notwithstanding, each of the obligations, commitments and
representations made in the PUD agreement by Savanah and the City of Aspen, including the parameters of
development activity contemplated in the PUD agreement for each component of the Project, shall survive
this amendment and the enactment of subsequent legislation initiated by the City in any manner inconsistent
with such obligations, commitments and representations.
In addition, Mr. Edwards has questioned the application from the point of view that the rezoning request
should be addressed at the conceptual PUD level. Staff notes that the Aspen Land Use Code specifically
defines that a rezoning request shall be consolidated with a PUD approval at the THIRD step of a four-step
process.
4. Proposed Conditions of Approval For Lot 5
1. All representations of the applicant, either contained in the application or stated in meetings before
the Planning and Zoning Commission are considered conditions of approval.
2. The applicant s a ei
'\ :,~""",,,,,,,, of ili, """"". 0 . """'clore ~
~otage of each indo . 1 . ~ 11-~1!e'\ F
~f:A. )11~~ ~\1'~
[1' W~>
PE?~
~ l-rl....\.
e ean Street Building to reduce
density or reducing the square
3
r1
(""'\
!
3. At the time of Final PUD submittal, the applicant shall present a detailed plan for the proposed
pedestrian mall linking the Ritz and the Little Nell. These plans shall include detailed landscaping plans,
pavement treatment, proposed lighting, and any proposed street furniture.
4. At the time of Final PUD submittal, the applicant shall submit plans, in cooperation with the
Community Development Department, proposing enhancements of the Ice Ririk to increase the public use
of the existing space. Proposals may include physical modifications or amendments to the range of uses
currently allowed in the site.
5. At the time of Final. PUD submittal, the applicant shall provide a detailed landscape plan indicating
the treatment of exterior spaces in the proposed development. The landscape plan shall include the
following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
The extent and location of all plant materials and other landscape features;
Flower and shrub bed definition;
Proposed plant material at mature sizes in appropriate relation to scale;
Species and size of existing plant material;
Proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g. paving, turf, and gravel);
Location of water outlets;
A plant schedule with common botanical names, sizes, quantities, and method of
e.
f.
g.
transplant.
6. At that time of fmal PUD submittal, the applicant shall submit a proposed lighting plan, including
location and design features to ensure that the fixtures are consistent with existing lighting features.
7. At the time of final PUD submittal, the applicant shall submit a statement outlining a development
schedule specifying the date construction is proposed to be initiate and completed, any proposed public
facilities the developer is proposing to construct, and the phasing and construction of the public facilities.
The plan shall ensure that impacts to adjacent property owners and public rights-of way are minimized to
the maximum extent practical.
8. The applicant shall comply with all representations"-'summarized in a memo from
the Engineering Department dated June 26, 1996. Ce,rJ...
. dMIIIt "("O 'V-Jo~ 'W l'i-H
Exhibit. e.:/oU"'1 ~~il:1
"A" August 13, 1996 letter from Joe Edwards .6&0. i~ ~oe.T '
it) ! U~L'n 7
,
4
AUG. 14.1996
3:58PM.. H;r,.w... EDWARDS
!i\
..{""\
\....
NO. 838 P.2
FILE COpy
"
-
LAwQllFfi.cRS
HlLL, BDW ARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON; L.I-C.
CENTENNIALPUZABUlLDING Exhibit A
5ll:I}lA]N S'l'.ll.EET, sorm:>>1
CARBONIlAlJ'l. <JQI.ORADO """"
mIEPHmm
(ll1D)!l53<>!lOo
p-A~'Q'
~ l>I'-='
TI!:OMASc:. IIILL
JOS!lPl< E.l!DWAlIDS, JR., p..c.
JOOllPH 11. EDWAR.nS.In;~-'"
TSl')1I,(ASt..AX>!aSOO
August B, 1996
John Worcester, Esq.
City Attorney
130 SQuth Ga~e:na Street
Aspen, CO 8:1611
Be: Savanah App~i.ca.ti.on for Top of till Deve~opment
Dear John,
I :eepresent Michael Teschner, the owner of the small house at tbe
top of Mill Street above the Fifth Avenue Condominiums. ~.
Teschner is appalled by the ring of 17 eno%lllous hOllIeS that is
proposed for the Top of Mill site by the Savanah application for
rezoning of that p~ceL
Savanah's application vio.l.ates pri.or agreements with the City. ~
on.l.y mention of Top of Kill (or Lot 3) development .in the F.irst
Amended PUD Agreement .:I.s an indirect reference .in Section F, which
limited development on the Grand Aspen (or Lot 5) to not more than
47 residential units between Lot 5 and Lot 3. .A copy of the
relevant pag'es of that Aqreement are attached as Bxhibit A. 'l'he
Amendment to the PUD Agreelllent dated June 11, 1990, in Paraqraph 5,
provides that "Any and a.ll develoment applications for Lots 3, 5
and 6 shall comply with the provi.sions of all land use and building-
regulations effective at the -time of the applicati.on..." (emphasi.s
added) . A copy of the relevant pages of that. ~ndment are
attached as Exllbit B. The pri.:mary .land use regulati.on is zoning.
i'he zoning on the TOp of llill parcel {Lot 3) in effect throughout
the negotiations for the PUP Agreement and all its st:Jbsequent
amendments and in effect today is a cOlllhination of conservation, R-
:15 PUn and L/TR (fo:cnerly L-2). A copy of the zoning map in 1984
and the zoning map of today is attached as $xhwit C, and. the only
change was to rezone the ski club parcel from P (Public) to R-15.
(,
--:,~..) .
~.\.
CO
v"
v-'
~
./
o
'~'.:.-J
RUG. 14.1996 3:58PM
H,",""" EDWRRDS
"[; .1
,',~
, '
~
NO. 898
P.3
"
".
John Worcester, l":sq. ,
.JIn~st H, 1-996
Page .2
Since thi.s app::Lication seeks to change that R~15 zoning to L/'1'R and
e:l<J?and t:he L/TR into the conservation zone, the development
obvioullly does not conform to the existing regulations "effective
. at the time of the app~ication."
The City mads substantial concessi.ons to this de'<7eloper in the
course of the Rib approval and obtained the commitment of
paragraph 5 to prevent the City f:rom having to deal w.:l:th further
rezoning requests for the remaining subdivision lots.
~ applicant argues that his appJ..icat.ion does campJ.y with current
land use regulations since the Land Use Code noxmally alJ.ows an
appU.cant (at certain ti1nes of thl!! year) to ask for a rezoning.
However, if paragraph 5 is inte:rpreted as bIoadly as the applicant
suggests, then it means absolutely nothing and the City obtained
nothing in return by the inclusion of that paragraph. Contracts
are to be construed to give some mecm.inq to the words contained
therein, and the meaning of that language was that further
develonment applicati.ons for the Aspen Mountain Suhdivisi-o:n and
Lot 3 would comply wi:t:h the zoning and land use regulatlons
effective at the ti1ne of the appl.i.cation. This deve::Lopment clearly
does not cOllIply with such regulations, as 1.t /leeks a further
uend:nlent of . such regulations to allow development on Lot 3 in
excess of that now ~lowed by the regulations "effective at the
time of the applicati.on."
I note the Appli.cant attempts to evade the Code time li:m.its on
private map amendments by requesting Planning " Zoning to sponsor
and request the zoning map changes, However, Pla.nn.inq 5- Zoning has
not sponso~d and requested auch rezoning, yet tbe appl.ieat.ion ia
still being processed.
The applicant asserts (falsely) that it cannot develop its '.J.'Qp of
!till parcel because of the City Code requirement that a lot
containing multiple zone categories shall be developed at a density
.iJ:J. compliance with the most rest;rictive zoning category. They
argue that the density of the conservation C 'zone of one unit per
ten acres would prohibit more than one residence on Lot 3 and that,
therefore, they could not complete their p:roject. However, all
47 residential units oould be placed entirely within the Grand
Aspen site (Lot 5) which now has 150 hotel units. The
concentration of almost as I1Illch. floor .area on the Top of !till site
(83,600 sea:. ft.) as proposed for the Grand Aspen sit'-e (96,430 li'q.
ft. ), much of it above the 8040 g:r::eenl.ine and part of .it in the
conserva'tion zone, all at the top of a very steep section of Mill
Street, is an inappropd.ate use of Lot 3. It is entirely
reasonable that the city should restrict Lot 3 to one homesite
.instead of the 17 huge homes proposed by savanah. Therefore, since
the application is in violation of 'the existing PUD A.qreem~nt as
~
(';_':'.;1)
AUG. 14.1996 3:59PM
~\ EDWARDS
~" .,
"(""'\
\......,
-',-'
"
John worcester, Esq.
Auqust 13, 1996
Page 3
NO. EBB
P.4
amended, Mr. Teschner. requests that the applicant be directed. to
resubmit a development application that does comply with the zoning
relJll.1ations as they now exist.
Very truly yours,
II:
,& ADKISON, L.L.C.
J
JE2:caw
Enclosures
eOI <;:ity Council Members (with enclClsu:r:es)
Planning Commission Hembers (with enclosures)
Miehael Teschner
tesohne~\lworcest.Ol
!j)
AUG. 20. 1996. 1:16PM
...
....:J"
;;:.
Hf"',\_Ej)WRRDS
'J
".
,..-.,.
NO. 979
P.2
, .
'-'
LAW""",,CES
HILL,\EDW ARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, LLC.
, CENTJlNNJAL PI..A2:A:tl'UILt>Ir<Q
II .!II2>u,tN smBET. ~;o,
, ~C""J:nD'\lX)alli:3S
'I'B01lCM C HlU. I
JOSEPH RIlDWARDs. JR., ~.c.
IOSlll'l'l E. BDWAlUlS, m.1',e,
moMAS L ADlllllON i
I
i
'l'I5I:.Ill'lIC
~) ~.1'"
P:A~:R
('.ml)06a-.131
~
August 1.6, 1996
FILE COPY
~ FACSTMTTR (970) 920-5119
John Woroe.ster, Esq.
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
He; Savanah AppJ.ication for '.I!op of lUll DeveJ.opl!llimt
Dear John:
,
I have oontinued to further examine the ~op ,o~ .~1~ application,
and in addition to the issues raised in my'p~for letter, I have
Il.Qted other provisions in the existing ac;p::e\!imeilts and resolutions
which are const:r:aints on prooeSGinq ~'Top of Mill ~pplic:ation at
this time. I have set these llIatters.' forth in my J.etter to '!;.he :p&Z
members, a copy of which is attached. t""would ap~eciat... :y'Oltt
review and analysis of these lJIatters..and hopef....J.ly, you will.-eoncw:
with my position and rec~nd ~e 'Top 'of 1till. review; b~ put on
hold. '. _ ,....
"
Ve:r::y tl:Uly yours I
.-
. ~,'~ ~t
H~'E
t
J sep . E
JE:2:ec:
EnclQsw:e
Co; lltichael Teschner
teschner\lworee~.D2
:t..L.C.
.... .l' "
"
'.
I)
AUG. 20. 1996 1:16PM
Hr, E;DWARDS
\.-;
.......
t ..;~....
NO. 979
P.3
, .
;. .,or
''-'
!....'\..W OFFlC2S
HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, LLC.
CIlNTENNIAL i!..A.ZA.tmrl.:l:;ill<G
5ll2MAIN S'nmI!.T. stll'm:lDl
CAIlJlONJ>AI.B, CQLORADO ~
'r.IJOItAS Co m:u.
ltJIlErli IS. J!OWAlUlS, lR., P.c.
JCSEPH B. EI>WARllS, Dr. p.c.
ntOWAll L Am<lSON
~!m
MOl........"",
PA=:B.
(!nO) _'131
August 16, 1996
City Planning & Zoning
Commission Members
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
He: Top of tiU Project;.
FilE COPY
Dear Planning << Zoning COmmission Members:
In addition to our objection to processing the Top of Aspen
application raised at the last hearing, there are other reasonS
that the application should be tabled or returned to the applicant
at this time. Those rea.sons are as follows;
1. The Fust Amended and Restated Planned Uni:1::
DeveloOlllent(Subdivision Al1reement. Aspen Mountain SIWdivision
of October 3. 1988 reauires further aeoloqio st~dies of the
TOl) of ASpen parcel before any l;'>relimin"-"Y review. The
Agreement recited on page 3 tha-c "Lot 3, as shown thereon,
requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can
receive preliminaJ:Y and final development consideration... . "
See Exhib:it A. This Agreemen-c is :l.n eHeet and is binding on
the applicant and determines that t.he Top of :lUll pax:<::el can
receive no further prelinl.i.naq development consideration tUltil
such geologic studies have been completed. 'l'h,ose further
geologic studies and. evaluations have not been done. Secti.on
F of suoh agreelllent. (on page 39 thereof) noted that any
agreement regarding development parameters was premature
(hecause the geologic studies were a pre:reqqisite). The I,and
Use Code at Section 26.94.070 prOVides that development of the
property is limited by the conditi.ons of the P,U.O. agreeDlent.
2. There is an exist:in~ ~&Z resolution determining that the of
Kill COllIOonent of the PUD should be delayed until the geolO'1ic
hazards are analyzed a~d deter.mined. The senior engineering
qeologist of t.heColo~ado Geologic Survey provided the City a
let-cer dated March Il, 1985, regardinq geOlogic hazards on the
Top of Mill project and recommend:ing "that the City postpone
any decision on thi~ .application until detailed studies have
:been completed and the hazards are better l.lude>:stood and
realistic >:isk assessments can be perfo~d." See Exhibit B.
~he Planning & Zoning CommiSsion, by its Resolution No. 85-6
to' leSM"'(~IIo<I.~~'( Me::/IoIJlA.19
,')
AUG. 20. 1996
1: 16PM
H",..,.., EDWARDS
, :\-
\.-/
1"'"'\
NO. 979
P.4
; .....
'.
City Planning & Zoning
COmmission Membe~s
August 16, 1996
Page 2
dated April 2, 1985, resolved in the first portion thereof
"NOW, THEREFo.nE, BE I'l' RESOLVED by the COJlIIl\ission that it does
hereby reC01I\IlIend that apprmral of the Preliminary PtrD
Subdivision and 8040 Vie~ Plane applications coneerning the
Top of MiU cOlllpOnent of the PUD be delaved until such time as
the fOllowing conditions have been met." CondLtions 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 9 and 11 all deal with an obligation to fw:the:r study,
~nitor. analyze and provide info~tion with respect to the
potential geologie hazards and to prOVide a full report back.
See Exhibit C. The applicant's geolog-ic report subm;i.tted with
his resubmitted application merely reiterates .that such
geoloqic studies need.to be done and ha~ not yet been done.
See Exhibit O. ..
(
Resolution ~o. 85-6 is still in force and effect with respect
to the TOp of Mill davelopm.ent application, and the fact that
the application was i.nteriluJ.y withdrawn and slightly revi.sed
does not change the operative effect of Resolution No. 85-6.
The floor area proposed to be constructed on the Top of .Mill
parcel in the revised and resubmitted application is
apprOximately the same as in the :former application. '!'he
floor area has merely been COmbined into a lesser number of
much larger (and much more profitable) luxtl:l:Y units. An
applicant cannot avoid the effect of It l:'esolution recommending
den.i.al by merely withdrawing and t.hereafter re$ublIl.ittinq the
application for the same rezoning' for the same inareased.
magnitude of development. ThereforiO! the P&Z has already
made a recommendation that tur r woe
e opmen a . .. e geologic anal S1S s s
n ean camp e e . . s.:Lnce a ,
- "u l..u...n9 nas .!leen tlone by the applicant to satisfy the
conditLons of such resolutil;ln. This Planning So Zoning
:l:'ecommendation was followed by City Council in including that
requirement in the First Amended and Restated Planned lInit
DiO!velopment Subdivision Agreement as noted in paragraph 1
above.
Plannina It. Zonina previous Iv rec""""'''nded a denial of ill. similar
requested rezonina of the Top of Mill parcel. The applicant
proposes to ~zone land within the Top of Mill parcel from R-
15 to L/Tll.. A similar request was made in the first
application by Roberts,' Savanah's predecesor. The first
applica:l;i.on recOZt1lllended riO!zoning the Ski Club p<ttCel from P
(public) to L-Z (now caJ,led L/n). That rezoning request was
not: Supported by either staff or thiO! J?&Z. Resolution No. 84,-5
of the Aspen P&Z, recOllllllended denial of the request for
riO!2oning part of TOp of Mill to L-Z and instead recOJIIIltended R-
15. See Exhibit E.
f"""\
:~_/
> .'
AUG. 20. 1996 1:17PM
"-'
-.....-'
H,~ E;PWARDS
NO. 979
P.5
~
Ci ty Pla.lUli.nog & Zoning
Commission Members
August 16, 1996
Page 3
4.
~::s-
~
.
5.
To review a develo91D.ent pl:'ior to dete:cnininer the zoniner is not
possible. It is logically not possible to review a
development for conceptual approval prior to a determination
of the rezoning issue. For exampler in the requirements for
conceptual pun review, Section 26.S4.03D.B.2-6 provides that
a project's maximum density, dimensional requirements, open
space and parking oannot exceed that pe:tmitt;ed by the zone
district. Until. a. dete:onination is made as to which zone
district is to be applicable to the property r there can be no
dete%1llinat.ion of whether or not a proposed project can be
'approved under conceptual review. Clea.J:ly, the application
Savanah has proposed cannot be bu.i:!. t under the 3oru..ng in
effect at this time. Eithe~ a rezoning issue must be taken
'through the px:ocess firstr or the appli.cation shoul.d be
reviewed for its conformanCe with the zoning now in effect.
To do otherwise puts the cart: before the horse and purports to
detennine the validity of a conceptual development that is not
possible undQ:t' existing zoning. The approval of such a
concept would have the effect of preempting and predetermining
the x:esult of a rezoning request that has not :yet been
considered Or analyzed. We recoqnize that the s~ of
development review procedures at Table 6-101 (Page 564)
indicates that there oan be a consoli.dated 1'lJI) application
which can have a text or map amendment request consolidated
With steps 3 and 4 (final as opposed to conceptual review).
Whil.e a rezoning review that late in the process may be
acceptable for some applications ,clearly it is impossible in
this case to deterrti.ne the confo:cnanc:e of a concept for
develop11lent when that concept cannot be developed under
existing ~oninq and when there has been nQ dete~nation of
the app;1;opriateness of :r:ezoning. !twould. be a waste of
everyone's time to review a concept for PUD and subdivision
and thereaft.er determine that the rezoning is inappx:opriate.
T'herefo:ee, the dete:cnination of a r o' re s must
rocee 10r 0 or e v eas s~ neous
tee :cn.J..Ilation of tea ro r:tateness 0 0
~ v J..on.
Aside from the qeoloqical nroblems. the rezonin~ r~est is
without merit. Under the law of. Colorado, there is a vary
strong presumption in favor of the appropriateness of the
e~istinq soning and r~ests for resoning are not granted as
a matter of course. Adjacent property owners have a right to
rely on e~isting zOning regulations where there has been no
mater1..al change'in character of the neighborhood which wtro..ld
require a rezoning. Clark v. Ci~ of Boulder, 36~ P.2d 160
(see Exh,ibit l!'). There have been no such changes surrounding
~
c..)
, ~
AUG. 20. 1996 1:18PM
,
..........'
......,.....:
H~,E:pWRRDS
NO. 979
P.6
~-
City PlaJ:lning- Go Zoning-
COllUlliSsion Members
August 16. 1996
..age 4
the Top of Mil~ parcel, and it remains in substantially the
same undeveloped condition it has been in for many years. The
Fifth Avenue Condom.i.nium.s have been in place foz: 30 yeax:s, the
Mountain Queen have been in. place for 15-20 years, and there
have been no material. changes in the chaxacter of the
neighborhood to justify such rezoning.
It is ent.irely possible to put all 47 residential units on the
Grand Aspen Lot 5 and none on ~op of lUll Lot 3. LOt: 5 is the
more apPlXlpriate site, as occupants do not need a car and can
walk to the downtown restaurants and shops, it is located
immediate.Iy adjacent to the :main transit center and is already
developed as high density and zoned r./TR. In contrast, the.
TOp of J!K..ill site is undeveloped (except one duplex), it 1.03 at;
th.e top of an ext.rerllely steep hill and half of the property is
above the 8040 g;reenline. where development is discouraged, and.
according-ly, it 1.5 zoned R-15 and. conservation and was so
zoned when applicant acquired the property. Savanah nqw wants
to maximize :i.t5 profit from Top of Mill but, any hardship is
self-infl:i.cted. N:i.rk v. Citv of Colorado Sorinas, 493 P.2d
371 (see Exhibit G).. 'l.'his appl.i.cation seeks the extraordinary
rezoning- to chang-a the r'illatively low dsns1.ty R-15 to the high
dens:i.ty L(TR and to impose the L/TR zoning on some of what is
now the conservation zone, in ordez: to construct almost as
much floor area on TOp of Mill (83,600 sq. ft.) as for the
Grand Aspen (96,430 sq. ft.). FOZ: compari.son, the floor area
of the Ritz hotel is 190,000 sq. ft.
Very txuly yours,
./
~~
~
"'l'l
'Q
~
JE2;caw
Enclosures
ec; Michael Teschner
telcbner\leityp&2.01
r'\
--)
...
R--
....'\.-
r-
,-
t..:.
,.-
.
....,
~
-:-
...::J
_"""l
,"
..
i.
-
,
,
Al!G.20.1996
.-
1: 18PM
Hi"'"', EDWARDS
'0
f'\ '.
NO. 979 P. 7 ~
&H-1J'{OI'-'!..."
em~ 574 F~ 792 -,
-, .
~"l
-.
0:: _
~ r:='
.......
>~
<'-
1\:1-
...
"".
-...
:>::!
-J<O
-
ell::
~
-
0;;.
E::
""
;;:;-
F1351' ~~_"-!Z.1\lDZ:- ..~TD F.z.E'!!.'!'~
M
'F".,.,?-,NI,~t: mf:r'" e,~.OPMENT ISTffiDrvr~Ton .z.G;?~
.....,
ASP'!l'l :lmONTAIN stTI'ltn:vo.crrON
-
...,
=
? r/:;; cf..
day
'!;'his i!.g=!!ement:, lUlde and et,rt:.i!!::'e:i into this
--
of Cr-C/;O//l, Haa, ):Iy and l::Iei::weenthe City of Aspen,
Colora.do,
a ll%W1ir::ipa.l. corporation l:!Tld. ho:m.e r.l.le Ci<;:y (he:ein-
a.::-::e= :'".::e-l:'recl to as .ci ;:y" ), am! Savanah .T.oim.i tet! Par-...nerSh.i.p, a
Ois~~ic~ of Col~ia Limi~e~?a~~e~snip .(he~einaftQ~ ~efe=~ed to
as "Owner")
w? T N r S S ~ ~ ~ :
1iir:..::..."l.::As I Otmer is t.l1.e owner of t.'1e real P:t"oper::y
ane: ililIlrcvE:llIen,:s Ulereon s.:::::-;.:ate k:10T,,"n as 'i::!:le As.,en l'!oun~a.i..'l
- -
SUbdivision and ?lanned Unit Develop=ent (he:einaft:er ei~er ~e
"POD II or ~e n~::::-ojec-::U) - eo !:i'(,7e-lo't: s1J.bt:.i""isioo and. :s:lanned. unit::
..
eevelQP~e~~ ~O~e P~ic~la:ly shown ~'a desc=i~e~ in ~e ~l~~
~ereQf ~ecQ~de~ DeCember 2, 1985, L~ ~la~ 300k 17 E~ Pages 99,
~ Se~. (he:::-ein,a=:t;er "W."'J.e "!ni~ial Ple:;:It) t of ":....~e. ?i~t::.:..n COW'l"'CYr
Colc=ado real prQpe~y ~e~oras (here~~a~~er ~e "~Qecrds"); and
~~Sz t~e Ini~ial Pla~ w,s su:~i~~ed to the City
for a~p~cval, eXecu~ipn and recoraation by O~er's p~edeces$o~ in
title, Jonn H. aOber-~,
~~
u..
("Rol::ler-...s" )
in G~nne~i~n ~i~h tha
initial platting of ~~e =ive lots eo:;~is~nq ~~e ?t~ (hereL~af~er
the U!nitial ?rojeC':iT); -:""".1.e 4ive 101:s, t::tget:.~e.= ~ith ;i $ixt..~ 20:
hereina~er p~Oppsea te ~esult ~=om ~e ~epla~~nq of Let 5 are
p=esa~~!y ~'c.~ a~= SC~a~~~a5 he~ain ciesc=i~e~ as:
..
.. EXHIBIT
I A
~
"
')
<-0
~
,-
,
,...
,
-
,
~
,..
t
1~
~
he
E
r-
t
\..
-'
AI,lG.20.1996
1: tBPM
HP"\ EDWR~DS
I :,; , ......
........'
NO. 979
-./ (- !lOOA 574 ~ i9"J
r-"
P.B
ta) 'Lot 1, someti~es herein referred
to as nHo~el Phas~ !W;
Cb) Lot 2, sometimes herein referred
to as "StnUlti t Place" I
(c) Lot J, so:met..i~es herein referred
to as "Top of Mill";
(d) Lot 4, sometimes herein referred
to as "Galena Place";
Cel Lot 5, sometimes herein referred
to as ~Hotel Phase I!h, and
(f) Lot 6, (PropOSed), sQmeti~es herein
referred to as "Ice Sink anq Park."
WP~,in Conjunction with the initial platting ot
the POD, Roberts entered into that ce~ain Planned Unit Develop-
ment/S~bd~vision Agreement ~ Aspen Mountain SUbdivision dated
December 2, 2985, and recorded in BOok 500 at Pages 655, ~ se~.,
of the Recor~s (bereinaeter the ~!nitial 'POD Agreement"); and
WP..E:ll.EA.$ f pursuant to and ill relianee UpOll the
Initial ~OD Agreement, OWner, or its Fredecesso~, has already
Ccm~lete4 seVeral Obligations on the OWner's Part to have been
pertonea thereunder, many Of W'hich o.blig-at;ions have, for
Purposes Of continUity and conSistenoy, been restated ~nd
rea.ffirJD~d in tlti.$ First Alllended. PUn Agreement; and
~. pursuant to an applica~ion deeed Jallua~
29 f lSBa and as late;:; SUPPlemented--'.on J'l.Ule J, 198a f the represen_
tations therein Set forth bein~ incorpO=a~ed by referenoe herein,
2
~
, -
AUG. 20. 1996
j'
-"
,-
i.
r'
,-
!
,
1.:.
f'"
L
E
G~'
r
'l
..
...
*
~.
1: 19PM
, ~~W{DS.
~
NO. 979 P.9
(-
IlIlOK 574: P!..'it 794
Owner submi~ted ~o the City an applica~ion to a~end the Znitial
Pt:'oject; and:
WHEREAS, the appli~ation to amend the Initial
'Project was sUbmitted before the effee-:ive date of the changes to
~apter 24 of the Aspen Municipal. COde ("Municipal COde") and
re~ieweQ under the provisions of t~e Municipal COde theretofore
existing; tberetore, any refe!ences hereinbelow to the Municipal
Code or to Se~ions thereof shall be de~ed ~ refer to the
MuniCipal Code and the Sections tl:l.ereo1' in effect on May 24,
1986, excep~ to the extent that ~hange$ to the Municipal Code or
to Sections thereot have been made e~ressly ap~licable to the
Fir~ Amended POD or to the perfor.mance of Owne:'s. Obligations
hereunder; and
WH~AS, the City and Owne~ desire by th2S Agreeme-~t
(hereinafter the "Fi::s\; bended PUI;I Aqreement:") to amend the
Initial ?CD Agreement to retlec: cg~a~n design modifioations to
and Of the Initial Project, as well as O~er matters more
P~icUlarlY below set forth; and
WH:EJlEAs, Owner has sW:mi.i t:~etl to the city for
a~roval, execution and recordation a plat amending the POD
(het"eihaft:.e.r referred to as t.'l.e "first ;t...:mendeC! Plat It); and
WHEREAS, t:ne hecess~~ conceptual, preliminary and
final approvals have been received .f::-Olll t.llS City for Lots 1, 2,
and 4, as shown on the First .~ended PIa\;, While; (i) Let: 3 as
shown thereon re~uires f~ther geOlogic study and evalua~ion
*
before it can reCei~e preliminary and final develoDment consider-
atien, and (ii) Lo~ 5 ~5 shown ~~ereon is 5~ill in tne review
3
')
,..
L
r~
... "1\-
he.!
r
to>
r
...
AUG. 20. 1996 1:19PM
H,..,.." EDWRRDS
tU
NO. 979
P.10
~,
t ~.
1
,
.
-
. .
~
IlCDK 574 ~4fiE830
J. F~nancial Assurances - Lot 5 - Premature.
4. EM91oye~ Housina - Lot 5, As an inducement to the
r-
~ity to approve the amendments to the Aspen ~ountain P.U.D./Sub-
division'contemp~ated herein, OWner has agreed to and does hereby
acknowledge its potential obligation to provide off-site .emplcy~e
housing for net new employees and other employee housing
requirements as may be determined during the amended approval
process for the Lot 5 component of the Proje~.
5 . On-s; te ParkinCl - Lot 5. The on-site parking require-
ments shall be de~ermined for Lot 5 during the amended approval ,
process.
L
,...
,
;
L
F " TOP OF K~LL
(l?:"emature - to be established by amendment to this
G. . LOT'; - (PRO"'C!'jED Tel': JlTNiI:' ANO PARK)
The Lot 6 component of the PUD is the parcel that is to be
createt:l frolll the replattil'lq or sUl:ldi vision of Lot 5, which has'
yet to be completed. Lot 6 is shown on the First Amended ~lat as
beinq "proposed." only. However, as a condi t:ion to the acceptance
'Py the City of the First Amended Plat for recordation, the
, execution by the City of this First Amended POD Agreement, and
the Qtiinterrupted construction of Hotel Phase I, owner shall
apply for and. diligently pursue all necessary approvals from the
city for the Ice Rink and associated facilities, including but
not limited to GMQS exemp~ion or alloc~ion, conditional use
39
~
I AUG. 20. 1996 1:19PM
. AOO-15-1396 89' 38
" ~; II
1 I
'. ! .
'. b'"
, . I ,
~,G..~j I
;11~~' ;t,.~
I .. .
. i "!' i' :
1\ !
[.
. Ii
,
,
I
I
I
,
!
i
,
.
1
I
I
I
;
i
I
;
,
,
,
i
i
Ii
II
r
,j
II
i
"
.
,
.'
I
I
11
\
I
I
I 1 l
~. ~ j
I
f.; I
,
,
:, I
..
"
~
"
t
I'
HJ.IoI... EDWARDS .
Fr;:: ",'';;PE!>VP Iii< IN COM DEV
~~f POSt-il"Fex Note
"!:~ w;' ~
c..J\'JepL
TO
~
:;
NO.9f!?.. P.l1
~~131 ~.Bl
<II
_..
'COl.OWlID'
. tllil'JoRTWiJII
:r'I.5"Sl'AT!!cern..
. 'O!l'Nl5tt.eos..~"'f'"ONE""""'~
;' .
.rc~ ~f$~S. . .
, ,.1' '
'itr. 'A'l"'II;e~ ,
: ~"""m:J""'amrl"4 lIff'lc:e
130 SoLI'6;llena n. '
lis,...... ~l'"'"'ll<I 81611
: ./ :
1lE:' ~ \II01JIiITADl LllUGE jltSlllENTIAl. SI1l'
lie,.';" Ii '! Rkelnoall: : . I :
I .. " -
lie lilt ".~I~ the PlIIl, a,,,!. S~lIdi';$10n Sublllh",lolt llld 'AlIlIendices'D&E'a!l ,.J;1~
:" t1r~ ,eral .alld eIlg1n_fn9 i90'GIOmf of 'the ~""l. '.' . . -r!
;su$cl: ~ tl1f~ reyl.... .~r historical I..yol_n~ 1.. W ..'rea. aJld 't:n~ ~ '
'of ~as '.Jlille WI! .CNld 11"'e ;.0 IIIlIKe tlte follM"!l c_nts ~r!l11\!l :thH !,
II~DSil and tlte S1lo1og1c~h.~rdS and constr.i.ts iilossocll1ted wlt.n it. : :
~i',iu, ...tOre .orth ~u:e of AsII"" Mountajlt is adYertelY affe~ed by .~.: '
il ',.r. g&Qlllgic hwrdS or con5tl'a1~s. tBry~. ~!l72l. : '
~~: Jl.l1 ~ther fa<:tol"ll!hld .~ual, "".! di!!I1'l!e of l'islt .n""'.ted....ttll I: ~
;iio\li=."'lelled buardli inc:..e.ases ,,1111 the Sloll'! al\lll Pr'<l"il1l'\'ty to t"e '
!ScjU",~ .....a. ~ . ! .
1 . . I
,_I. ~ree !l~n,"ral h~.da""s lara d'Ir~etiy os_fatlod w.it.h tllis pl'llp...l. I :
I &nll""n abl. ,1M poten-tiany'lli1stable SlOIl,n,; ..brio t1_. ""~'
: >;#1 f'lflOd;el_ 11Iese' pl'i:M;.SSO$ are il)'ll""feal1;r ;"""",,,l.~ 'hl f
; ,: ~.....Ii. ;;....Fl.~ ~ 1": ""fell <lle& can b. tire cause.... lI;lI".,.:"...h 0 ,
: ' lot', ~ Gthers_ :i::vellts co. be l'Ud". sequential or. episOdic tn I
. tllre trl:th hfply ....rfab'lo ti... delays b_en re1 ttiod events. ' :
. ,..... ... .\ .
:~~<lI~' 1'lI~'qre P"D<:'~s". appear to caliS/! 101,,".1 ;~.= III dlei.. 1ta1:ll~~1
~tfn!l ft1211se tl'le.'t .re an ,,,te'P'a' par'e d' 1:lIe ollY"""';c e'l\l'lllbrlulf ,ur
. ~e; sit.e~ T1It, .<lUIHbr'lUII "!Ill 1>. sigJlif,feant'y dter-ed by ~oPlStnll!'!jIaa
~t\lbl""l""e. serla.sly affes1Jng the beb..i... of tM p-"" ",tit re.wect
" ~tJdngs~t-in-~wayll~ . ! ,
~. Jlhile'-'\lp_ice,:ll and ~ p",vi"-" . ~re." deal of v".tuob1. info"'~"".
1;Ile:r ......' e.-s tIllln ~lIa t 1 $ n.cessary to ...de.sbnd a1fd p",dfe1 ~ I:
Ileh&vi or ..,. t:!I!$ Sloll"-f..l1ure-prdne If".. I ;
I' , ,
! ;
..j.,' G-':O,-QQV ,I.;
;STOA"'O''nl&P''''1...lCS'f'TO)TH''~
; i. I:
: I',' I'
. ,,'
I r ... I'
1': ' i'
I Ii
: i: ,.
; r ,i ..: .1
" I
., '
=-1
...
;
'1
.'n
I:
: I
; ~
"
. .
f'"
"!.
i
'"
i
2:
EXHIBIT
B
I ~ i I.:
Q
I"
:1.~
'...
....
AUG. 20. 1996
, . 1'lG--15-1996
, .
;'
i
I
i
I
I
. i
'"-',
I
,
j.
j'
i
i
i
,
I
i
I
i
I
!
i
I
i
I
t
,
,
i
1
1
!
!.
, I
'-I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
)
I
i
,
)
I
I
I
Ii'
I
l.
j-
i
r
,~j
!
i
I
I
I
!
< !
I~
.1:
.jj
i
,
I
i
I;
II
,)
I!
Ii
I
I
I
,
. i.
.'. '1\
!
!
,
,
i
!
I
":. I
i
I
1:20PM H~ EDWARDS
1!19=38 FRC" "~rl'ITKIN COM DEV
.......,...;..- ,
I
!
i
,
NO. 979
\:I..."b.5.:\131
'1
I
I
.1
P.l2.-
.-..."
TO
~.
,
~~
llr. Aliln Ii:!c_1I
ltarcll 8, iil85
Page 2 . i ;.
, i'
;: ;. i
~ ~e ;le".I. .f ;~n.j~at1o~ of tl1e ~i"I1'iA1'.ed landl:l1de of last J\II1e i .
15 ,lps~fldent lllllowfdetall and 1.l~ '!)an W l<l.~Ull,y d1a~.r1:e ! .
tl11isj-SI'fde ""~~ ud/,,,!pN!<lfCt. Its fII'tllfe bell..rlor. ' ., I !
.:' j ~ ! : !
;. ~iHt,r lllll!:f5e5 ......... based. 1n ,;'r1l, u~.... .~...."tfan.. ,.atlaie't' than j: I
~ttl lo:a~~"'~e c~~;li=::'~iD~e.~:d~~~(!elll~ J: =~~~e~~'II: 'j'
dN~!Ie<l. 1IIi:!. is _s'1:I,f.b~bl'y not. thi!! cr'lti<:ill ~qM1t.'ltlll. of" ; . ,
'il\lC!illHe deposn M' tile Mele l;.ild1til.ns .bserved In 'c~unet:i<ln wi1:l1. : .1
,U1e!!"l"eIIefIt, last J......l i!:_ W!ing s_"lt ,.....-aDie' oondtt.fQIIS, a . I : . I .
satwil'act.- oi'l.ss plan 1.0 '"'. <<JjlO!'fa<l in ane /If ."., - ~ues;. .,; '.
~;,: disc.... cltsslff,d .S....rsina1liy stable- in the, ClIeII R.rt.. 8y!: '1
'<lefi."itio1l.:;he =ortecj: classIfication fol' tillS case' I. unmll"". :',
'. . t.~ pf-C: 1'_St:fP.~Q\'l$ yielded' debfis f1~ se.e and a ~ar.ll\fln'l~ : I
d~ ~ abe~t S11lIO I-P~ S~1;fllr'''''1c'l''e1acionsllip$ .r.,. tins laeal11;Y i' .
,i~",....i1 '" cl'llde .....,E~ hiCllfval 'af one event jIl!!' tlI01'$alllS. ~ars.. j.:
.OrI,Ili1'tGIllle Mtu..... .of Ill"$. n<oW pllelUlillella, tbh vaTue ;sMuld ,.... take,,' <<:I
.. $f"''' _.a,.,.ance'1, ,val slnco 9~.,.allt <lilt, II llOrMan af .tlle t....k1:
:n~"r~ of' ~ts lICe,," all.\" g1".n ,,,,,atio. on the ~.fall T'lII esopl!!l'. 1 :
._ iEha,.ar:~r1D1;fQn ot: the principal "",de of _Ms IlIOY_ .. · i'
,lll/q-l'1O<1...,t.1ld lIIe"'!iir llIitfga1:3111e b,y cilannlillizadoo daes nati \:Be 11l.:p: i
Ae<;G...t tM lIllhO<lic ~tQra ilnll po;Iten1t1al InUl"Ilction ~lI.~.fd i; ,
. eWll*'5. II ...11 land.Hde el" liebrh ,1'101/ ..mich lIlIuld "",,_-C.'01lly · .J. . I
. ti1\i'i81 t1trt!!.t. to tII.!ao::tual struct.uI':'K could effoCt.i'e.'" blodl'Dr al if' :
; tboj> ~.f.a~ lI'ltwl't rend..~lftg 1;; 1111, bll" u..le$$ to defl!ftd tIIlI, . : I
, el>'li!lop111e11'C f>'OoI tb Ylash:1'10ad ""ich cauld GCClIr lIefol'll ;Il,,'blod:"ge; i . !
. ..a~ .c1ea~, or ~..... ""'\.i<::~. <:l!'N~r.e11' pl"f!sUllrir>9 tloat U\f;u,Jor ads: ,
. ...rtilll/ e....nt ....,..14 ..... s1"",11 enough "" ~e","" lIlf'tillnlO1l is !le1lg:!'!.9i; : I I
. ~.pirint:.. In lIIaftY te~ ~he only 1'~l'Opri.~e ,"l1;;.!!I.t~io" i. U' ab~;' .
....ac. adversel)' affe d b11t!.lIds1'l4es Ill<! def>ris 1'\__. ' . :
In ~..,!.... _"4 1l1:e .onc:U~ .itlo I~" l'eite~atil tl10 T<<.~_t.lnn$ 11 ; !
fcIu~d 111 ~o CIa," RepoPU ning far 1II.~ "etan." studl.. .f 1fto IlIl$S I: t
...ni~'"1d ..lp faHu~" p"'" .~3t!s. af.f ec. t.,~g t1\fS att a, TIle c_ ~e"H:;y of] \ I' 1
tIIese ,...en__. uno! t!le'I'lfntetllCt10,"S IIIUst lie '#!r:t lIlOll 1I!lde""tl>OlI'ln Or<l~r.'. ,
to ai' ,oay ...11,",le p...."'ICtl.".. abOIJt '\.fI.if lll<ellbaGcl, ,,,,,ur~ 1_~I; . I
an<1: . 'r1sl1 .t~.,. If.. tlIl.tlte ~ntlI;1~u,d: de.elopmeo-c. M<litfonally,.no :' 1 .
'ell<:eSs ,ojstllN! c.ndi1:f""~ a.saefat"" _Hit tile ~l'i'n!l t:hPl ....s I"ll~ff pe..-tdd.' i
'.,1res s ~ .c"tlcal ~lia... <If tl1e l..n.llde Iftob''''', QiYelI tile .......n-I, I I
"lid. '~il' aee dl.NPt.1'1l1 ).1$1: Jurie, It i. liighl,y 1i~ely lIIa" tllh snd. ....." . !
",n~ a j;.,.~ lllOl:" l/I,t;e~ tillS ;Pf! ng tnan l'ast and 1IIilY' 1Ml.... ogaill.. ! I . !
",lied: 4\lDh the all..... .""s'derO'tiDIl!l ...c....end tlIat tM cr nst Me aM: ,'~ i
, f" .. f an t1 t:a! 911 -mIlS $I!.V l't II"' 1
thEi. 1r'1! bet:ter ... 'od aft 't s'ti<: rut ass 1ft be i: I :
Tile .innn\} 0 e. 'tUd;'" '....uld ~.. $"cil:tlIiI~ tile cr1~"" per.J~ J
fl ~e f""l~ In tile deta"!'! f,,,ld jn~e\l""gal:lc"'. '. 1; I i
I I: . I
I . '1 i
I I! I
i ;..) . I.
I ,1- .
1 1
! i
i: II
; .
I. '1
' ,
I.
I' . i
i .1
! i
i
I
!
j i
I'j
I i
, .
~.
:. ,~
i
I.
1:
)
. r
, I
I'
: I.
.1
I
TOTAL p, e2
~
;"j
AUG. 20. 1996
1 : 20PM
~;<'-l"l E~WRRD5
.......'
()
"
. . .NO.979
IlllSQl'il!'l'IOR 01' ~lI MUB PLlllIIttllG Allll 3011I1IG COIQQ:S.!.ttOll
GIlIImIlG APPlIOV'AL '1'\:)& POII!IOII Or U.. l'ltllr.l:1iIriR:r :i!UIlISIJBIII'IISIOIf
AIm llBmUIDl1lUl1: JlSSOC:NI!ED ~lItS JOlt '1'IiIlI III!:Iltlllilr:i::J:.lIL PIlO.uCfS
I IfCLUllED lIImnr :ms lIS!'lIIf 1IllII1r.rAt1l POD
RMolatillCl Ifo, 85-6
IfDlIIllWI. by l:hi.t llesollti:icn !lo. 84-:23; the Aspen city COllneU
(heref."aft.er. .co1!l1eU') di<l grant. <:onc"pt:.llal rol>/SUbl!1'1l.s1011 al'Pro"al
t.o the 1'01' of 11111. SllIllmit. I'lae" and 700 South Gei....a Con.dom.iniUlll
cQDpCnent.. of. the llep"" llc""tain Mil, Ol\d
WB_. by their lle<lol aU"" No, 94-27, council did endoue the
nvhed 9llpJ.oyO!<!! 1l01lS-Ut9 proposal of the llspen Mountain roll and did
gunt conceptual subdivision approvol and ":...pt:.i~ hOlll 1::I;e Cif:y's
growth lIanaqtlillent allotment procedure" far tile projeot: 'll Cte Ci t.;1
n"ce """'pm=t: mol
WBIlIIE&S, On Auqust 27. 1984, Council did agre" that the lodc;e and
r6ll1dentisl e""'p<lnentll of the p.ojeel: cOl.lH centinue to. he reViewed
9..par"t~ly, prov1de<J that the appronl of any preliminary au,,!! not
hecOllle .ffoetiv" UDtU l:he pt<>liminary approval fo. the entire I1Ull has
i>;>en ".""1:."d: and .
'IIlf1llU!llS. by their lles"l~t:iQn 35-1, 1::1;.. Asp"" ?lannillq and Zcnlnq
ConuIllasi011 {heroinafter, . Coillmis,;i on ., did gr'tnt: prel1lnin""y roD/sub-
division aPPt"".l for the 10d'1" c","p'nent of th~J\spen llountain roC: ~d
'IIlfElUlM. John E. llOh...t:a. Jr_ r Al... II. Novak and lIobett Osllow~y
(hereinaftei "Applicants") have sulmitted Iln application far Preliminary
Pl711/Suhdividon approval for the tesi",""tiaJ. "'"Ilp'nent of tile Asp""
Ilo""tain NO; and
~1llUll!S. the COtillll;.SS;.Oll did held a pulolie hell.ln9 em !:he AppUeants
sUbm1ssi"" on llar;::h S. 1965, which hearing W"8 cant:inued t.o March 12,
MIlrch l.'l ""d Apdl 2, 1985, to aonsider the Preliminary POD/Subdi"'ision
appl1catio1'\ aad <l.saoahted r."iew p.oaedn];"1I for tl:le r.llidential
cOIIIpllnent of !:he lI.spM Mountain PttD.
. lIOIJ. '1'IIBIl.I!'PORB. BI33:1-. usor.V1ll:I hv the CODuIIission that 11: does
h~~eby :recol1llllend that appr""al of the I'relim1narv :roD/Sltbaivlsion and
eo 40 Viewplane applicatiOlls concel:ninq the Top of 11111 component of
the PIlD h" del av"d llnUl ,,"cll time as th" follOwirt<jaoncl'Hions. have
been lllet,
-.
1.
1'I<e Appl lc""t:' .l>.aJ.l ",o"tiMe their eva1 ost1011 DE the
9""1"9i<: "azards frO/1\ Aapen Moo:nl:ain which mal!' affect: thia
site by moni tor:l.".g Md reportin!J en .the data gatbere<J Cl1.ldng.
.he eritiaal "el../rMeff l:.u.e period. Baa..a "" this infor-
.aU"" the Applicantll shall provide respons..s t.o the QOocerns
..xpresSl!!d by Jeffrey <:. lI3!'lI..s, Sea!or lhg!neerillq GeoloC;ll1>t:
of the COlorado Geologic $crv"f. !.n hb lett:er date<lllarch a,
!!lIlS, 'n!" AI'Pl1cB.l'lta shan DUb"it their 1'<oq."", for on-
going monitoring .0 Mr. llynell for biG rev!.... lIl1d approvil.l
pdor to tbe ar1t1ool. period.
The Applicants shall ""1""nd l:h.. seope of their sl:)ll eOntam.-
inatial sampling program to detuJline whet.her any tol<ic
..atedal s ar.. located w1tb..in tbe area proposed to b9 ""ell
. for stom water detention an t.lle Ute. If such mat"rials
are fo.....d i.n tllis aua, the AJ;lpllcant:,. shall d"",elop a plan
to Insure that. to"i" substances <lo !lot leak IlIto l:IIe g"o""d- ....
'"
f
I
2.
~
",,)
P.13
V'
v
EXHIBit
C.
AUG. 20. 1996
1: 21Pr1
HI') EDWRRDS
. :1 1
'-:..~
NO. 979
P.14
I")
~
lleaOlIIti.. :110. 85- .1e.-
ftqe 2
water beloll the sHe, to the sllti'!:fac:t.:l.Cll of tile Cl1::y's
l!l\g-iZle..~ Olld Chief a."i..Ol>m.....tal Sealth (lEfion.
'1'.be Applic:ant!l shall develop a soil 'IImitoring- pcolJcaa and
detailed ytad.ln'1 plans for the etItite Top of lUll 81 te to
SilltJ,sf;:r the =n':"rft" of the l\!It...ira,mMtal I1ealth Of:fio"r
th..e no i:clJ:ic matedal be "DYed Clff the sib or be ezeesa1gely
d1stllrbecl and that the t01l1c soils CD tbe Bite will be
I?rop..rly eIWer..d and CCD trolle<l.
'1':b.. AppUc",,1:B aball mSuI. that. all ""o"'",,d .,i.... dulllpl "',,!
tll:U.lngs <Ill or aroon(\ the perimeter of tbe l?lJD site are
isolated frOlll human ":ql08111:. to .lnh1l1aUai or .In.ges:t1a1 by
the plllCelllellt of flU lIlat"rial ov,,'" toxio soU a and bll"
d1...~tlng all slltfaee w"tel:'fr~ such solIs.
'1':be Applicants 8h,,11 oiemCllstut.e that thooy have taJcI!!l'l into
"ooount and worked cooperatively with the Aspen Slt1in'ii
C""'pany <Il theirpl..... to ohanqe the fm!,,!> area tor the
world Cup md to addre..$ pllllle to ldUqate site drainage
imP'lct... from lIspen Homtdri.
6. The Applicants sball OOlIlllit to bavinq the ~OO!ltu pump
system prOposed f Gr tile Top of lUll proj ect I'e9'1ewed ll!( t.he
CIty l'In,!ineer, and nlrect"r of the wal:"r Dept. l?rior b:l Us
.In.st,,11''1:1(11 to detem1ne 11:s reJ.1abUi ty and adequacy of
fire flows.
1. The laa<lscap.1119 plan for t!:le ':op of Mill- ai'-e sball be
revised to m""e tnes and shrubs further frem. the curl:> than
the tllo foot distance preselil:1y shown to avold .:anflicts
with oarl! "Ad .n01l .....o\tal. The landseapinq pl."" ,shall be
supported with an. irti....Uon pun. '
3.
../
4.
v
s.
v
8.'- A conal:l;uction phasing program fClr the TOp of HUl site
shall be sulmlil:ted wld.oh ....""'" l:he r<quirl!l1lents af Section
24-~.9 (hI of the "lZtic:l.P'll Code.
,. The AppUcants shall oomll1t to provid1nIJ the lluilding
Inspeotar pdor to bUllding pe...u. revi.... ,,1 th Held data .'./'
deJl\Oll.atntin'l that UIlits at the Top -ot Mill.' site ll>:e 110t V
likely to be a~bjeet to s\lbe~d....oe frOlll IllIderS'ro,,"d mines.
10. 'Adequate air h""d1!.ttg facillties. BatIsfyinq the a....irllnm....tal
Ilealt.h Mflee:. shall be des1qned into the ""aerqround
parJc1nq atructur"s to .e1.1minate "'1' buildup of air COAtam-
1nan t.s.
11. 'J.'b,e AppliclIrIta shall plaee II liote <Il. the plat for the Top of
lUll proj...cl: advis1nq potentJ.a.l buyers of the balll'lrda
affeednq tile 1'ro1'''''t.y if the cont1.ll.alnq studhs demMstrate
!:he e:dstenc:e oil Sl10h probl...".
1%. '1'IIe AppUcanl:" sball submit'ilocalllentaticn of thelr compliance
with !:h.. ...bOV<! condi~""" to tlte P1S!Utlltg Office whieb shall
pre..""t 'tbe submisalCll to !:h" ~is"itn at a duly nodeea.
pUblic beadnq follllWi!t'ii its n...ie.. by the approllriat!!
referral ageDcies.
llB t:r J!lJ1l!IIBIl Rll:llOLVllD by !:be C.....isdcm that it ""es hereby
qrant to t!:le resiilenthl project" within the Aspea Mcunl:a.1n l'I;ID
(other !:halt tbe tap of !lUll Prel.1tll.lnary PCD/SllbQivision approval,
dces teeOit11lend sabd1..!sim exception for tbe pU.l:poses of conQaminiUlll~
i.to.t.iCl1 and does eQnfhm tite COlllpUSIIoe Of the Cte City Place pcoj..ct;
,')
i>
~
~,.
t\
!
AUG. 20. 1996
1'lI.JG-15-1996
. /:
~/..
/.-.
,
"~./'"
1 : 21PM HJIo>'.." EDWARDS
87'21 FRl .":;PEW1"lTKIN COM DEU
~,
. --~
<1;".9,;~J131 P.,1:>a1
I
. ,
; O~ ~I!lOll
. 'en/.PtiiD. ~'im,,;"g
S! ~St.
, ezi. cO &\6~1
. I : ::
, (ir~d ~en/TOP of ~ ~____n__u____ : i :
I" , ,
i ' . I ~ I
'I'
:'Mtj Mi~lsoIc ! ; i :
" l .' L I'
I ." I ; '1 f
:w:. have: ~~d the matc~ submitted !iegarding me above pmposaJ$ ;~ ~n ast the
. ;ge , . l!Jid ~ering geology of the area. . . . ! i: !
, ; ~ ' .' ~ I . .: ;. " 1
,I ' ' I ..
N' e'iN 'ibfo" or a.n.liJ; , is resented in d:le He' WOrth a,wlak re. tl iand their ! \ ' 'I
mme :iio: are es . the same as those we made to. the C'eCn . Me., ~
W' c:ond1:i' with, the need for additio site-S edfi d . d invesli . OIl a:II, ' . at! "V .
T ; f: '~ Dew proposal. should In e the resolution of .the probJers i~eh e~er : .
befmre. ,..,. :. , ,
", ; I . :: . ;', .' t41 : ~ . 1 i
: bh~::iJo ~cbrd ofpriwiou5 review on the Grand A$pl!nSIte and we ~esti.t tbfs be.. i
. is l$4l1tirely separaj:.e applicatiolli. We see t1.CI geology-relatedl~~~ whylthis i
. pqsed ~qpm~ eam1~ be successfuli, but a full re'View is in order. I' '\ : ! ,
i' j: 1 . : ,.. ; .!. !:.o 1
, will' awaj,t !aciditional inf~rmation on.. the ab()'le mauexs 'and we wPi '* i ham- to !
.'p ': 'eipate 'af'whateVer level of involvement you deem apprapnate. j! . i .
. . ': I r ;! i : .
Y1T:~' -/If~ I 1;
.1' i.,uH ,7 ' 'I "
. . l~ i:j~~ejing Geologist: ! i
: ; I" . I .
, j:" " j
TO
n
RE
.: ~ .
i 1
:1 !'
" !
I: : .
i I.
i' i',
Iii'
., .
" I
: i !
: i :
[I!
j.' 'i i
: '
i ,!
I. 11;
! !'
i
i
. " . :o(~O Q:d1.Q(i1l:AL <wIUlFL-.
. '1.,;~i<lItQii>li_ls.""G., .
. ; ;1.": .
'. ;1!III","~Ro:le
. . )~i3 Sh.......51Jiee1. Rcorrf
. ~...,.....<;o!.....ll!1lO~3 ,
. _.~_lt
. FAX~3ll3~ _2ol61,
ta. 1996.. i
" . ..'.
:. "
.-. -'- .-.
-.-
,
,
--,-- '''n
Post-it.<' F,8X Nola M1 Oal@ OS-ISl I~.S i
", ~CIti;' , -~ 'foI\\f-+lH,;;......>4
,
C>>JDepL , I Co. ; , ..
, , ,
p",,",,# P~. q,:Z.o-5\~ '"
\1"<1'" , , -- I
i ,
i .'
.:,
,,:/',
~ : '~~!:i
1
;
1
i
I.
,
J
i
I
i
I
,
.1
i
i
l
:
1 , i
;
:
,
I .-
" I
r:J
-,,--,
DEl!~. .~.
N' . ,.
, ,
R:ES0t.;rnCES
RD\'~:
~.,
. 1>",.hl..o<llMod
ERo;::a.r:I"~ c,*-,
...,~..... .;..
OlYlWNiOl.
, .
V'"1(~('.()ww::
.S,I,afelC:l!!ll:lkllo:k
-'m:iO;1'&tVt .
i .
!
.;
.!
: . .
."
': EXHIBIT
I i J)
j
'.
8UG. 20. 1996
','
'0
o
1:22PM
~
~ E;DWRRDS
......
RllSot.1l!ICR or m llSI/El'lII PLMBIIIIG .un SOIlDIG alIDI1SS~OIl
IIBCOIIIIIlWllIIll ocaarmAl.. ~l!It/Suam:V1SIOJl AP1'1U.lVAL
- '!:'DIl ~ ell!' mu.. S'lRlltl.'t :n.aclt l\IlD no SC'lIm ClALBRll
COIIllllk:tl!litlM a:lIf:l'OllBJft'S ar '1'lIIl 1lSl'll1l' JIlllIIrrAnl l'\Itl lllIIII
UI;OI!JIEIQ)IIIIG 11- U.tOlUIICl to .a~lS (1'1lli} U,l !CIll 'I'IIM! l'OIl.'nCIl 0' BB
'l.'IJ1' OF BILL SI'I!B ~:I:.I.oll loPBlI Pallr.:rc Ull 01I'.lIIl:l 811 ftle CIn' or .uRII
....el..tion .0. S
ISe~iee of ~ge41
~, Amerioan Century eorpon~~ClI1" ~OII1l1ll1r<::ll Savin"" l\eRdaUon,
Alan a. N09ak and RODe~~ Callaway Cheee!nafter ,referraa to as tbe
'Applicanta"l, bave eubmitte/l an apPlication tor conooptual POD/sub~
/liv~sio:t approval for ..l1eTop 0;: lIill anCl SlItnlllit Pla". condcmi:nium
c:oi!g:.cments of tbe Aspen l'IculItein Ptlllr ilIIa
w.E~~, the applica,t1on request. certain aaaitional review.
anB approvals inolud1n9 8Q40 Greenl!n! ana Mounta~n View Plane review
and a reaoninll tc I,-ll for those pc~1:ions of the ~op of lIill s!1;e
currently acned Public and a-iS (PO~) 1~)1 ina
.,,'
..'
WU~_IS, tbe A~licants.ha~e withdrawn thoir re~u.st for rezon~n9
~o ~~ of that portion of tbe ~op o~ Rill Sit. currently zone~ a.
lS IPUDl (~l, ana
WBEDtAS. t~e Aspon Plannin~ and Zoning Commissian (hereinafter
uferred to as tile "00llllll1sl;ion" 1 iU.:l cOllsider the l\l'plicant3' requests
for conceptual PU~/aubaiviBian approval of the ~op o~ Mill and Snmmit
PJ.a"t> ~lldolll!ll1allll, .040 l;reelll.he ana JilQuntain View Plane ruiew,
and reroninq from Public to &-2 at meetingB held on March 20th, KarCh
~7th and apt;.l 17, 1984, and at a auly.no\:.!c.a pobltc hearing canductea
= April 10, 19114 ~ ;uI/l
'fIIII!llUlI, the COIl!l\lbdoll l'1Gll<llJ i:o aefe~ forll1>ll ae~~"" 10lith resped:
to the A~licants' request for 8040 GtRRnlin" and Ko~~ain View Plane
.e~iey until ita Cal1aide.ation at the Applicants' p.elim~nary ~UD/RUb-
diyiaian 8ubmi~81.n, gigen Che teohnicalnatur. o~ th" yariou$ r.vieW
c..it."d~ JOIld thO'! "..ed fa. lIOre SetaJ,lecl in;fcll:'Jll~U"" :l.n oder to adequately
aS8e.e proje~t :l.mpae~, .od
~AS. purauant to ~ectian 24-11.3(:l') ot the ~unicipa1 COcle,
allY pro-'ect: needing ,PUll or stoll,Uvis.!.QI1 appr<:lvd whielr. haa .e"ailled
. development allotment aay be deemed by t:he Planning Offiae to have
satisfied thR conceptual presentation requirements of the City'S
J;ltfD ana .'tIbaivision :re9UlatiQM ~ ana
NO. 979 P.16
." . , _._._._:'......'V~oI'...~.~
'Ed.wa.rdi;:.~'~h~ ;
'~~ qlPa..~:~~..(.
.....
'.-.\'
." ,
.~,'~~ .'
'.:,
, ',.
,'"
, .
. .
."
. .,
'-.:,
"-;
,.
, ",
"" '.
~ ' .'
" -..
'..
.:: _:/.......:..
. ::';
,., 0-' .'_
-:f::.-".--.- ;
~ ..:
- ~.~:i~ .
'. ,
..'
"
,,:' .
-j " ,:.
~ '.., '
, .
, '.
"
.' ,
" J"' ,.' ,
:~":~h: . -....:;
'. -':':"~I~:;:>~:::~:
. I . ~
'. '
, '
:.-'"
.'
.1
,
=-"
::,?:~ .
".
.(
.',
..:: . ~
'..i: ~.~,~ ,.' ':, ,', ,:'
~~: ....:...'
- ,"
'"
EXHIBIT
fiE
I
,:1
:1
I
I
i
i
,'d
SCRIi:jMa::3 1i1H O.l
N3dSb1 .:dO A.l.I::l WtllS:60 96, 9, 9Il1::l
. I",
'2)
.AUG.20.1996 . 1:22PM
till
~, E~WARDS
,
.....--
v,;:;..
,..-.
,,'
~
ae~olut1Gn No. 8'-~
Pa9<! 4
24-11.2(,,) O~ tAe Municipal Caqe, ~eing aceomplished within
;!ave (S) yE!a.l:li lit' I:he dah of ~emoHtlon, and bdns testr1Clt~d
U eIle AsP"" l'Io""t;ain PUl) dote. . .
18. All material tep~eBentation~ of the Applican~$' e.nce~t;U&l
PUD/unbdivisicn and residential GMP applioation_ not; speci-
fically .ete..e~ to "baYe being made " condition of ubi"
"FPfG9al.
section ~
'rbat; it does !l.u:"by J:"Bee'llllllelLQ t.hat t.he As;')en City co"nc:l.l <!Ie\'lY
tbe Applicants' re~uelit for a rezonino f~cm '"blle to w-2 ot that
pan ion of the '.1'011 of 11111 site cu:rrenUy owned' by tbe C:it.y an.:! aoe3
lIereby recOlllllellCl :lnst.iIlIld i:.b.al: tohe !,'lareel (sl D" rl!.Unad to ~~i5 [~l3l)l (loll,
v ' . ....." '.. . .,', '.'
.~ sucll time as the PArcells) mav be con~eyed 1:0 the APplica~cs,
f"" the fdU""in'l! ~1!Iil,l'ems<
1. While ;:,bft prcl,'loll"" "...."lc!lll1en1: is "c""istent ."'ita the in'tent
ef tlm r.-2 sone catll'io~Y and of tile RecreatLOI>/A"commcdllUon!!
Transition lana ~lIe ca1:e!orr applied to' this area in the
1913 ~ Laid Ole PlaQ, a rcraning to ~-2 is noe required
to ecbieve the proposed de.,elopment.
!lllIe .pd_r:r reailll<l for Ue t.pplicants' request. is to enable
them to t;ake adva~tll!e of tbe.mote favorable FAa .atio
llvdlabl" in tile L-2 zOIle di8t:r:iatl. Silica the.:I'M! prOviaiDll&
of the HQn1cipll Code may be vat1ed pij~su"nt to the pun
regulnions, ll. tcnl.oning meuly ~o nduce the- ellhne of
the te;uested variation is inapPIOp~iate.
~~e L-2 2on. district p~rlllits mult~-~a~ily tesidential
u~es in aaait~an 1:0 sin9le-fa~ily units and 4~ple~~~. ~nd,
tll".efo~e, 40ell DO\:; 'luuanotee tbat c!ll""loprneni:. "1l1 ""CUt
<lonsiatent with th.. "olol/ted ~an/l ose I'la'" .
AI~OVRD br tbe Planning and lonin~ Commission of the City of
Aspen. Colorado, at. their regular meB~in9 on Kay -JL.. 1994.
3.
3.
lISpSIII' PLAIIImIIS DI:I 101" COR1lUIIOIII
BY p~~ ~/OAh!j;f'
:Pe:r:ry, ney, Chairman
1.'r'l!Illi!1'.
;I!,.L.. .&.,.:
1>lItbara Nonie. Deputy C1ty Cleric
~.~.i:. JI~r,?;;.;;
\~
j>'d
"
N3::lS!; .;1.0, ,lJ.t:) WI::I8S:60
r-;-,
.",)
". .. ~5.~1:;..>.:": .
. 'r.: . ..~"
,~':::~::i','
. ,
,
", '
" ~ ..
. ~.. ..
.,~:r,~ :~'. , . .',
. "'. ,..
"
: . .:', 'l~ri'l~(' ;;;;~
. ','.:-i't:~. .::"..'
.... . . :: ~-I,~.~~~~~.:;';;;: : ~~~~l
. .,- /1.,,~".l:'1~\~"...."~".:~'
,; ...I.~'Io.d~'"",,,,"-1',.,
. - ::; .~~::~~~~i',:?~:~':.
" ''''f''~ , ::~;
.l...r~;' .
","
..
."
,'; ,
." ....
.~ "
..
d...
\
r ,'... "
~ ':~.' ,.;::
" ':. ~ :\~~:[: ' ,,;' ,:
;~;i~t
'~." .I!:!....., ~",,' ';
';t .~'~'. " ..".
~. . :~:~:.:;:., '
. :.~ .:. ;~~'. ,:.
';':'~: ~~';!!-j.'~ " \il~'
. . ,:--::~:.{~:~.,., ',?
., .
~~ . I .,...,
.; :I~~:. ;r:- ;-.
"'";:f(;;)il? . .
... \;.... J 1
" ."
,'.:;;it:~f-:.::; ;\~'.;
. .' ....1..;::.' ~',.,,~ :.~
. '. ". ~:.~~~~.~.: .:~~~:
. '.~~~:<'~ ~~','~~ ':~
,~i.'f'::',~ ,,:..:;'
" .....
J' ,.
%. 9t~.
.'
0,
(')
"'m""" '
. c.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Directo~ IV\. .
Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 ("Top of Mill") Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Conceptual Review - Continued Public Hearing
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
July 2, 1996
SUMMARY: On June 24, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a site visit to the Top of
Mill site and the applicants made a presentation specifically for Lot 3 of the PUD. The applicant has
submitted a Geotechnical Report for review by the CitY, and staff has referred the report to the State
Geologist for comments. Consistent with the conceptual nature of the submittal, staff has summarized the
project's compliance with both subdivision and conceptual PUD requirements. Staff has identified the need
for additional information regarding the potential visual impacts from Aspen Mountain and Lift I A, and is
awaiting comments from the State regarding the geologic constraints on the property. Staff recommends
that the Commission identify additional information or issues that should be addressed by the applicant, and
table the application until July 23, 1996 to allow for comments from the State Geologist.
PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The project is being processed as a four-step application, with reviews
occurring at different steps. Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below.
Stepl-P&Z
Conceptual PUD
Subdivision
Step 2 - Council
Conceptual PUD
Subdivision
Step3-P&Z
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Rezoning
Conditional Use
8040 Greenline
Viewplane
Step 4 - Council
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Rezoning
July 2, 1996
Not Scheduled
Not Scheduled
Noles: Italics represent public hearings
Not Scheduled
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Sunny Vann and John Sarpa
LOCATION: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 3 is located at the southern end of Mill Street and
adjacent to the base of Aspen Mountain. The parcel lies between two fingers of ski terrain which extend to
Lift lA to the west and the Little Nell gondola to the east. The parcel is bounded on the north by Fifth
Avenue and 700 South Monarch condos and Lot 2 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, which contains the Summit
Place residential project. The Mountain Queen condominiums are located immediately west of Lot 3. The
Aspen Mountain Ski Area borders the parcel on the south, and an unnamed ski run traverses the southwest
corner of the parcel.
1
r1
I")
ZONING: Lot 3 is zoned L1TR PUD, Lodge/Tourist Residential; R-15 (PUD) (L), Moderate Density
Residential; and C (PUD), Conservation. The entire parcel is designated PUD, Mandatory Planned Unit
Development. The R-15 portion is also designated L, Lodge Overlay, which permits lodges as a condition
use subject to compliance with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. An existing
conditions map depicting the current zoning is shown on page 20 of the application. Existing zoning
regulations would allow one single-family home on the site.
LOT AREA: 242,8\3 gross square feet, or approximately 5.5 acres. When the vacated portion of Mill
Street and the Summit Street Easement is subtracted, the remainder for purposes of calculating FARis
reduced to 236,320 square feet.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Savanah proposes to subdivide Lot 3 into eight development parcels and
two open space parcels. Six townhouse units are proposed for Parcell adjacent to Mill Street on the
northernmost portion of the site. Each of the three story units will contain four bedrooms and
approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area.
Two duplexes are proposed for Parcel 2, in the vicinity of the existing Black duplex. These four units will
also contain four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcel 3, located
immediately south of Parcel 2, will contain a single duplex in similar configuration as the two lower
duplexes.
Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, located at the southernmost portion of Lot 3, will contain a detached single-family
dwelling unit. The units will contain five bedrooms and will range in size from approximately 5,200 square
feet to 6,500 square feet of floor area.
Open Space Parcel A is located at the terminus of Mill Street between Parcell and the development
parcels. Open Space Parcel B is located at the southwest comer of Lot 3. The applicant is requesting that
the open space easement be modified from configuration approved with the original PUD.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following
departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows:
Environmental Health: Environmental Health has reviewed the project, and does not anticipate impacts to
downstream water quality, air quality, noise or waterlsewer services.
Engineering Department: The Engineering Department is now responsible for compiling comments from
Parks, Water, Electric and Streets as well as comments from Engineering staff. The memo from
Engineering is lengthy, and reflects the need for further discussion regarding utility needs and drainage
issues. The actual meaning of the $250,000 contribution for a drainage study cited in Engineering's memo
has not been resolved. A meeting is scheduled between the applicant and staff on June 28, 1996 to discuss
issues related to the drainage and master planning issues.
Housing: The Housing Office has reviewed the project, and Dave Tolen has indicated that no additional
housing will be required for the residential portion of the project. The applicant has provided 198.5 units,
2
,
.
r1
f""""\
.. I
while current employment is 185. The mitigation requirements associated with prior POO approvals and
amendments assumed the development of the 47 units proposed for Lots 3 and 5.
Parks Department: Parks requested that all previously granted easements should remain in place, which is
not consistent with the intent of the applicant. A meeting is scheduled between the applicant and staff on
June 28, 1996 to further discuss trail and easement issues.
Additional Comments: Due to the historical complexity of the project, the City contracted with Alan
Richman to review the application from the perspective of the past agreements and amendments to the
POO. Mr. Richman's comments germane to 1&11 are summarized below, and attached as Exhibit B:
1. On page 2 of Mr. Richman's memo is a summary of the previous approval process that was
conducted for Lot 3 in 1984. The previous proposal for 33 units was granted conceptual approval, but was
tabled due to issues arising from a review by the State Geologist that recommended further analysis for
landslide, debris movement and mudflow potential on the site. Staff notes that the application has been
forwarded to the State Geologist for comments, but no response has been received to date;
2. The description of the Ski Club condition on page 22 of the application is accurate. The applicant
has indicated that discussions are on-going in regards to relocation, although a defmitive site has not been
finalized;
3. On page 25 of the application reference is made regarding the payment of $250,000 to the City for
the preparation and implementation of an Aspen Mountain Drainage Plan. This payment relieved the
applicant of a prior commitment to provide on-site detention facilities within the open space easement at the
top of the property. The study has not been conducted, and the money is currently held in escrow by the
City. Mr. Richman points out that the representation regarding the statement that "stormwater generated as
a result of the development of Lot 3 is to mitigated by the City" may not be accurate;
4. The proposal to rezone the portion of the property currently zoned R-15 to LlTR was also
considered in 1984, and was rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission due to inconsistencies with
the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan and FAR issues;
5. Park dedication fees are still applicable to the proposed residential units on Lot 3.
STAFF COMMENTS
PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a
development application for POO review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Staff
has framed the responses in the context of conceptual issues, consistent with this stage of the review. .
,
General Requirements
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1993 AACP did not make any specific recommendations regarding Lots 3 ofthe Aspen
Mountain POO, however the "Proposed Pedestrian System" map does identify the "Top of Mill Trail",
3
f"\
(")
which crosses Lot 3, as a recreational trail component. The applicant proposes to vacate the easement due
to topographic constraints (see page 45 of application). Staff notes that the Parks Department and the
applicant differ in regards to the abandonment of the trail easement.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area.
Response: The area in the vicinity of Lot 3 is a diverse mix of multi-family condominium structures,
duplexes and scattered single family homes. In staff's opinion, the project does not represent a design or
use completely out of line with existing land uses.
Height: The allowable height in the LITR and C zone district is 28', consistent with the proposed
structures. One issue identified during fieldwork was the viewplane impact of the duplex on Parcel 2 on the
Fifth Avenue Condos. Staff would suggest that the applicant consider stepping down the duplex to reduce
this impact.
Bulk: The architecfural design of the proposed units is transitional in nature, and does not have the urban
character of the Dean Street Building. The design also provides a transition from the existing high density
multi-family structures to the north and west and the low density single-family and duplex units which are
proposed on the upper portion of Lot 3. The design proposes articulated roofs and facades which "step up"
the slope. A critical issue from Staff's perspective is that the visual impacts ofthe project are not isolated to
adjacent structures, but should also consider the viewplanes from Aspen Mountain and Lift IA. Staff
would suggest that the applicant provide either computer-generated images (similar to the Dean Street
photographs) or other depiction methods to assist staff and t\1e Commission in evaluating the impacts of the
project.
Consistency with the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines: The applicable section of the Goals
for the Aspen Mountain Neighborhood are attached as Exhibit C. Specific components applicable to Lot 3
include the need to enhance the pedestrian experience at the street level, protect views of Aspen Mountain,
and promote a sense of visual integration in the neighborhood while also encouraging a diversity of building
types.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect thefuture development of the surrounding
area.
Response: The project does not appear to adversely impact the development of the surrounding area. The
project is consistent with adjacent height, setback, and FAR restrictions.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments
are obtained by the applicant.
Response: As discussed at length at the work session and described in the application, no GMQS
allocations are required for the development. Thirty-nine of the forty-seven residential units proposed for
Lots 3 and 5 are to be developed utilizing reconstruction credits which were Previously approved by the
City and confirmed in the Amended PUD Agreement. The remaining eight residential credits were
4
.
r1
I")
obtained via the GMQS process. Final approval can be granted to the project following the cornpletion of
the POO review process, without further GMQS approvals or allocations.
Staff notes that the GMQS allocations are maximum ceilings for development of Lot 3 and 5, and in no way
should be considered approved densities on either parcel. The applicant has viewed this issue from the
perspective that these allocations represented an agreement between the City and the applicant. During
discussions regarding Lot 5, the Commission agreed with the applicant, with an exception that if geologic
or physical constraints reduced the buildability of either parcel, the Commission could approve densities
less than those contained in the POO agreement. Staff is awaiting a response from the State Geologist on
the Geotech Report prior to advising the Commission on this issue.
Additional PUD Standards
I. Density: The LITR zone district requires 1,000 square feet of lot area per bedroom. The applicant
is proposing 83,600 square feet of floor area, which represents an FAR of .88:1. The L/TRzone
district, assuming rezoning approval, would allow an FAR of I: I.
2. Land Uses: Multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in the LITR zone district.
3. Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements of the project are consistent with the
L/TR zone district in terms of height, FAR, lot size, minimum required lot area and setbacks.
4. Off-street Parking: 46 off-street spaces are provided, which exceeds the requirement of 34 spaces
per Ordinance 30, Series of 1995. Additional parking is available on the garage aprons.
5. Open Space: The L/TR zone district has a minimum open space requirement of 25%, and the
conservation zone has no open space requirement. The current R-15 zoning requires no open space.
Assuming rezoning approval to LITR, the applicant would be required to provide 34,170 sq. ft. of
open space, and is proposing 60,260 sq. ft..
6.
Landscape Plan: A detailed landscape plan will be provided and reviewed with the final POO Plan
application.
7. Architectural Site Plan: An architectural site plan will be provided with the Final POO application,
8. Lighting: All lighting will be designed to minimize impacts on neighboring development and
streets. A detailed lighting plan will be provided with the Final POO application.
9. Clustering: Not applicable
10. Public Facilities: Existing facilities are adequate to service the project, and all costs associated
with the provision offacilities will be born by the applicant. Staff notes that the applicant has had
on-going conversations with Engineering, and staff would suggest that the majority of
infrastructure issues should be discussed at final POO submittal.
II. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: All units will have access to a public street. The duplexes on
the lower portion ofMin Street are accessed from a single cut off of Summit Street. The units on
the upper portion of the site are accessed from private driveways off of the cul-de-sac.
5
fl
SUBDMSION REVIEW: The specific review criteria for subdivision, as required by Section 26.88, are
summarized below.
A. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land Wlsuitable for development
because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep
topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: The Geotech Report is attached as Exhibit D. Staff notes that the State Geologist has not
reviewed the report, so compliance with this criteria cannot be determined. The ability to address previously
identified geologic constraints is a threshold issue for the development of Lot 3. The Geotech Report
reached the following conclusions regarding the Top of Mill site:
1. Soil and Foundation Conditions: Based on information presented in previous studies, no unusual
soil or foundation conditions are present. However, was recommended that additional soil and foundation
studies be conducted to evaluate site-specific subsurface and foundation conditions at each building site;
2. Underground Mine Workings: A possible tunnel may be located near the eastern side of the
proposed building site on Lot 3. This should be evaluated further, and may require unspecified mitigation;
3. Storm Water Management: The report suggested that debris flow mitigation and storm water
management should be evaluated together, due to the interrelationship between these types of constraints;
4. Debris Flows: The Top of Mill site is located in an area of potential flash flood and debris flow
hazard areas. The recurrence frequency was placed in the range of25 to greater than 100 years, and that
large debris flows set offby intense precipitation or rapid snow melt are more likely than small debris
flows. Probable mitigation would include flood proofing and direct structural reinforcement of the
buildings, which could constrain the architectural design and site grading;
5. Landslides: The June 1984 slope movements triggered a monitoring effort funded by the Aspen
Skiing Company, which concluded that slope movements were approximately one foot, and occurred at
depths between 28 and 62 feet below the slope surface. The outcome included the identification of a series
of mitigation measures that have not been implemented.
6. Rockfall: No slope instability problems are anticipated at the Top of Mill Site.
Conclusion: The Geotech Report concludes that the report is based on a review of previous studies which
are nearly 10 years old, addressed a different design concept, and did not cover parts of the currently
proposed project. The report recommends site specific studies to address the Geotechnical and geologic
aspects of the site based on the current development proposal.
Staff does have concerns regarding several building envelopes and the existing topography on the site. By
overlaying the proposed envelopes onto the slope analysis on the existing conditions map, the structures on
Parcels 4,5 and 7 appear to be located in areas of significant slopes. Staff would suggest that the applicant
consider shifting these envelopes to minimize grading and drainage impacts on these parcels.
6
A
o
'/
B. Spatial Pattern. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that
cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Response: The project will not cause inefficiencies, and the majority of utilities were upgraded in
connection with the development of the Ritz-Calrton Hotel.
C. Improvements. The Code lists 16 required improvements for subdivision including items such as
survey monuments, paved streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, fire hydrants, street signs, etc.
Response: Water service to Parcell will be provided via the existing twelve inch main in Mill Street.
Parcels 2 through 8 will be served by a new eight inch waterline which will connect the existing twelve inch
main from the City's aspen Mountain water tank to the existing main in Summit Street. Sewer service to
Parcell will be provided via the existing eight inch sewer in Mill Street. This sewer will be extended from
Mill Street into Lot 3 to serve Parcels 2 through 8. Electric, telephone, natural gas and cable TV are all
within the immediate vicinity of Lot 3. Savanah will install curb and gutter on both side of Mill Street
adjacent to Parcell on Lot 3 and along the sides of the proposed access road serving Parcels 2 through 8. A
sidewalk will also be installed along the west side of Mill Street between Summit Street and the entrance to
the access road. A fire hydrant will be installed in the proposed cul-de-sac, and all units will be equipped
with automatic sprinkler systems. .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is hesitant to offer a recommendation to the Commission pending
a review of the geotechnical considerations by the State Geologist. At the same time, staff would
recommend that the applicant provide the Commission with additional visual impact information regarding
the viewplane impacts from Aspen Mountain and Lift lA. Procedurally, staff would expect comments
from the State Geologist by . mid-July, and would suggest that the Commission Table the application
to July 23, 1996 (Special Meeting). This would also allow the applicant to continue to resolve issues with
the Parks and Engineering Departments.
"A" - Referral Memos
"B" - Alan Richman Memo
"C" - Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
"D" - Geotech Report
9 P,A:Ej.,{S
"" Sk.l G\)~
. <; ~ I <:.:ot?--f '
, 'Pp"-fi.; r-.i~E:- 1S,s'\)L
7
#i?-~ ~~
. . .
Exl'lib~it .A
^
r'
"'."
~. ~
" '-",' .
~ MEMORlrnDllM
;'-"'-''';::;'''''' ,
4
To:
. ,. . ,,:', , "
DaveMich~elson,'Deputy bi'rector .
Community Deyelppment Department'
. . ,"" .'" ' ;' /
F'rom:
Nancy Ma:cK~nzie!. Erwirontnentai. Health
Department)'-~\tt-- '
Date:
M~~Ch B, i996'
i;."_"
Re
Aspen Mountain<Subdiv'ision/PUD (Lots' 3 & 5) Conceptua'1
submission, 'Rezoning and text Amendment
.Parcel ID # 2737':~182-85-00,3 &~005
"'j,."
'=='=="~:=':;'-=::~='~::;:::;:'=':":;:'~~~~~'7,:;:#="=~F=,=??:=';:::'~'='='='~~='=,;= ,==',:;:: =='=.~:==,='
, ,. .
'" . ,.,' , , , ", ~
:. '.": ,.,,,,,'," '," '" .','-" '" ,
. The Aspen/Pitki~ Enyiron1T\entalHealth Department ha.sreviewed the
Aspen Mounta,iIl B.ubdivision (G;ahdAspenattdTop of' Mill) land use
submittal .unde.r~ ?,1,.lthori ty . of the Municipal Code ofth~ rcity of
Aspen. and, has the following commeriti,f:'
'SEWAGE TREATMENT AND "COI.I,F.CTION': . Section '(] ':'1. 7' ,"It ohall be unlawful for
" ,',' -.' -'" "', " ,"'.:" " ,-'" ',",-" .', ,,' ,', ,," . - '-. --'-" .,'" ,'.', '.'-,'
,the .6wn'er 'or' occupant ,of-, ~IlY' building. us:ed , for', r~'s~dence 'olt ,busines,s, purpose;s ,,~ith.in, the _,ci ty to 'c,onstruct 'o'r
, r'es:o.p.sttuct 'aIi-,'on-s'i,te :~ew~ge dispo~,al ,"dev~C'e> ll- '~, ,." ,
'", ' . , ' -. ,," .. "".
;,' ,: '-:- ',', ",' " - "'~"" " ", ' " " " ' . , ' " '," . , ""
The' plans .t~oC pro'Vide wastewater dispos.al' for this proj ect through
thecehtral cpllection li~es. of the Asperi .Consolidated ,Sanitation
District (ACSD) .~e~t the requirements of. this' Dep~rtinent.: ." The
abilit'yof tq.e Aspen Corisolidateq Sanitation, District to ha.ndle,
the . increas.ed~ fl9W. .for the project shouid~be determipeg. by the
ACSD. The applicant has faiied to provided documentation that the
applicant and the s~rvice ~ agency ;"re .' mutually. b0U11d' to the
proposal and that the service agency is. cap?lble of Efervingthe
development. ' , . .c." ~ .....
'ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR 'WATER NEEDS', 'Section 23-55
sb'~~,tures, fa'Ci"li't,i'es;: parks', ': or '~I:e, "1~!C~ "WhI;iri <the: d~y:' 'l~~i,~,s ?,hich, use w~-t'~r" 'shiin"b~
'mtuii?":L/?a'i wat~r ut':(li ty" system 7 " '
. "Al;L" buildi:n.gs; ,
'd~nh~s:ted. to" tn~ ,
" , """, H
, ' , '_' :'" J, r,,-, " "
The provision of potable C water from the 'City of Aspen system ' is
consistent with Environmental Health poliCie'sensuring ihe supply
of safe water ~ ,The City ,of l:\.spen Water Depacrtmentshail' determi.ne '
,.
I
. .~
~
iii
~
I
i
.1
I
I
I
. I
. "1
' "
,~
I
].
.
~I
I
ill
;
I
.ilI
ill
I
..
.j
I
i
I
I
'~
!
ill
Ili1
.
I
'~
. .~
/"""
"'.''.
. .. ' - .,
. .
.
'",,", ",..", ' , .'. " .
if .adeq~ate water is. ~vailal;Jle for
water. supply meets all ?tandards.
Health Jor'drinking water C:{).lality.
the.
o'f' .
proj ect. The. City of Aspen
the Colorado. Department of
A. drainage plan to mitiga,te the. wat.er quality impacts. from drive
and parking .areas' will be evaluated by the City Engine~r. This.
applicatiOli. is. not expected to impact .'down stream water quality.
~IR,_ :'QUALI~f: _,' ., '~'~:~~i'c)ns .. .. 'f~, - 2,':'_ t,':_-':~"~'~'-,:,'iS' ~,~he p~'~~o~'~, of" [the air" :qoial'it:"y,', s~:d~el,n,' ,of, the
,Municipal, -,Code]',~? acl1ieve 'th,~ m,a~imum, pr,ap~i~,al' 'deg~,e.e, of ,,~ir 'pup4ty ':pos~ible>by reqU,~~i~g, the'. use~ 'Qf "all.
ava,ilable :pract.ic~l "m~;thq~s, ,aI,1d, t,el:ih:j;llques j;o: cbnt.rol~ \?revent., ai1:d ,red\!c:,~_ ~ir :p?llut~~~ thr,~ughout::,,~,h~ .,city..... : Ii
The' Limd,' Use ,~'e,gUlations, .seek to',,~ i,essen :congesqo,n~~' ,an<:l,~, 'I~void t~ansp.ortat,iOIi _ de~,and.~" t:hat~ot ,be met" ,as
welL as to, l!:p~evide clean 'ai,r by' preteci.tinS ~he .natura:).' ai'~>8hedg,' ancL,~'ed~c,ing 'pol1t,li'~nt'si'," '. . ,.,. '
.. "..,' .' '. ' ":',' ,', < '. ,: .. ' ,,'-" " . ""'.
, " " ..
The major conc~rn o:f,our departmemt is the . impact of
inc~ea13ing traffic 'in a non-'attainmenta+eadesignafed by the
EPA. . Under the requireme>nt,s of the state fmplem~ntation~lan
for the Aspen area,' PM'-10 (which comes' almost. all fro'm .
trafficdriving ori.pa":ed roads). must be reduced by 25% by
1997.' In order to .achieve that red1.ict.ion, . traffic 'increases
that ordinarily :would 'oCcur 'as a. res1.l1t':'o-ro.evelopmen~ must
be mitigated,. or else the'gains'!irought. about 'by community
ctmtrol measures winne lost.' In 'add.ition, in. ord.er to
compiy with the municipal code requirerrtEmt to achieve the'. .
rriaxiinuin practical degree of air purity ny using a.ll av~ilable
practical methods to reduce pollution, .tiaHic: ir;~fe~~es ~f'
.developmentmust be oHset.. In brder to do this, .tne..'.....
'applic9.nt will need. to determine the traflic. irid'eases,.
generated by the project, coin~it to a: set of control.
'measures, and Usnowt.~at tne b;afficdecreasedby the control
measures is at least as great as the' traffic .increases of the'.
project without mitigation. . '. .. ,
A Traffic ahd Parking study. was ;prepared by TD.l\. Inc. to describe.
the impacts and mitigation:: for the proposed pr6j.ecit. The study
cOhc:ludes thatho mit'igation uis required since. the proposed
. development decreases .tne riumb.er' of :r;5: in. peak' trips from .'
background conditions. However this assumption is based on using.
"', "
,.
]
~
I
I
ll.11
I
;qfi
II!
'1
i
~
~
;
I
~j
ill
. !II
.. I/io;~
(.J.:'
2
>Ii
I
;
I
i
"-"':""~
I
I
ill
I
I
I
-,..;;ti
. I
.1]
~
7&J
;
.",
.~
~
ill
I
I
I
~
:.Iii-^!
i
i
I
~
';;;",
{;j
, "~
I
~;1
~-".-""-,,
~<.~':'''~,'
. ..")..'., '..~."."","'~',,' ','
., "-,,~,..,,~,,:-,,-..,,,.,. '
...,,~"i'''' '. '
"I
I
1.w
.~
i
..
~
I
.lll
i
I
i
~
.' 11!
,~
""~
.~
!!i
I
I
ell
.....
i
~
~
I
I
,.~
;
I
II
.
~>J
ill
!
:;:~
I
~
'.~
~
'~
U!
.
". 'r-,
t" '
~
I
.- '
.t T.
an average annual occup~nc;:y.rate. The stai-:tdardITE trip
generat'ion rates should be used; 'The tinits will generate trips
from' re~id\';'t~, guesi::.;;h~~ri~rs; 'maintencmce,. etc year ~otirid and.
'especially during winter when .PM-10 pollution is t< concern.
However, the total number9f units is being~reduced. The' hotel
will not be developed. Itcanb.e an'ti'cipated ,that there will be a
decrea$e in traffic and tliaEt::hey have aYr-eadymitlgateo theIr
. impacts.
Page 68. states that. accbrdipg to the TranrC and"Parking Study.
prepared by TDK; Inc. ;.the.propoSedparking substantially exceeds'
'the' ~stimated dem,,:nd. Bai~d '~n their analysis,' TDA estitnatesthat' . .
only 3.Dspaces (VB 72) will be required to accommqdate the.
dev~lopment ori Lot .5,- anq only 20 '(vs 36) spaces will be required
on Lot 3 (eXc;luding the five' single-.family residences).'. If:
Community Developmefttagree~withthe applicant's' conten:ti'on that
. . the parking s1.J,pply being proposed .is actually 'greater than the .
parking demand,this Departme~t would r~p9,mmend reduction in'the
" . :' "":: ..:::' ,:',." ," "'." "" "~""~",", .",,', ,., . ",'" " ",.'" ' , ,', ,", ",':," "', ":', """,,
'nwDber.of parking spaces being: 'cconsidered . This' is because.
adding excess parking serves. tof'acili t.ate use of cars' instead' of
to encourage walkihgarid other means.of travel;
. FIREPLACE/wOODSTOiTE PERMITS' The. applicant must . file a
fireplacejwoodstove.' permit with the . El).'lriionmentaIHeal{;h
'.Department before, Hie building permit will' be issued. In
. met;r-opolitan areas" of Pit.kin County which include;s this. site,
. buildings may have two. gas ~Og. fireplaces or' twocertifiea
woodstoves . (or 1 'of each) and unlimited'ntimners ofd.ecorative. gas
fi~eplace appliances per .' building. 'ij'ew home~' ~ay :NOT have wood
burning firep;lacesi nor .may'any heating device uSe coal as fuel.
Barns ~nd agri,cul\:ural buildirigs may not install arty type of
fireplace device." . ,
.
FUGITIVE' bUST. A fugitive dust control plan is required wh'Lch'.
includes~ bl.lt is rloJ:limited to fencing, watering of haul ro.ads
al)d disturbed areas, . dailyd~aIiing of adjacent paved roads to
remove mud. that has ,been carried out, speed limits, C;;r, other
measures 'nec.essary to. prevent windblown dust. fromc;rossing. the
property line or causing a nuisanc;e.
:.'
. 3 .
I
~ji'J
I
I
I
I
_;0
lii(J
.iIl
,iji1
: ;J
';i,.j
i~:
r'I
r
f'""\
ri
m ,~_m ~~~o--c-~
~
~,"':
.
",''',
" '$
A inaj or concern is fi.igiti ve,' dust during' construction. . A condition
, ,ofapproval.sp.()~;L.ci., I:i!!,. continuafrmoval oJ.~,ny mud or dirt, ~l:I.ci
maintenance of 'streets in' a olean oondition throughout" 'the
'project, . 'by having their own flusher truck. on the 'r;;itEil . anA
flushing as ~ny times a day as necessary.
, . . '.' '.'
,
. -,"
DEMOLITION Prior to, demoU tion the applicant should notify the
Colorado De:[)artmentor'Ee:alth and . have the material 'tested bya
licensed asbeStos tester: Any asbestos must be removed BEFORE
demolition'. It, mu's,tbe' removed by al.icensed asbestos .removal
. contrac'tor and it, must. be. disposed'of 'in a, licensed landf ill.
The Erlvir6nmental Health!5epa::i:tmEmt will not be able'to'signthe
"_',"',,-.,.''- '. :",' -,"'" -"-',' " '_ '," i. . ,",' "', _'" :" " ,'" "",,'" .
demolition permit until it receives theas!,:\estos ,fest. report.
TIN,PERGROUND PARKING ,1'he, ?-pplicant must consult with an
. engineering firm about the "design of the underground parking
structure ventilation '$ysti'!m. to" ensure that' veptilation .is
adequate to prevent. .carbon monoxide, from reaching high levels.
inside the facility or in' the nearby areas 'Outside. it. iff 'Ordeftc'
determine' whether the 'proposed design prevents excessive levels' of
. -', ' ' ., ,"', ,-'" "',' - ":: ': ",,""'--'/:'" .' ,', """ '-, ,"" -' ": "",',', >.,,' '> ',": - '.
carbon' .monoxide from. conce;ntrating inside" the structure ,arid' in
nearby areas and buJldirigs, the ar!p lic ant will need to submit the'
proposed, ventilation.' system' plans to the .Colorado Department of
. Health for th€df. e;valuation to meet . the above. criteria.. The
applicant will also need to contact the Colorado Health Department
toapply for.'an air 'pollutipn permit. . '
CONFO.RMANCB. WITH
. - - ' . " "
.' . ' .' .
-'. .
. .
bTH~R. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:.
NorSE ABAT~~El~~<:__", __$'~'?:'~_:~~q_~','; 16':'f\ ""_Th-~ c~ty-"-,-"~'9?l)C"il }{~ds:"and '&ec-J,a~es _ t.~at n'o:ts~-' is ~-.-
si9~if'i~~nt S,~U~G~ 'p~_.:_~riy'i,I.:!='~tnen_~,al: !;l~i1u,do~_: t~t represents "~ ,_pr.esen~ .an,d ~n.cf'ea_sing:,_-th:t:'e21._t',,~:to ,t~e_ ~ubl~c::
peacl;i. _ and f:o' "the 'hearth:_~'~:"f3_afet?. ,and >tle17are,'" of ,the, _~€l_si_~ents:' q,f _ tp.e,. ,City of A'sp'eri':"an_d.- if it~s, 'vi~itbr:s":
...'~;:._'Accordirigly; i,'r -is_.__tli_~ "policy. 'of cot,1.ncil' :t6 prOy'idE!':^ s-t'and~rd;~ i:~r 'permissible. noi~e"leYeJs in"vari'6us"
a.rep:s and roanilers arid -at_"va~ious times and to' -.prohibit- no:l.s~; in' excess'~ of' those :levels." - . '
. ' ',' ,".,' '--:;"" " -'-" -'"""'"Y" '--'~""." "_," ':, ': . ' ", ' :""::-:\":'0'<' ,,:, ,,>':.., -
D\lririg construction, noise can- not exceed maximum
sound IEi've 1 staI'\dq:rds, . and construction. canri'Ot be
betwEi'en .thel}oux:s' of',,! .a.m. ~nd lOp..m:
permissible'
. done except.
It is..
phase
very lij<ely' that.
pf this..proj ect
" ,.' ,
during "tne ".23iJ.struction
n,egative impact on the.
npiile 'generated
lifillhave some
,.'- .
, ,.'
'. 4.
I
I
I
Ii!
?t1
....#1
I
'" ~
ill
,t$j
III
i
.$
.;
I
,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'~
I
111
I
I
I
""
I
Iii
.1
~
,11
~,-:,
. "~.~,
f'\
r.
.
. '..' . .-
Il;eighborhood. The appli"cant should b~ .a,Y{a,;r,:e.o.f thts.
measures t61t)in,j}1).ize the predicted. high. lioise .leve1s .
. ',.<,'"
.
,,"',,'0'
",<"-'
.
.~.,-,-,_. .'- "-."~,-.--,
.'-;..
.an,d
.1::,ake
"",".,,
',",
. """.""
...~
~
~
i!ii
ill
I
-I
]
~
5
ill
i
~
.~
."
.iI
~
'1
I
I
, '(.,~
..~
I
I
I
.' ~
J
I
I
I
iii
III
I
!!3J
~
i
I
'.~
'"
!
l!II
i
I
I
"iii
"C,_",
,-."
(>.,
f: >:1
MEMORANDUM
To:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From:
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer It..?,
June 26, 1996 (Last Revised)
Date:
Re:
Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen
Mountain SubdivisionlPUD, Lots 3 & 5
Attendance:
Nick Adeh
Jack Reid
Chuck Roth
Phil Overeynder
Ross Soderstrom
Bill Earley
John Sarpa
SunnyVann
Ferd Belz
A.J. Zabbia
Kevin O'Connell
Tom Bracewell
The follov.ing clarifications were made at this meeting which discussed the utility and engineering
comments made regarding the utility service needs and improvements of the applicant, Savannah,
and the City of Aspen at and resulting from the proposed development of Lots 3 & 5 of the Aspen
Mountain SubdivisionlPUD. The discussion addressed the topics included in the memo written by
the city utility and engineering departments in response to the preliminary application for this
proposed development.
Note
Although the discussion addressed topics concerning both Lots 3 and 5, there does
not appear to be any major issues related to the utilities, right-of-way construction
and public infrastructure that would preclude development of Lot 5. Further dis-
cussions v.ill be required to evaluate the technical constraints and requirements for
the possible development of Lot 3.
Water Utility
. 15 service connections to neighbors plus one hydrant to be moved from 6 inch line and
reconnected to existing 12 inch line through Galena and Summit Streets.
Note:
. Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots
3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision.
------
DRCM3E96.DOC
I OF 8
r1
r)
MEMO _ Meeting Minutes of Apri12, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision I PUD, Lots 3 & 5
. The existing 6 inch line through Galena and Summit Streets to be abandoned after removing
water services remaining on 6 inch line.
Response:
PhilOvereynder: Explained the need for moving the remaining services off the old 6 inch
(or 8 inch) water line and connecting to the new 12 inch line.
AJ. Zabbia: Explained that: I) no new underground work is intended for Galena St. in
this project; 2) the new 12 inch water line was installed as a transmission line rather than a
distribntion line per City direction at the time of installation; 3) the new line and other utilities
were previously sized and constructed to meet this planned phase of the development in
accordance with the PUD requirement of constructing the utilities prior to development of the
individual sites; 4) there is no 6 inch water line in Summit St.; 5) the 6 inch line in Galena St is
directly below the new curb and gutter, therefore if the developer were required to abandon this
line, contribution would be' sought from the City to help pay for the replacement of the curb and
gutter; 6) he does not know of the 4 inch cross-connection in Galena St at Dean St although it
was agreed that if it exists, it should be left in place.
It is the opinion ofthe City Water Dept. that the development of Lot I necessitated the
installation of the 12 inch line to provide service and fire protection and that abandonment of the
existing 8 inch line is part of that work. Although it was not previously completed, the
cumulative impact of the development of Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5 make the abandonment of the 8
inch line necessary at this time.
. City needs easements for water lines
Response:
John Sarpa: Applicant will dedicate easements where needed, as needed.
. The Water Dept. has verified sufficient capacity in the distribution system to service this new
development.
Response:
No comment, accepted.
. Service to the proposed units above the 8040 line will require an auxiliary pump system to
provide adequate flow and pressure for domestic use and fire suppression as stated in the
application.
Response:
Sunny Vann &bAJ. Zabbia: The developer intends to install individual pressure systems
in each of the residences requiring additional water flow and pressure.
j
Note:
. Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots
3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision.
DRCM3E96DOC
2 OF 8
1"""'\.
f""l
MEMO ~ Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5
. The Water Dept. is concerned about the apparent conflict of interest created by Leonard Rice,
Water Engineers, (Mr. AJ. Zabbia) working for the developer when this consultant has been
retained by the City as its consulting engineer for the Water Dept.
Response:
Phil Overeynder & AJ. Zabbia: The City Attorney is considering the situation and the
subject is being reviewed in a separate forum from the application process proper.
Electric Power Utility
. Sufficient illumination is needed on new streets and possibly on existing streets, particularly
on upper Galena St. and SummitSt.
Response:
Bill Earley: A separate circuit is needed for the new street lights, separate of any interior or
private landscape lighting for ease of serviceability. Some of the street lights around the Ritz-
Carlton are \\ired in a circuit with other appliances and interior to the building which makes it
harder to troubleshoot and service.
Sunny Vann: Street lighting will be provided along the new and re-developed portions of
the street frontages using separate electrical circuits.
. Parts of this development are within the Holy Cross Electric Association service area so the
electrical plans will also need to be reviewed by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc.
Response:
Sunny Vann: The applicant will review the specific electrical utility service
requirements with Holy Cross Electric Association after other conceptual aspects of the project
are resolved in the conceptual planning review.
Streets
. Full-width Roto-milling of existing asphalt pavement and installation of a leveling course
plus 2 inch asphalt overlay is required to support the traffic and the frequent cuts due to
service trenches.
. Utility trenching: Straight asphalt line cutting; 12 inches beyond trench width to establish a
straight neat line plus installation of 4 inch asphalt patch prior to street overlay is required.
Maintain 1/2 inch asphalt lip at concrete gutter pans.
Note:
. Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots
3 & 5. Aspen Mt Subdivision.
DRCM3E96.DOC
3 OF 8
^
i
n
MEMO _ Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision I PUD, Lots 3 & 5
Response:
.Tack Reid, Nick Adeh & Phil Overeynder: Explained the need for good quality asphalt
patching at trench cuts and overlaying the street section to provide long term service life of the
street section as practiced by the City of Aspen.
Sunny Vann, A..T. Zabbia & .Tohn Sarpa: Emphasized the limited need for the developer to
make new utility cuts but had no objection to providing the requested construction detail for
trench backfilling and repair. They understand the discussion offull width roto-milling was
limited to Mill St. and only in areas where a street cut was required due to utility construction.
. On-site drainage; Text of application (pg. 43) mentions storm water and snow melt draining
from the project site to City streets which will not be permitted. Drywell inlets or other on-
site drainage system will be allowed if soils permit.
. Post development drainage leaving the site must equal pre-development flows and the
projects must detain run-off by effectively routing the flows through open space for
percolation and evaporation, and allow for pre-development level of discharge.
Response:
Nick Adeh, .Tack Reid & Phil Overeynder: Explained the drainage problems in the
general area and particularly down Mill Street due to both drainage from parcels fronting the
street and the flows from Aspen Mt. at the south end ofthe street. The goal is to reduce, if not
eliminate, surface storm and snowmelt drainage to the streets and to direct as much drainage to a
storm water sewer system as possible. The limited existing system will need to be evaluated and
a comprehensive plan developed which incorporates not only this proposed development, but
also the entire drainage basin north to the Roaring Fork River. To that end, it will take at least
eight (8) months for the City to conduct a study and develop a master drainage plan into which
the developer may coordinate his project.
The City is awaiting the promised geotechnical and environmental reports to be able to make
further evaluations ofthe existing conditions and potential hazards and limiting conditions.
Lot 5: Of particular concern is the conduction of storm drainage to the existing detention system
on the west side of the Ritz Carlton, assuming it is sized to accommodate additional flows.
Otherwise, where will on-site drainage systems be constructed to accommodate the flows?
Lot 3: Of particular concern is: I) detaining and routing of the snowmelt drainage from Aspen
Mt. that presently runs down Mill Street; 2) Jack Reid requested a storm drain sewer from Lot 3
down Mill Street and tied into the existing storm drain system; and that properly aligned, shaped
gutters were constructed to contain and direct the street drainage flows within the surface gutters
until reaching a storm drainage catchbasin; 3) desi~n and cost sharing between the City and
developer for the detention and conveyance systt;ms for storm drainage and snowmelt from
I
Note:
. Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots
3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision.
DRC\lJE96DOC
4 OF 8
~
n
MEMO _ Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision I PUD, Lots 3 & 5
Aspen Mt. and Lot 3 itself; quantifying the source and flow pattern of the drainage, i.e. Aspen
Mt. drainage vs. Lot 3 drainage, and surface flows vs. subsurface flows; 4) previous and
proposed impacts due to fill and grading work on the site and the resulting quantities, qualities,
directions and timings of the drainage flows.
Ross Soderstrom: Requested that the developer provide copies of the drainage studies and
information that the developer already has since the submittals provided in the earlier review
process (when the Ritz-Carlton was developed) may not be available in the city files and to
expedite the reviewlcommentldesign process.
Response:
A.J. Zabbia, Sunny Vann, John Sarpa, Kevin O'Connell, and Ferd Belz:
Lot 5: The proposed building footprint will actually provide more permeable surface area than
presently exists which will provide greater percolation area thus no detention will be required.
As needed, a combination of storm sewers and will be installed to convey the surface flows to the
existing system in Galena Street.
Lot 3: The developer's position is that the $250,000 grant to the City satisfies its obligation for
any engineering or construction of any off-site drainage improvements and for the construction
of on-site detention. Also, the developer has not agreed that it is responsible for installing a new
storm sewer in Mill St. Granting of easements for storm drainage conveyance around or through
Lot 3 would be considered.
Parks and Open Space
At the request of Sunny Vann and John Sarpa, the topics related to parks, open space, and needed
easements will be discussed with the City Parks Dept. in a separate meeting.
Engineering
. Lot 3: Utility easements are required for all utilities (page 43) and at other locations for
future improvements.
Response:
Sunny Vann & John Sarpa: Utility easement would be granted as needed.
. Flood control R-O- W for snow meltlstorm drainage must be granted to the City around and
through projects. Since the master plan of primary and secondary conveyance systems is
Note:
. Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots
3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision.
DRCM3E96.DOC
5 OF 8
r-;
()
MEMO ~ Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5
not in place, this development cannot proceed without dedication ofR-O-W's/easements to
the City.
· Aspen Mountain area drainage master plan study is planned to begin in the near future. The
recommendations for this drainage basin can significantly change as a result of the future
master plan.
· Site generated and off-site storm run-off needs to be addressed in the feasibility study phase
of this project given the location at the base of the mountain in a natural drainage basin. This
needs to be studied and reported on by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. No
storm runoff from soils exposed by excavation and construction shall be permitted to enter
City streets or alleys. Sediment transport or debris from the construction site onto City
streets is prohibited and preventative measures that will meet our approval must be employed
by the developer and shown on the construction plans.
. The Mill Street storm sewer needs to be extended further south np Mill Street to receive
drainage before it leaves the development site and to prevent it from entering the City streets.
The drainage design will need to satisfy the City design standards and procedures of Sections
26.88.040 and 26.88.050.
Response:
This entire discussion was incorporated with the above comments regarding storm drainage
conveyance on the lots and the streets with a couple additional points: I) the developer considers
it the City's responsibility to contact SkiCo regarding the impacts of snowmaking and drainage
that pass through Lot 3, in particular; 2) ground water flows are a concern of both the developer
and the City on site and down gradient and should be considered in a joint effort of the
developer, the City and SkiCo; 3) the developer should be included in development of the flood
control master plan; 4) the developer does not want a retention structure on Lot 3; and 5) the
flood control master plan and the drainage design for the two lots will continue concurrently with
the entire planning and review process of the proposed development; 6) the developer will
cooperate with the City in the granting of drainage easements through the site, however the terms
surrounding the granting of any easements remains subject to negotiation.
· The entire subdivision will need to meet the City design standards and procedures of Section
26.88.040 and 26.88.050 for subdivisions.
Response:
Sunny Vann, John Sarpa & AJ. Zabbia: The developer intends to comply with the
subdivision design standards.
· The developer needs to quantify what impact SkiCo may have in run-off due to snow melt
and erosion through the site and on to public streets.
Note:
. Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots
3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision.
DRC\13E96.DOC
6 OF 8
r'\
()
MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision I PUD, Lots 3 & 5
· The City needs the geotechnical and environmental reports from the applicant to make
further evaluations, e.g. landslide hazard, site drainage, erosion control, sediment transport
control, and slope stabilization.
Response:
This discussion was incorporated into previous discussions above.
John Sarpa & A.J. Zabbia: The developer holds the position that it is the responsibility of the
City to contact the Ski Co. and quantify its impacts on runoff.
· Private Road: Indemnity clause from developer to the City for the publicly accessible but
privately maintained loop into Lot 3 is required with submittals and on plans.
· If the homeowner's assoc. were to be dissolved, this roadway may be re-constructed!
upgraded to City standards and dedicated to the public.
Response:
Sunny Vann: Did not see the reason for this requirement since the road is private and not
open to public traffic.
Nick Adeh: Did not remember the exact source of the requirement other than concern for
public access on a proposed private street.
. All the plan (application) sheets need to be submitted on 24" x 36" size sheets.
Response:
Chuck Roth: Pointed out that plans are to be submitted in this format per the subdivision
requirements.
Sunny Vann: This is only a conceptual submittal and it is easier to view the entire
development on the submitted large format. The Pinal Plat and required documents will be
submitted on 24" x 36" sheets.
· The application does not include either a property survey nor a topographic map certified
and stamped by a PLS; submitted "maps" are uncertified, unstamped drawings and sketches.
Response:
Sunny Vann: The maps were taken from the previous submittal and include the recorded
maps.
· As a note of reference to the Wheeler Opera House view plane, a 5' II" person standing on
the sidewalk in front of the Wheeler Opera House can see all of the existing ski hut higher
th34\ approximately 30 inches above the deck or d.oor sill elevation on the west side of the
hut. The actual projection of the view plane will be reviewed further.
Note:
. Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots
3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision.
DRCMJE96.DOC
7 OF 8
t'""', . .. . ~
MEMO _ Meeting Minutes of April 2, )6 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Su...~.~ision I PUD,Lots3 & 5
Response:
Sunny Vann: Reiterated that: I) the view plane intersects Aspen Mt. below the proposed
development site; 2) was intended to govern the height of construction in the foreground on
Hyman and Durant A venues rather than in the background; 3) and that the Ritz-Carlton already
constructively impedes the view plane such as to mostly, if not, entirely hide the proposed new
development.
. Directional crossing (non-diagonal) handicap ramps shall be installed to provide access to
and through the development areas. Curbs, gutters and storm runoff inlets will need to be
located and constructed to retain water within the flow patterns and collection system, and to
prevent the flooding of handicap ramps, driveways, sidewalks, streets or areas other than into
the designated collection systems.
Response:
Sunny Vann: As above, general geometry and construction requirements and specifications
will be met throughout the project. However, the developer may not be able to meet certain
design standards, such as maximum slopes on handicap ramps, because of the extreme slopes
existing on Mill St.
Sanitary Sewer Utility
Forcompleteness of review and comment, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, (ACSD),
was requested to participate in the meeting to discuss this utility's requirements on the proposed
development. Tom Bracewell essentially read the several requirements discussed in his letter to
Dave Michaelson of February 29, 1996, emphasizing that: I) fees are collected prior to
commencing work; 2) that the developer would be responsible for the proportionate share of the
costs unless the development necessitated major system expansion; 3) and that clear water
connections to the sanitary sewer system are prohibited.
Response:
Sunny Vann, AJ. Zabbia & John Sarpa: Acknowledged understanding of the District's
requirements and reiterated that the developer would be responsible for the proportionate share of
the costs for downstream work necessitated by this project. The developer also agrees to perform a
flow stud, as required by the Sanitation District.
End of Memorandum
Note:
. Indicates original comment by the City of Aspen pertaining to the conceptual development application for lots
3 & 5, Aspen Mt Subdivision.
DRCM3E96.DOC
8 OF 8
t"""\
()
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
John Krueger, Trails Supervisor
DATE: February 27,1996
RE: Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD (Lots 3&5) Conceptual Submission,
Rezoning & Text Amendment
We have reviewed the application for the Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD (Lots 3&5)
Conceptual Submission, Rezoning & Text Amendment and have several concerns. Of
primary concern to us is the neglect of the existing trail easements that were dedicated as
part of the original subdivision approval process. On both Lots 3 & 5, the application
shows buildings drawn on top ofthe trail easements. This is unacceptable because these
easements are vital east/west trail linkages that must not be vacated to the development of
these lots. They are important trai1linkages for both sununer and winter uses, including,
hiking, mountain biking, nordic skiing, alpine skiing and pedestrian access. It is also
important to keep these easements as functional trail easements and not !legate them by
either placing landscaping within the easements or by inappropriate grading around them
to be unusable. It is therefore recommended that if this conceptual development is
approved, a condition of approval should require the applicant to construct the Top of
Mill Trail and the Alpine Trail between Mill St. and Galena St., in conjunction v.ith their
development of the lots. This should avoid the conflicting impacts to the trail easements.
These trails are of considerable benefit to the entire neighborhood, including the residents
of the new development, the surrounding condominiums and the general public because
they provide east/west access in places where streets are lacking, allov.ing safe travel to
either the Gondola area or Lift IA.
The general landscaping proposed by the plan is somewhat premature to evaluate in much
detail due to this being a conceptual submission. However, the proposed landscaping
plan for Lot 5 shows a considerable number oftrees planted in the utility and trail
easement between Mill St. and Galena St.(southern edge of Lot 5). Trees must not be
planted too close to the trail, approximately five (5) feet away from the trail edge.
Additionally, trees should generally not be planted on top of utility easements due to the
fact that if the utility needs to be dug up in the future, the trees will likely be damaged or
destroyed. The utility company may not be responsible for the replacement of the trees
but the property owner may be required to do so. This is not to say that utility easements
need to be devoid of vegetation, just that they should not be over-landscaped v.ith too
many trees or other significant landscaping.
r"\
,
r)
"~/
The only other general comment on the application is in regards to the dedicated Open
Space on Lot 3. The proposed plan shows a reduction of the open space for the
development of Parcel #7. It appears from the topographic lines on the Master Site Plan
for Lots 3& 5, that the original boundaries for open space parcel were defined by the
existing topography. While the open space was dedicated as part of the original
approvals, the area is zoned as Conservation v.ith a PUD overlay. To reduce and rezone
even a portion of dedicated open space sets a bad precedence for future development
applications. The application vaguely implicates the so called cul-de-sac as open space.
A cul-de-sac does not represent valuable open space and does not necessarily meet the
zoning criteria for a conservation zone. The open space should be kept whole and
contiguous and not diminished for development purposes.
In response to the specifics of the application, we offer the following responses.
Page 16 - The seventh amended plat shows all the important trail easements and the open
space easement. These dedications should remain the same in development plans for
Lots 3& 5.
Page 19 - The eight (8) foot trail easement was required per the Amended PUD
agreement and must still be constructed. Staff did not hold up the Certificate of
Occupancy on Lot I, however, this does not mean that the trail does not still need to be
constructed. The trail must be constructed with the development of Lot 5 and trail design
must be approved by the Parks Department prior to final PUD approval. Currently, the
conceptual application shows a building constructed on top of the easement. The
buildings must be at least 10 feet from the trail edge.
Page 20 - Tree removal permits will be required for all trees removed that meet code.
However, a more detailed landscape plan will be required for final submission and must
indicate all trees proposed for removal and mitigation proposed for removed trees.
Page 22 - The application states that the Top of Mill Trail does not become effective until
public easements are obtained through adjacent lands. However, the trail easement
dedicated by Roberts should be amended as part of the development approval to require
the applicant to construct the trail in conjunction v.ith their development of Lot 3. A trail
in this area would benefit both the applicant and the surrounding neighbors to access the
gondola area and Lift IA. The Aspen Ski Company is the adjoining property owner on
both sides (east and west). The trail easement should also be amended to extend on the
east side through the finger extension that to be workable with the existing topography.
Page 29 - The trail easement does not appear on the Site Development Plan for Lot 5 and
shows the townhomes encroaching upon the easement.
Page 44 - The trail easement does not appear on the Site Development Plan for Lot 3.
There are townhomes, driveways and parking areas shown on top of the easement.
Additionally, access to the triplexes on Parcel #1 is shown off of Summit St. The entry to
r",
(1
J
the triplexes cuts across the western corner of the open space easement at Summit St.
which again reduces the dedicated open space. The increased traffic on Summit St. also
creates problems for the ski trail that crosses Summit St. by creating more potential for
skier/vehic1e conflicts. Since Summit St. is fairly narrow, it may make sense to have the
access for the triplexes off of Mill St.
Page 45 - In regards to the Top of Mill Trail being vacated by Savannah, that is totally
unacceptable. Ifthe property can be developed for townhomes it makes sense to have the
applicant construct the trail in conjunction v.ith their construction. The trail has not been
relocated as indicated. The trail shown on the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan is
not a legal map and refers to the generalized area. The trail easement had already been
dedicated when these plans were done and the Base of Aspen Mountain Trail is still an
important link in the overall trails plans and must not be vacated.
t""\
f"'.
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
Alan Richman Planning services ~
FROM:
SUBJECT: Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Conceptual PUD
DATE: February 28, 1996
Purpose
Pursuant to your direction, I have reviewed the 1996 Conceptual PUD
submission for the Grand Aspen Hotel and Top of Mill properties.
I have also examined the City's files on the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision, in particular, the 1984/1985 Conceptual and
Preliminary PUD files and the applicant's original submission
booklets for what were then identified as "the residential
projects" .
The purposes of my review are to assist you in understanding the
history of the Aspen Mountain PUD project as it pertains to the
current submission and to help you to determine whether the
applicant has correctly described tha.t history for you in the
application.
In general, I find that the applicant's review of the history of
the PUD, which begins on page 2 of the submission, is accurate. In
particular, the applicant's review of the "approval parameters" in
Table 1 (page 5) and Table 2 (page 9-10) appears to be correct.
However, in reviewing the project history for the Top of Mill
portion of the property, the applicant has either not mentioned
some pertinent events or has not emphasized certain issues which I
think may be important. I will provide you a description of these
issues below.
It is also important that you are aware that my work with the PUD
essentially ended when I stopped working for the City in 1989.
Although I subsequently performed limited contract work for the
City on the PUD in 1990 and again in 1992, those were very specific
assignments which did not provide me an overall perspective of how
the project approvals were chan9ing. In particular, I have not
been involved in what are known as the "Section M Amendments". I
would suggest that you talk with Amy Margerum and Diane Moore if
you have any questions about the history of those amendments.
project Review
Following below are my comments on the application. To simplify
your review, my comments are organized to follow the order of the
presentation in the application booklet.
(""'\
,
I")
1. Page 3 of the application booklet states that "The approval
process for the Top of Mill project was suspended following
conceptual approval pending further evaluation of the site".
It is correct that conceptual approval was the last formal
approval granted to the Top of Mill project. I previously
provided you a copy of City Council Resolution 84-23, which
granted that conceptual approval, subject to conditions.
Subsequent to that approval (and just after the lodge projects
received preliminary approval on January 22, 1985), the
applicant filed an application for preliminary approval of the
residential projects on January 28, 1985. I submitted two
memos to the P&Z reviewing that submission, dated March 5 and
March 19, 1985 (copies attached). Our review of the project
had to proceed in phases because we did not receive some key
referral comments in a timely manner.
These late-arriving referral comments addressed what we
identified as the "natural hazards review". Based on comments
received from the Colorado Geologic Service, staff recommended
that action on the Top of Mill project be tabled until further
analysis and study of the potential for landslide, debris
movement and mud floo<:l to affect this property was completed.
The P&Z concurred and review of the project ended at that time
and did not commence again during my tenure with the City.
I also attach P&Z Resolution 85-6, dated April 2, 1985, which
delayed the approval of the Top of Mill preliminary PUD
submission until 12 specified conditions were met.
I have also provided you with copies of the relevant staff and
referral agency comments on the preliminary submission and can
show you where the original files are located in City Hall.
2. On page 9 of the application it states that the principal
change to the :Roberts approval in 1998 was to change the
number of lodge units. While this was certainly one outcome
of that review process, it was not the only reason the
applicant made the amended submission. Its primary purpose
was to achieve a re-design of the hotel, including changes in
architecture, site layout, internal configuration, etc. The
focus of the 1988 debate was on the height, massing and floor
area of the hotel and on impacts such as employee housing.
3. On page 10, Table 2 correctly notes that 8 of the units
planned for Lot 5 arose from a prior GMQS allocation. I
recall us completing a GMQS amendment procedure for the
residential units in 1988, just prior to final approval of
that amendment. You may need to complete another GMQS
amendment, as a technical matter, prior to final approval of
this proposed amendment.
2
f"'*"',
, ~
r1
"
4. On page 13, end of the second paragraph, the applicant makes
the statement that six covered parking spaces for summit Place
are to be provided on Lot 3 on or before January 1, 1997. I
have been unable to find the source for this condition. You
should ask the applicant. to provide the applicable reference
for you, as the Amended PUD Agreement (page 31) provides that
parking for that project would be on site (sub-grade).
5. The statement on page 17 that there are 150 hotel units and 7
deed restricted housing units in the Grand Aspen Hotel means
the PUD complies with prior conditions as to: (a) the maximum
number of lodge units which can be in operation within the PUD
(447 units, as per representation 2 on page 42 of 1988 PUD
Agreement); and (b) the required housing for the Ritz Carlton
and Ice Rink projects. As the application states, the 7
employee units must be relocated as part of any approval for
Lot 5. Please also note that the PUD Agreement (page 39) also
makes the applicant responsible for providing "off-site
employee housing for net new employees and other employee
housing requirements as may be determined during the amended
approval process for the Lot 5 component of the project".
6. The description of the Ski Club condition on page 22 is
accurate. The original reference for this condition is found
in representation 9 on page 44 of 1988 PUD Agreement.
For your information, although the City was not responsible
for choosing the new building site, we completed considerable
work on possible sites. In fact, there is a study of
alternative sites for a new building contained within the 1985
preliminary PUD file for the residential projects. The study
was done by Larry Yaw for the Ski Club and focuses on sites in
and around Willoughby Park and Lift lA. During this time
period, staff worked as a "catalyst" for a plan to build a ski
museum and Ski Club building in this area. I can describe
this for you in greater detail if you think it is relevant.
7. On page 25, the application mentions the payment of $250,000
to the City toward preparation and implementation of an Aspen
Mountain drainage plan. The original reference for this
condition and the intended uses for the funds are found in
representation 10 on pages 44-45 of the 1988 PUD Agreement.
The applicant accurately states on page 25 that this
contribution relieved the applicant of a prior commitment to
provide on-site detention facilities within the open space
easement contained within the Top of Mill property. However,
on page 65 of the application, the applicant makes another
reference to what this payment meant, that I do not believe is
correct. On page 65 the applicant states that based on the
amended PUD, "storm water generated as a result of the
development of Lot 3 is to be mitigated by the City".
3
r"\
r'\
It was my understanding that the on-site detention facilities
were principally intended to detain water and debris that
originate off-site and run onto this site during a storm
event. When it was determined to be premature to decide on
the best form that this hazard control would take, the City
agreed to allow the applicant to contribute towards its study
and ultimate resolution, rather than to build facilities that
might not prove to ba adequate. I do not recall that the City
accepted this money with the understanding that the City would
become responsible for mitigating the additional drainage
impacts the development would place on the City.
8. An aspect of the project history not mentioned in the
application is that the city gave the applicant approximately
11,000 sq. ft. of land (8 lots) it owned within the Top of
Mill site in exchange for a portion of the Koch Lumber
property (Koch Park). The rest of the Koch property was given
to the City in exchange for a series of street vacations
within the PUD. The 8 lots had been zoned Public and were
rezoned to L-2 (now L/TR) by Ordinance 85-11 on 5/13/85.
9. On page 54 (and again on page 76) the applicant proposes
rezoning the land within the Top of Mill property zoned R-15
to L/TR. For your information, the prior PUD application also
contained such a request. The staff did not support this
request and the attached Resolution 84-5 of the Aspen P&Z
recommended denial of this request for three reasons:
a. The proposed development could be achieved without the
rezoning.
b. The rezoning would create a more favorable FAR for the
property, which could instead be achieved by a PUD
variation for FAR (a variation which has since been
removed from the Regulations).
c. The L-2 zone dist:rict would allow multi-family
development to occur, which was not consistent with the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designation for the area.
Before the rezoning could be considered by Council, it was
withdrawn by the applicant (see 4/6/84 letter from Joe Wells) .
10. On page 58, the application states that 60,260 sq. ft. of the
Top of Mill parcel (about 25%) will be open space. In
reviewing the 1985 preliminary PUD booklet, I note that on
page 50, it states that about 170,000 sq. ft. (70%) will be
open space. I have not spent any time analyzing the site plan
to see why the open space has c:hanged by so much. However, I
would remind you that t:he definit:ion of open space was changed
in 1988 and it is possible that some areas which qualified as
open space in 1985 do not still qualify today.
,
,
j
4
~
~
11. Some other aspects of the Top of Mill design which appear to
differ from the representations made in 1984/85 include:
a. The prior design did not bring vehicles into the site.
Instead, they were directed to a sub-grade parking
structure. There was only a single street within the
project site, oriented to continue the City's grid street
network. The application booklet repeatedly made the
point that "powerful axial views up Mill Street will be
maintained and reinforced". The City ultimately vacated
the top portion of Mill Street to facilitate this design
(see City Ordinance 85-14, adopted on 5/13/85 and as
referenced on the final plat).
b. The 33 units within the Top of Mill project were all
planned to have 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area, contained
within a 1,000 sq. ft. footprint.
12. The analysis of mountain view plane issues (page 84) is
consistent with the staff approach to that issue in 1984/85.
For your information, during the prior review we discussed
mountain view plane and 8040 greenline issues at the
conceptual stage, but only gave final approval to the issues
when full architectural and grading plans were submitted at
preliminary plat. I would also point out to you that in 1988
the mountain view plane provisions were amended to take into
account the potential that the review of a development in a
view plane that is blocked by another structure should take
into account whether future re-development of that structure
may re-open the view plane. I do not know if that amendment
is relevant to this situation, but wanted you to be aware of
that change since the original review.
13. Finally, I would remind you that the PUD agreement established
park dedication fees for the residential units to be built at
that time. Such fees would appear to also be applicable to
these dwelling units.
"j
,
I hope this memorandum provides you the information you require to
understand the complete history of these projects. Please let me
know if it would be helpful to you for me to go into greater depth
on any of the issues discussed herein or to provide you any
additional analysis.
5
^
n
RBSOLll'l'IOR OF THE lISFBIt FLlOOtl:RG .AIl1> ZOORG COIuli:SSIOR
GRAR'l'IRG APPROVAL 'l'O A PORTIOR or THE PRBLIIIIRARY l'IJD1SOBDIVISIOR
AND RECOMIIBRDIRG lISSOCIATBDAPPROI7ALIl roRTBilRESIDDTiAJ; PRo.:J~S
INCLUDED WITHIR THE lISPBR IlOlJIi'1'AIR PUD
Resolution No. 85-6
WHEREAS, by their Resolution No. 84-23; the Aspen City Council
(hereinafter. "Council") did grant COnceptual PUD/Subdivision approval
to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena Condominiwn
components of, the Aspen Mountain PUDI and
WHBRIlAS, by their Resolution No. 84-27, Council did endorse the
revised E!I1ployee housing proposal of the Aspen Mountain PUD and did
grant conceptual subdivision approval and exemption from the City's
growth management allotment procedures f or the proj ect' s Ute City
Place componentl and
WBBRIlAS, on August 27, 1984, Council did agree that the lodge and
residential components of the project could continue to be reviewed
separately, provided that the approval of any preliminary stage not
become effective until the preliminary approval for the entire PUD has
been granted I and
WHEREAS, by their ReSOlution 85-1, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission (hereinafter, "CommisSion") did grant preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval for the lOdge component of the Aspen Mountain PUDI and
WHEREAS, John H. ROberts, Jr., Alan R. Novak and Robert Calloway
(hereinafter "Applicants") have submitted an application for Preliminary
PUD/Subdivision approval for the residential component of the Aspen
Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did hold a public hearing on the Applicants
submission on March 5, 1985, which hearing was continued to March 12,
March 19 and April 2, 1985, to consider the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision
application and associated review procedures for the residential
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
NOlf, THEREFORE, BE 1'1.' RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby recommend that approval of the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision and
8040 Viewplane applications concerning the Top of Mill component of
the PUD be delayed until such time as the following conditions have
been met:
1. The Applicants shall continue their evaluation of the
geologic hazards from Aspen Mountain which may affect this
site by monitoring and reporting on the data gathered during
the critical melt/runoff time period. Based on this infor-
mation the Applicants shall provide responses to the concerns
expressed by Jeffrey C. Hynes, Senior Engineering Geologist
of the Colorado Geologic Survey, in his letter dated March 8,
1985. The Applicants shall submit their program for on-
going monitoring to Mr. Hynes for his review and approval
prior to the critical period.
2. The Applicants shall expand the scope of their soil contam-
ination sampling program to determine whether any toxic
materials are located within the area proposed to be used
for storm water detention on the site. If such materials
are found in this area, the Applicants shall develop a plan
to insure that toxic substances do not leak into the ground-
f""',.
i'\
J/
ResolutiClD Ro. 85-~
page 2
water below the site, to the satisfaction of the City's
Ehgineer and Chief Environmental Heal th Officer.
3. The Applicants shall develop a soil monitoring program and
detailed gradin g plans f or the entire Top of Mill si te to
satisfy the cOncerns of the Environmental Health Officer
that no toxic material be moved off the site or be excessively
disturbed and that the toxic soils on the site will be
properly covered and controlled.
4. The Applicants shall insure that all exposed mine dumps and
tailings on or around the perimeter of the PUD site are
isolated from human exposure to inh.alation or ingestion by
the placement of f ill material over toxic soils and by
diverting all surface water from such soil s.
5. The Applicants shall demonstrate that they have taken into
account and worked cooperatively with the Aspen Skiing
Company aI thei r pl an s to change the finish area for the
World Cup and to address plans to mi tigate site drainage
impacts f rom Aspen Molm tain.
6. The Applicants shall commit to having the booster pump
system proposed for the Top of Mill project reviewed by the
City Ehgineer and Director of the Water Dept. prior to its
installation to determine its reliabili ty and adequacy of
fire flows.
7. The landscaping plan for the Top of Mill site shall be
revised to move trees and shrubs further from the curb than
the two foot distance presently shown to avoid conflicts
with cars and snow removal. The landscaping plan shall be
supported with an. irrigation plan.
8. A construction phasing program for the Top of Mill site
shall be submitted which meets the requirements of Section
24-8.9 (b) of the Mlmicipal Code.
9. The Applicants shall commit to providing the Building
Inspector prior to building permit review with field data
demonstrating that units aI the Top of Mill site are not
likely to be subject to subsidence from underground mines.
10. Adequate air handling facilities, satisfying the Environmental
Health Officer, shall .be designed into the underground
parking structures to eliminate any buildup of air contam-
inants.
11. The Applicants shall place a note on the plat for the Top of
Mill project advising potential buyers of the hazards
affecting the property if the continuing studies demonstrate
the existence of such problems.
12. The Applicants shall submit documentation of their compliance
with the above conditions to the planning Office which shall
present the submission to the Commission at. a duly noticed
public hearing following its review by the appropriate
referral agencies.
BB IT FORmER RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby
grant to the residential projects within the Aspen Mountain PUD
(other than the Top of Milll Preliminary PUD/Subdivision approval,
does recommend subdivision exception for the purposes of condominium-
ization and does confirm the compliance of the Ute City place project
.
'-'
r;
~
,... .A
<
Resoluticn Ho. 85-(P
Page 3
with the provisioos of the Residential Boous Overlay which was previously
applied to the site, subject to the following cooditioos:
1. The Applicants shall designate 30 of the already proposed
parking spaces 00 the PUD site to 1oog-term storage of cars
of specific employees housed at the Alpina Haus and Copper
Horse and shall continue to search for added parking at
sites near these two housing projects.
2. As per sectioo 24-10.5 (F), the P&Z waive" compliance of the
Ute City Place project with the 35 percent open space
requirement in the RMF zooe district. The Applicants shall
provide that at least 23% of the site remains.as open space.
3. The Applicants shall rectify, prior to the occupancy of the
west wing lodge units, the life,. health and safety code
deficiencies in the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus identified
by John Ostwald and Tom Voorhies of the Building Department
in their memos dated March 20 and March 21, 1985.
4. The Applicants shall comply with the landscaping comments
provided by Jim Holland in his memo dated February 26, 1985.
5. The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the
employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and
occupancy to the rental or sale guidelines established and
indexed at the time or prior to issuance of the building
permit by the City Council's designee for moderate income
employee housing units. Verification of employment and
income of those persons living in the moderate income
employee units shall be completed and filed with the Ci ty
Council or its designee by the owner commencing 00 the date
of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property
records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be
deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the
benefit of and shall be speC:1ffc:"llyenfor c:eiib1eby the City
or its designee by any appropriate legal action including
injunctioo, abatement or evictioo of noncomplying tenancy,
during the period of life of the last surviving member of
the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of
fifty (50l years from the date of recording hereof in the
Pitkin Co un ty real property records, whichever period shall
be greater.
6. Condominium maps for each project shall be submitted to the
City Ehgineer following substantial completion of their
construction for review and recommendatioo prior to the sale
of any unit.
7. The plat shall be revised to indicate the curb designs
which have been recommended by the City Ehgineer.
8. The final plat shall identify all slopes in excess of 30%.
9. The Ehgineering Department shall be copied 00 the Applicants
CDon driveway permit for the Ute City place project.
10. The Ute city Place final plat submission shall comply with
the standard size requirement for such documents.
11. All drainage needs for the Ute City Place project shall be
handled 00 site. An irrigation system shall be installed to
serve the landscaping 00 this site.
12. The Applicants will initiate any or all customary air pollution
control measures recommended by the Environmental Health
Officer to minimize wind blown fugitive dust leaving the
f'I
1"'\
".,.. ..'1
Resoluticn No. 85-L
Page 4
site during the demolitim and constructim stages of the
project. Contact shall be made by the applicant with the
Air Poll ution Control Division District Engineer of the
Colorado Health Department to determine if an emission
permit and/or fugitive dust control plan is required at
these stages.
13. The six mmth minimum lease restrictim of Section 20-22 (bl
is reconunended to be waived f or the residen tial proj ects
within the PUD.
14. The details of the en-site drainage plan for the PUD site
shall be made available for review by the City Engineer
during the final plat review process.
15. All written and verbal representations of the Applicants
with respect to the residential projects within the PUD are
hereby made conditions of this action.
BB I~ .llL80 RBSOLVlm by the Commissioo that it does hereby recommend
that Council delete the trail easement along the Top of Mill site and
pursue alternative alignments due to the topographic impracticality of
connecting this segment to other trails across the mountain and based
on the Commissioo' s finding that the adopted Trails Plan contains no
segments to which this easement could be linked.
BB I~ FIR.llLLY RB80LVBD by the Commission that it does hereby
reconunend that Council proceed with the processing of the final plat
for the remainder of the PUD, in spite of the delay associated with
the Top of Mill project. The Commission refers the Council to its
Resolut1en 85-7 to identify its reasoning 00 this recommendatioo.
APPROVBD by the Commissioo at its regular meeting 00 April 2, 1985.
ASPBII PLAIlRING A1lD ZONING
COMIII 8SI ON
ATTB8~.
=V~ Wjjill'+
Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk
1"""\
. ,
,
The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood once was
the focus of mining activity in the city and it saw a
variety of building types amiforms. Today, it continues
to exhibit diverity in its architectural clu1racrer and
scale of buildings.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
Exhibit C
Shadow Mountain Neighborhood
Chapter 6
The Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood is
bounded by AspenMountainon the south and Durant
Avenue on the north. Its western boundary is
Garmisch Street and its eastern boundary is High-
way 82.
Historic character of the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Aspen Mountain was a focus of mining activity in the
early years of the city. Early photographs show a wild
mix of buildings, including tipples, trestles, mills and
other mine-related structures, rail yards, depots and
towers, and huddling at the base, a dense collection
of small miner's cottages.
Overall, the area exhibited an industriai character,
and the architecture was more rustic than that found
in other Aspen neighborhoods. The buildings had a
variety of forms and materials, which reflected the
diversity of uses in the area.
The scale of buildings was quite varied, ranging from
small one-story dwellings to imposing mill build-
ings. The tallest buildings in town were found here,
and the Clarendon Hotel, which occupiedalmosthalf
a block where the Wagner Park Ball Field is today,
was among the largest buildings in town.
Building materials were varied and exhibited a range
of finish, from painted clapboard to rough-sawn,
unpainted timber. The mining structures were built
from basic materials. Large timbers were hewn from
logs, and untrimmed board planks were used for
siding and roofing. Metal was also seen in braces and
connectors. Although houses were painted, little else
was.
Page 39
~
.'
Current character of the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Although the signs of mining activity have long since
been removed, the Base of Aspen Mountain contin-
ues to exhibit diversify in architectural character and
building scale. Buildings have more of a vertical
emphasis than any place else in town and some of the
tallest structures are still found here.
In comparison with other neighborhoods, this area is
densely developed. A mix of building sizes, forms
and types is seen including condominiums, hotels
and commercial structures. Most present a street
level that is of human scale and that is inviting to
pedestrians. Somemulti-farnilyresidential buildings,
however, have been constructed with multiple en-
trances and an overall horizontal emphasis that is in
contrast to the traditional vertical character of the
area.
Building materials continue to be varied. even more
so than historically. Stucco, brick and wood are com-
mon. A range of metals, tiles and stone are also seen.
Streets are clearly defined in the neighborhood, often
with a curb, gutter and sidewalks. Views to the
mountain are an important feature of this neighbor-
hood, and should be preserved when feasible.
Major public trails run near the base of Aspen Moun-
tain and opportunities for connecting to these exist
on many new development sites. In order to maxi-
mize the potential benefits of these trails, it is impor-
tant that the streets connecting them invite pedes-
trian activity.
Development trends in the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Recently, some structures have appeared that deny
the street, and instead turn inward, providing little
visual interest for pedestrians. Some entries are de-
tached from their buildings, and entrances are not
scaled to the pedestrian.
Page 40
A
The introduction of structured parking at the lower
levels of buildings is altering the street level experi-
ence, because extensive expanses of wall surface in
these cases are blank, or garage openings. These plain
surfaces have weakened the pedestrian appeal of the
street In some cases, important views also have been
blocked due to insensitive placement of some struc-
tures on their sites.
Asa partofnew development, morecornrnercial uses
are being introduced into the Base of Aspen Moun-
tain neighborhood. These uses can add appeal to the
street, if the facades are designed to be in scale and to
provide interest to pedestrians.
An important factor in the character of the neighbor-
hood is building use. Many structures are second
homes, or are accommodations facilities that seecycles
of intense activity followed by quiet periods. There-
fore, creating street walls that encourage pedestrian
activity during all cycles is important to maintaining
liveliness in the area.
Goals for the Base of Aspen Mountain
Neighborhood
A special concern is that the street level of buildings
be designed in a manner to encourage pedestrian
activity. Because many buildings in this neighbor-
hood are only occupied for shorts periods of the year,
and streets may appear lonely, it is vita1ly important
that buildings reinforce a streetscape that is ofhurnan
scale. Therefore, the City holds these design goals for
the Base of Aspen Mountain neighborhood.
1. To enhance the pedestrian experience atthe
street level
2.
To protect views of the mountain
3.
To promote a sense of visual integration in
the neighborhood while also encouraging a
diversity of building types.
I"')
Divide larger projects into modules that are similar to
those of buildings seen traditionally.
Buildings should have sloping rooffonns. Gable, hip,
and shed roof shapes are appropriate.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
n
""
Base of Aspen Mounttdn
Design Guidelines for the
Base of Aspen Mountain
Neighborhood
The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all
projects in the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighbor-
hood, in addition to the chapter of General Guide-
lines for All Neighborhoods. When considering the
appropriateness of a project with respect to these
guidelines, also consider how the project will help to
accomplish the design goals for the neighborhood.
Mass & Scale
53. Set taller buildings against the
mountains to reduce their perceived scale.
a. Although taller buildings can be accommodated
in this area, it is still preferred that their appar-
ent mass be minimized. Incorporate some den-
sity into sloping roof forms to reduce the per-
ceived scale of the building.
b. Locate the building mass so as to avoid creating
icing conditions on public walkways.
c. A vertical orientation is preferred.
d. Divide larger projects into modules that are
similar to those of buildings seen traditionally.
e. Step buildings down in scale as they approach
adjacent, smaller structures.
Building Form Guidelines
54. A variety of building forms is
appropriate in this area.
a. However, rectilinear forms are encouraged.
b. Buildings should have sloping roofforms. Gable,
hip, and shed roof forms are appropriate.
Page 41
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
~
Exhibif I)
5020 Road 154 .
Glenwood .Springs, CO 81601
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Fax 970 945-8454
Phone 970 945-7988
~ ?~--
. 7 \1'10
\,.\ \~, "V t.
, ~ GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
-"'.,...... ~ REVIEW FOR THE
~~ GRAND ASPENITOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ASPEN, COLORADO
JOB NO. 195 489
JAIWARY 12, 1996
PREPARED FOR:
SA V ANAH LlMITED PARTNERSHIP
ATTENTION: MR. FERD BELZ
clo ASPEN ENTERPRISES INTERNA.TIONAL, ITS GENERAL PARTNER
OMAR BENJAMIN, PRESIDENT
515 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-1
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................... 1
PREVIOUS STUDIES REVIEWED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
SITE AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS .................... 3
SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS .......................... 3
UNDERGROUND MlNE WORKINGS .............................. 4
STORM WATER MANAGE.t\1ENT ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
DEBRIS FLOWS ............................................... 6
LANDSLIDES ................................................. 7
ROCKFALL .................................................. 10
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY .......... . . . . . .. 11
'EART1!QUAJCECONSIDERATIONS .............................. 11
LIl\.1ITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
REFERENCES .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
FIGURE 1 - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
f'""",.
r\
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REVIEw
~1 This report presents the findings of a geotechnical engineering review of the
\ I proposed Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Redevelopment Project in Aspen. The project area is
I shown on Fig. 1. The review was made to identify geotechnical and geologic conditions
~ which could have a major influence on the proposed redevelopment. The work was
conducted according to our July 28, 1995 proposal to the Savanah Limited Partnership.
The study consisted of a site reconnaissance and review of previous geologic and
geotechnical reports. Based on this, and our experience in the area, geotechnical and
geologic conditions imp9rtant to project planning and development have been identified
and the need for additional studies evaluated. This report has been prepared to summarize
the data reviewed and to present our conclusions and recommendations. .
PROPOSED DEVELOPl\1ENT
The Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Redevelopment Project includes Lot 3 and Lot 5 in
the Aspen Mountain P.UD., see Fig. 1. The Grand Aspen part of the project is Lot 5
which covers about 2.6 acres between Galena and South Mill Streets. Redevelopment
here will be 30 townhome and condominium dwelling units in three buildings. Access to
the development will be from the existing city streets. The Top of Mill part of the project
is Lot 3 which covers about 5.5 acres at the south end ofMi11 Street. Redevelopment here
will be 17 mixed residential dwelling units. The units will consist of single family homes,
duplex homes, and triplex homes. Lot 3 will be subdivided into eight building parcels and
common-open space. The dwelling units will be in ten separate buildings. Access to the
development will be a private drive extending to the south of South Mill Street.
PREVIOUS STUDIES REVIEWED
Reports made available for our review are included in the references. The reports
largely consist of geologic, geotechnical engineering, and storm water hydrology reports
prepared by consultants for the Top of Mill part of the Aspen Mountain P.UD. between
1983 and 1985. Also included were review reports from the Colorado Geological Survey
H-P Gcotech
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
I
I
.
I
I
r-1
f)
-2-
and two Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolutions. The large maps
accompanying a few reports were not available in the copies provided. Reports in which
the large maps were not provided were: Chen and Associates, 1984c; Rea Cassens and
Associates, 1985a; and KKBNA, 1986.
Environmental issues associated with mine dump materials at the Top of Mill site
were also evaluated in the mid 1980's. It is our understanding that the environmental
issues are presently being reviewed by Waste Engineering, Inc. for the proposed
redevelopment project.
At the time of the previous studies iuthe mid 1980's, the development concept for
Top of Mill was a 33 dwelling unit condominium complex consisting of one large building
with underground parking and eight smaller outlying buildings and an additional parking
structure. The currently proposed development differs substantially from that previously
considered for the Top of Mill site.
SITE AND GEOLOGIC CONDmONS
The project area is located primarily on the Pioneer Gulch alluvial fan at the base of
the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The fan head is about 400 feet upslope to the south of the
southern boundary of the Top of Mill site and about 1,400 feet upslope of the Grand
Aspen Site. The fan is the product of flash flood and debris flow deposition during the
past 30,000 years. The fan surface at both sites has been modified by grading associated
with the ski area, past mining operations and development in the city. Near the fan head
slopes are steep, in the range of 40to 50%. Most of the steep slopes lie to the south of
the Top of Mill site, but some steep slopes border the alluvial fan at the site. At the Top of
Mill site the original fan surface has an average slope of about 20%. Grading in this area
has modified the terrain. In several places gently sloping cut and fill benches are present.
On the lower part of the fan ground slopes are about 5% in the vicinity of the Grand.
Aspen site. Glacial till and colluvium underlie the slopes of Aspen Mountain adjacent to
the fan to the south of the Top of Mill site. The steep slopes in the eastern part of the site
are part of an old earthflow complex in the Little Nell area.
The drainage basin tributary to the Pioneer Gulch above the fan covers about 124
H-P Geotech
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f"""l
f
f'\
-3-
acres (Chen and Associates, 1985b). The basin does not support a perennial stream. Some
surface flow occurs in the spring during the snowpack melt, but well-defined stream
channels are not apparent in the basin or on the fan. In places, the Aspen Skiing Company
diverts snow melt and storm water runoff out of the basin. The diversions are in road
ditches of limited capacity. Other parts of the mountain which are sources of surface
water runoff are the steep mount;#n slope between Pioneer Gulch and Vallejo Gulch and
there is also potential that some surface runoff from Vallejo and Spar Gulches, under some
conditions, may also be tributary to the Top of Mill site and the Pioneer Gulch fan (Chen
and Associates, 1985b). Like Pioneer Gulch, these other basins are ephemeral.
Most of the fan surface in the project area is developed with hotels, condomini~ms
and some single family residences.. The ski area borders the Top of Mill site on the south
and west. The existing buildings which presently occupy the Grand Aspen site will be
demolished. The Top of Mill site is presently vacant, except for some residences in the
northern part. Vegetation on the Top of Mill site in areas not disturbed by grading consist
of a mixed aspen and conifer forest. Most of the ski runs have been revegetated with
grass.. Areas which appear to be regraded mine dump and other fills are common at the
Top of Mill.
GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS
This review shows that there are several condition of a geologic and geotechnical
nature which could have an impact on the redevelopment project. The potential impacts
are more severe for the Top of Mill site than they are for the Grand Aspen site. A
summary of conditions which should be considered in project planning and our conclusions
and recommendation are presented in the following sections.
SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS
Summary of Review: A geotechnical engineering study of soil and foundation conditions
was previously made for the Top of Mill site (Chen and Associates, 1984b), but soil and
foundation conditions have not been specifically studied at the Grand Aspen site. The
previous geotechnical study at the Top of Mill site included eight auger borings, laboratory
H-P Geotech
I
\
I
i
i
I
;
!
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t"""'\
(")
-4-
testing, analysis and recommendations. The general findings of the study were:
. Soils at the site consist of fill and clayey sands and gravel with cobble-sized
rock fragments.
. Ground water was not encountered to the depths explored of about 25 to
40 feet in April and May of 1984.
. Fills on the site are not suitable for foundation support and should be
removed.
. Fills up to about 10 feet thick were encountered at the boring sites.
. The structures may be founded on spread footings designed for a maximum
bearing pressure of2,500 psf.
. Grading plans should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer.
. Mine dump materials which may contain lead may be present on the site.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on information presented in the previous
geotechnical report for the Top of Mill and our experience in the general area, we do not
anticipate unusual soil and foundation conditions at either the Top of Mill site or at the
Grand Aspen site. It is recommended that additional soil and foundation studies be done
at the Top of Mill to evaluate site-specific subsurface and foundation conditions at the
proposed building sites. A soil and foundation study should also be made at the Grand
Aspen site.
UNDERGROUND MlNE WORKINGS
Summary of Review: A mine subsidence hazard evaluation was previously made for the
Aspen Mountain Lodge Project (Chen and Associates, 1984a). The study area included
the Top of Mill and Aspen Grand sites. The general findings of the study were:
. Record of underground mine workings were not found below the Aspen
Mountain Lodge Project area.
. The zone of major potentia! mine subsidence lies at least 200 feet to the
east of the project area. This should be a satisfactory safety zone.
H-P Geotech
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-.. .
~
J
-5-
. Unmapped mine workings could be present in the project area, but the
likelihood is very small.
We have reviewed mine maps of the area which are in our files. It appears that the
findings of the previous study are usually reasonable. An exception is a possible tunnel not
previously described. The mine map shows that the tunnel has a bearing of about S220E.
The tunnel portal may be located near the eastern side of the proposed building site on
Parcel #3 at the Top of Mill.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on information presented in the preVious
mine subsidence evaluation for the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project and review of mine
maps in our files, the Grand Aspen site should not be in a mine subsidence hazard area.
The Top of Mill site does not appear to be exposed to a serious mine subsidence hazard,
but the possibility of a tunnel portal near Parcel # 3 should be further evaluated. If a
tunnel portal is present, then mitigation may be needed.
STOR...\1 WATER MANAGEMENT
Storm water management is not strictly a geotechnical issue, but there could be an
interrelationship between debris flows and storm water management in the project area.
Because of this, we have reviewed the previous storm water drainage report prepared for
several components of the Aspen Mountain P.UD., which includes the Top of Mill site
(Aspen Mountain P.UD. Project, 1985a and 1985b; and Rea Cassens and Associates,
1985). The Grand Aspen site is in the general area of the previous studies, but these
studies do not specifically address the Grand Aspen site.
Summary of Review: In 1985 it was proposed to detain the I OO-year Developed runoff
on-site and release it at the 5-year Historic rate, which was the estimated capacity of the
existing down stream storm sewer system. It was proposed to have the City or Lodge
Improvc;lment District construct three detention basins on Aspen Mountain and the owner
would construct a 1.94 acre-foot retention basin at the Top of Mill site to manage off-site
storm water from Aspen Mountain. The Top of Mill basin would detain that portion of
the Historic storm water considered to be tributary to the PUD from Aspen Mountain. To
H-P Gcotech
I
I
i
,
j
I
,
I
)
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-1
,
r:'lt
-6-
account for increased sediment loads associated with potential debris flows the calculated
100-year storm water volumes were increased by 50%.
It was pointed out that storm water management of runoff tributary to the project
and other existing development in the area from Aspen Mountain should be carefully
considered because uncontrolled runoff from the various drainage basins on Aspen
Mountain could create considerable problems to the City in the future.
Recommendations: Because of the potential interrelationship between debris flow
initigation and storm water management for the two redevelopment sites, it is
recommended that debris flow hazard mitigation be evaluated in conjunction with
development of the storm water management plan. This will require coordination between
the geotechnical engineer, planner, architect, design engineer and the surface water
hydrologist.
DEBRIS FLOWS
Summary of Review: Two debris flow hazards evaluations were previously made for the
Top of Mill site (Chen and Associates, 1984c and 1985b). The 1985 study was.done to
provide additional information on the debris flow hazard as recommended by the Colorado
Geological Survey (1985a). In 1986, preliminary design concepts for debris flow hazard
mitigation at the Top of Mill were starting to be developed just before the termination of
the original project (KKBNA, 1986).
The Pioneer Gulch fan is the product of flash flood and debris flow deposition
during the past 30,000 years. . Regional geologic studies show that the fan was deposited
on top of, and is therefore younger than, Outwash Terrace B which correlates with the
early part of the Pindale glacial period (Bryant 1971 and 1979). The early Pindale glacial
period is considered to be between 30,000 and 60,000 years before the present (porter and
Others, 1983). Stratigraphic observations in a test pit on the fan identified deposits
associated with at least three flash flood or debris flows in the upper 4 feet of the fan at the
Top of Mill. Historic flash floods and associated debris flows occurred on the Pioneer
Gulch fan in September 1919 and in August 1964. The rainfall intensity for the 1964
storm was given as 1.13 inch per hour (Chen and Associates, 1984c). This would
H-P Geotech
,
,
t
,
~.
I
t
,
,
,
,
~
I
I
II
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
1""'\
()
-7-
correspond to a recurrence frequency of25 years (see Appendix Table 7, Rea Cassens,
1985). The historic events apparently did not result in major structural damage to
buildings on the fan, but some damage resulted from deposition of mud and debris (Chen
and Associates, 1985b).
The previous hazard studies and Colorado Geological Survey reviews concluded
that the potential flash flood and debris flow hazard at the Top of Mill and elsewhere on
the Pioneer Gulch fan, including the existing development in the city, was severe enough
to warrant hazard mitigation (Chen and Associates, 1984c and 1985b; and Colorado
Geological Survey, 1985a and 1985b). Recommendations for hazard mitigation concepts
and designs were prepared (Chen and Associates, 1985b). Review of these
recommendations by the Colorado Geological Survey (1985b) concluded that the debris
flow parameters in the Chen and Associates 1985b report seem reasonable and
conservative.
The Colorado Geological Survey (1985b) recommended two Ofltions to the
planning office: (I) grant conditional approval of the proposal based on the proposed
mitigation presented in the Chen report with a prohibition on occupancy until mitigation
has been completed and approved by a qualified engineering geologist and geotechnical
. engineer, or (2) empanel a committee composed of representatives ofthecity/county
planning office, the developer, and his contractors and consultants, the Aspen Skiing
Company and the concerned public, to develop a plan defining the exact level of mitigation
required, the responsible party, and the timetable to accomplish the work.
The previous debris flow hazard studies and the Colorado Geological SUf',I.ey
review have pointed out that it is desirable to incorporate debris flow hazard mitigation for
the Top of Mill into a city-wide mitigation plan. The city-wide plan would mitigate
potential flash floods and debris flow hazards for the existing development on the entire
Pioneer Gulch fan as well as the Grand Aspen and Top of Mill sites.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on review of the previous studies and our
experience, we have reached the following collusion and recommendations pertaining to
debris flow hazards for the Grand Aspen and Top of Mill sites.
. Both sites are in potential flash flood and debris flow hazard areas.
H-P Geotech
r
.
~
I
,
.
I
,.
j
.
,
I
;
.
.
I
i
I
,
I
.."
'"
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
r,
A
-8-
Mitigation should be considered in project planning and design at both the
Top of Mill and Grand Aspen sites.
. The hazards are more severe at the Top of Mill than at the Grand Aspen
site because the Top of Mill is closer to the fan head.
. It is not possible to calculate a statistical recurrence frequency for the
debris flow hazard as is commonly done in traditional storm water runoff
hazard analysis. The data reviewed suggests that flash flooding and
associated debris flows are active geologic processes which have occurred
before and after settlement of the Aspen area. They appear to have
recurrence frequencies in the range of 25 to greater than 100 years.
. Because debris flows are started by intense thunder storm precipitation or
rapid melting of a heavy snowpack, it is reasonable to assume that large
debris flows will occur less frequently than small debris flows.
. Site-specific debris flow mitigation plans should be developed for both
sites. The previous debris flow mitigation concepts and design
recommendations should be reviewed and up-dated if necessary.
. Debris flow mitigation should be coordinated with the storm water
management plan for the two sites.
. It is desirable to look at the possibility of including debris flow hazard
mitigation and storm water management for the two sites into a city-wide
mitigation plan.
. If a city-wide debris flow and storm water management plan is not possible,
then debris flow mitigation for the Top of Mill and Grand Aspen sites will
likely require flood proofing and direct structural reinforcement ofthe
buildings.
. Flood proofing and structural reinforcement will not prevent some property
damage due do deposition of mud and debris, but it should be feasible to
protect the buildings against severe structural damage and provide a
reasonable level of safety for the building occupants. Direct structural
protection will involve some constraints on the architecture of the buildings
and site grading.
LANDSLIDES
Summary of Review: In June of 1984 slope movements which resulted in ground surface
H-P Geotech
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i:
I
I
1"""\
;
t""'II
j
-9-
cracking were noted in the Strawpile ski run area on Aspen Mountain upslope of the
redevelopment area. In 1984 and 1985 the landslide was studied as part of the general
geotechnical studies for the Top of Mill Project. Findings of the 1984 and 1985 studies
were presented in two reports (Chen and Associates 1985a and 1985b). The two studies
for the Aspen Mountain P.UD.Project were paid partially by the Aspen Skiing Company.
Three exploratory borings were drilled in the Strawpile area and piezometers,
inclinometers, and surface survey monuments were installed. These instruments were
monitored from December 1984 through July 1985. Results are summarized in the Chen
and Associates report (1985b). The general findings of the 1984-1985 Strawpile slope
study were:
. Slope movements observed in 1984 and 1985 occurred at depths between
28 and 62 feet below the slope surface.
. The slope movement rates increased in the spring and the total maximum
displacement for the seven month monitoring period was about I foot.
. Limit equilibrium stability analysis indicated safety factors between 1. 03
and 1.09 when the spring of 1985 ground water conditions were modeled.
. The long-term behavior of the slope movements is difficult to predict.
Considering the slope movement rates observed in 1984-1985 monitoring
period, it does not appear that the movements present an immediate threat
to the Top of Mill site.
. Remedial actions to improve slope stability were recommended. These
actions included:
- Regrading the upper part of the slope
- Control of surface drainage
- Test drain program to evaluate if horizontal drains are feasible
- Reduce snow making in the area
- Remove snow in the spring
The Colorado Geological Survey (1985b) review of the 1994-1985 study
concluded the that if the recommended mitigation actions proposed at that time were
implemented, the risk of potentially catastrophic landslide failure, and the resultant hazard
could be substantially reduced. The Colorado Geological Survey (1985b) recommended
two options to the planning office for proceeding with the Top of Mill Project: (1) grant
H-P Geotech
.. . - _ _ , ,~_~"",~""'. . r:'-....':. "_~'_ ...._.. ,__ .
l
~
n
-10-
conditional approval of the proposal based on the proposed mitigation found in the Chen
report with a prohibition on occupancy until mitigation has been completed and approved
by a qualified engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer, or (2) empanel a committee
composed of representatives of the city/county planning office, the developer and his
contractors and. consultants, the Aspen Skiing Company, and the concerned public, to
develop a plan defining the exact level of mitigation required, the responsible party, and
the timetable to accomplish the work. In addition, they also recommended monitoring the
landslide movement monuments on a regular basis.
Following the submission of the 1984-1985 study, the Aspen Mountain P.UD.
Project apparently took no further action on developing the Top of Mill site. Starting in
May 1987, the Aspen Skiing Company undertook additional studies of the Strawpile slope
and they have been monitoring the slope since that time. In addition to the Strawpile slope
movements, we know of other slope movements on Aspen Mountain in the Roch and
Spring Pitch ski runs. The skiing company and county are aware of these movements.
The skiing company has completed some work to improve the stability in the Roch Run
and Strawpile areas in the fall of 1995.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Slope movements which increase in rate during
the spring snowpack melt are known to be present on Aspen Mountain upslope of the
project area. Long-term movement monitoring at Strawpile has been done between 1987
and 1995. The Aspen Skiing Company has also done some work to improve slope
stability during this period. However, most of the remedial actions recommended,in 1985
for Strawpile have not been implemented. The skiing company should be approached to
determine if they are willing to cooperate by making available the information they have
developed over the years to the redevelopment project.
ROCKFALL
Rockfall hazards were not discussed in the previous studies. Weare aware of a
potential rockfall source area in mine dump ~aterial in a road cut along the summer road
upslope of the redevelopment project. The county is aware of this condition and in
conjunction with the Aspen Skiing Company, temporary concrete barriers were placed
H-P Geotech
,
~
(""\
Q
-11-
along the road last spring. It is our understanding that a rockfall barrier engineering
company has been contacted to design and construct a permanent cable fence barrier for
the site which may be installed next spring when the si!e is accessible.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY
We do not anticipate major problems with on-site construction-related slope
instability for the proposed construction at either the Grand Aspen or Top of Mill sites, if
the grading is properly designed and extensive grading is not done on the steeper slopes.
For preliminary planning, the grading recommendations presented in the previous
geotechnical report for the Top of Mill site can be used (Chen and Associates, 1984c).
Site-specific grading recommendations should be developed as part of geotechnical studies
at both redevelopment sites.
EART1!QUAJCE CONSIDERATIONS
. The project site could experience moderately strong earthquake-related ground
shaking of Modified Mercalli Intensity VI during a reasonable service life for the two
developments, but the probability for stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground
shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to
structures of good design and construction.. All occupied structures should be designed to
withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse
under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk
Zone 1. Based on our current understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part pf
Colorado, we see no reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the
area.
LIMITATIONS
This review has been prepared according to generally accepted geologic and
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no
other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations
submitted in this report are based upon review of previous studies provided to us by the
H-P Geotech
- .,...-..~._.,....--~
~ .'., - d' "", ".
r"\
^
". "i
-12-
client and our experience in the area. These studies reviewed are about 10 years old,
. address a different design concept and do not cover parts of the currently proposed
redevelopment projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our
client for preliminary evaluation and to identify conditions which require additional
study. Additional site specific studies should be done to address the geotechnical and
geologic aspects of the two sites for the proposed site-specific building plans.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
KAi4~
Ralph G. Mock
Engineering Geologist "L. P.<!
\'<:.~~"'ooo"v/
. ~~...- ...,
J~~'" _\ST /:f 0.-<7
Reviewed By: .. /frj{!J..... . . ~ ~ 0;1-
~cl '/1. <) ..
~. .Y.. . :.,,;.
/tv- '.':.'.' " , 2 .' ..""ll.
...~ .. ~.
y\ ~-:1, 'II '7/%~:
1<... o~?....... ~..
".~ . '~',~ ~~ Cl
Steven 1. Pawlak, P.Jttj,:c;.;;':-;'ONAL \.o:..'>~
...~'fl,r III....' ,,~'r
"I.. OF CO\..'v
RGMIkrnk
REFERENCES
Aspen Mountain PUD Project, 1985a, Preliminary PUD and Subdivision Submission,
Phase Two - Section 4 - Storm Drainage: Prepared for the City of Aspen, Aspen,
Colorado (January, 28, 1985).
Aspen Mountain PUD Project, 1985b, Aspen Mountain Amended GMP Submission _ The
Lodge: Prepared for the City of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado (February 28, 1985).
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 1985a, Resolution No. 85-6: (April 2, 1985)
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 1985b, Resolution No. 85-7: (April 2, 1985)
Bryant, B., 1971, Geology Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey Map 1-933.
H-P Geotech
,
I
t
!
f"'l
n
-13-
,Bryant, B. 1979, Geology of the Aspen I5-Minute Quadrangle, Pitkin and Gunnison
"' Counties, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1073.
Chen and Associates, 1984a, Mine Subsidence Hazard Evaluation, Proposed Aspen
Mountain Lodge Project,. Aspen, Colorado: Prepared for Roberts Calaway
Corporation, Aspen, Colorado (Job No. 26154B, May 15, 1984).
Chen and Associates 1984b, Geotechnical Irrvestigationfor ProposedTop of Mill
Development, Aspen Mountain Lodge Project, Aspen, Colorado: Prepared for
Commerce Realty Corporation, San Antonio, Texas (Job NO.4 163 84, October
31, 1984).
Chen and Associates, 1984c, Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation, Debris Flow Study,
Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development, Top of Mill Complex, Aspen,
Colorado: Prepared for Commerce Realty Corporation, San Antonio, Texas (Job
NO.4 392 84, November 14, 1984).
Chen and Associates, 1985a, Preliminary Report, Geotechnical Study of 1984 Landslide
above the Top of Mill Condominiums and Aspen Mountain Lodge Sites, Straw pile
Run, Aspen Mountain, Aspen, Colorado: Prepared for Commerce Realty
Corporation, San Antonio, Texas (Job No.4 385 84, January 4, 1985).
Chen and Associates, 1985b, DebrisFlaw and Landslide Investigations, Top of Mill Site,
Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development, Aspen, Colorado - Volumes I and II:
Prepared for Aspen Mountain PUD Project, Aspen, Colorado (Job NO.4 385 84,
September 20, 1985).
Colorado Geological Survey, 1985a, Aspen Mountain Lodge Residential GMP: Prepared
for Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, Aspen Colorado (pI-85-0003, bjlJLH-85-018,
March 8, 1985).
Colorado Geological Survey, 1985b, Review of Debris Flaw and Landslide Investigations
- Top of Mill Site: Prepared for Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, Aspen Colorado
(pI-85-0003,bcr:JLH-86-039, November 27, 1985).
KKBNA, 1986, Preliminary Evaluation of Debris Flaw Routing Through the Top of Mill
Site: Prepared for Aspen Mountain Lodge Project, Aspen, Colorado (February 20,
1986).
Porter, S.C., Late Wisconsin Mountain Glaciation in the Western United States, inLate-
Quaternary Environments of the United States; Wright, H.E, editor: University of
Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
H-P Geotech
""
.;,.'--'--,
r'\
.("
r'. >~
-14-
Rea Cassens and Associates, 1985, Aspen Mountain Lodge, 700 South Galena Street, Top
of Mill, and Ute City Place, Storm Water Drainage Report (January 9, 1985).
~
\'l ~
\ w
r-"
;1
J l
Jr
~
'...:J
J
J
"3.\YJ.HWna
[-
10,
O l J':.........
. .~ - -----
~'. ---=--
'; ,I, ;J,\SJ b ,I
"./. w i ~ )-, M';'\~O-~
. . ~ . U I '\....i 1 d
. ul Q. -~ /-......\ \0 l:i I J ~
. U ffi \ \ J I ~ ~ I
.
o
~_ - I \ /
(
1
~
.
:;
'"
....
o
" D"
!Lt
~
,
o
.
"
.
.
u
<<
~
o
.
't3~V I)lS NI't .I.Nnow N3dS't
-
cj
u:
z
:5
..
....
z
w
::;;'
..
o
-'
!ji
w
a
w
....
ii;
....
z
w
::;;
..
o
-'
!ji
w
a
w
a:
-'
-'
:E
u.
o
..
o
....
-
z
w
..
en
<(
a
z
~
(!)
:.:.
. 53
~J
Cr~
j:z
",'"
0"
~l!!
..0
ww
"'Cl
0>
.,
..
'"
0>
r')
~
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
To: v"bave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
Thnr: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
Date:
May 23, 1996
(Last Revised)
Re: Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen
Mountain Subdivision/PUD, Lots 3 & 5
Attendance:
Nick Adeh
Jack Reid
Chuck Roth
Phil Overeynder
Ross Soderstrom
Bill Earley
John Sarpa
Sunny Vann
Ferd Belz
AJ. Zabbia
Kevin O'Connell
Tom Bracewell
The following clarifications were made at this meeting which discussed the utility and engineering
comments made regarding the utility service needs and improvements of the applicant, Savannah,
and the City of Aspen at and resulting from the proposed development of Lots 3 & 5 of the Aspen
Mountain Subdivision/PUD. The discussion addressed the topics included in the memo written by
the city utility and engineering departments in response to the preliminary application for this
proposed development.
Note
Although the discussion addressed topics concerning both Lots 3 and 5, there does not
appear to be any major issues related to the utilities, right-of-way construction and public
infrastructure that would preclude development of Lot 5. Further discussions will be required to
evaluate the technical constraints and requirements for the possible development of Lot 3.
Water Utility
. 15 service connec,tions to neighbors plus one hydrant to be moved from 6 inch line and
reconnected to existing 12 inch line through Galena and Summit streets.
. The existing 6 inch line through Galena and Summit Streets to be abandoned after removing
water services remaining On 6 inch line
Response:
DRCM3D96.DOC
I OF 8
DRAFT
5/25/96
t"""i
f)
MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, Lots 3 & 5
DRAFT
PhilOvereynder: Explained the need for moving the remaining services off the old 6 inch
(or 8 inch) water line and connecting to the new 12 inch line.
A.J. Zabbia: Explained that: I) no new underground work is intended for Galena St. in
this project; 2) the new 12 inch water line was installed as a transmission line rather than a
distribution line per City direction at the time of installation; 3) the new line and other utilities
were previously sized and constructed to meet this planned phase of the development in
accordance with the PUD requirement of constructing the utilities prior to development of the
individual sites.
Comment: It is the opinion of the City that the development of Lot I necessitated the
installation of the 12 inch line to provide service and fire protection and that abandonment of the
existing 8 inch line is part of that work. Although it was not previously completed, the
cumulative impact of the development of Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5 make the abandonment of the 8
inch line necessary at this time.
· City needs easements for water lines
Response:
John Sarpa: Applicant will dedicate easements where needed, as needed.
· The Water Dept. has verified sufficient capacity in the distribution system to service this new
development.
Response:
No comment, accepted.
· Service to the proposed units above the 8040 line will require an auxiliary pump system to
provide adequate flow and pressure for domestic use and fire suppression as stated in the
application.
Response:
Sunny Vann & AJ. Zabbia: The developer intends to install individual pressure systems
in each of the residences requiring additional water flow and pressure.
· The Water Dept. is concerned about the apparent conflict of interest created by Leonard Rice,
Water Engineers, (Mr. AJ. Zabbia) working for the developer when this consultant has been
retained by the City as its consulting engineer for the Water Dept.
Response:
Phil Overeynder & A.J. Zabbia: The City Attorney is considering the situation and the
subject is being resolved in a separate forum from the application process proper.
Electric Power Utility
· Sufficient illumination is needed on new streets and possibly on existing streets, particularly
on upper Galena St. and Summit St.
Response:
DRCMJD96.DOC
2 OF 8
DRAFT
5/25/96
()
r-,
MEMO" Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision I PUD, Lots 3 & 5
DRAFT
Bill Earley: A separate circuit is needed for the new street lights, separate of any interior or
private landscape lighting for ease of serviceability. Some of the street lights around the Ritz-
Carlton are wired in a circuit with other appliances and interior to the building which makes it
harder to troubleshoot and service.
Sunny Vann: Street lighting will be provided along the new and re-developed portions of
the street frontages using separate electrical circuits.
· Parts of this development are within the Holy Cross Electric Association service area so the
electrical plans will also need to be reviewed by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc.
Response:
Sunny Vann: The applicant will review the specific electrical utility service
requirements with Holycross Electric after other conceptual aspects of the project are resolved in
the conceptual planning review.
Streets
· Full-width Roto-milling of existing asphalt pavement and installation of a leveling course
plus 2 inch asphalt overlay is required to support the traffic and the frequent cuts due to
service trenches.
· Utility trenching: Straight asphalt line cutting; 12 inches beyond trench width to establish a
straight neat line plus installation of 4 inch asphalt patch prior to street overlay is required.
Maintain 1/2 inch asphalt lip at concrete gutter pans.
Response:
Jack Reid, Nick Adeh & Phil Overeynder: Explained the need for good quality asphalt
patching at trench cuts and overlaying the street section to provide long term service life of the
street section as practiced by the City of Aspen.
Sunny Vann, A..T. Zabbia & John Sarpa: Emphasized the limited need for the developer to
make new utility cuts but had no objection to providing the requested construction detail for
trench backfilling and repair.
. On-site drainage; Text of application (pg. 43) mentions storm water and snow melt draining
from the project site to City streets which will not be permitted. Drywell inlets or other on-
site drainage system will be allowed if soils permit.
· Post development drainage leaving the site must equal pre-development flows and the
projects must detain run-off by effectively routing the flows through open space for
percolation and evaporation, and allow for pre-development level of discharge in non-
concentrated points.
Response: ~ .
Nick Adeh, Jack Reid & Phil Overeyqder: Explained the drainage problems in the
general area and particularly down MUl Street due to both drainage from parcels fronting the
street and the flows from Aspen Mt. to the south. The goal is to reduce, if not eliminate, surface
storm and snowmelt drainage to the streets and to direct as much drainage to a storm water sewer
system as possible. The limited existing system will need to be evaluated and a comprehensive
DRCM3D96.DOC
3 OF 8
DRAFT
5/25/96
1"""\
,.-,.
F',';~
MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1996 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. Subdivision! PUD, Lots 3 & 5
DRAFT
plan developed which incorporates not only this proposed development, but also the entire
drainage basin north to the Roaring Fork River. To that end, it will take at least eight (8) months
for the City to conduct a study and develop a master drainage plan into which the developer may
coordinate his project.
The City is awaiting the promised geotechnical and environmental reports to be able to make
further evaluations of the existing conditions and potential hazards and limiting conditions.
Lot 5: Of particular concern is the conduction of storm drainage to the existing system on the
west side of the Ritz Carlton, assuming it is sized to accommodate additional flows. Otherwise,
where will on-site drainage systems be constructed to accommodate the flows?
Comment: The existing +-lOOft curb cut on S Galena Street along the southeast side of
Lot 5 will not be permitted in the redeveloped site nor similar curb/driveway feature. A
standard curb, gutter and sidewalk right-of-way profile will be required.
Lot 3: Of particular concern is: I) detaining and routing of the snowmelt drainage from Aspen
Mt. that presently runs down Mill Street; 2) Jack Reid requested a storm drain sewer from Lot 3
down Mill Street and tied into the existing storm drain system; and that properly aligned, shaped
gutters were constructed to contain and direct the street drainage flows within the surface gutters
until reaching a storm drainage catchbasin; 3) design and cost sharing between the City and
developer for the detention and conveyance systems for storm drainage and snowmelt from
Aspen Mt. and Lot 3 itself; quantifying the source and flow pattern of the drainage, i.e. Aspen
Mt. drainage vs. Lot 3 drainage, and surface flows vs. subsurface flows; 4) previous and
proposed impacts due to fill and grading work on the site and the resulting quantities, qualities,
directions and timings of the drainage flows.
Comment: At present the City would not permit development of the site since the City is
unprepared to receive the drainage flows from the site.
Ross Soderstrom: Requested that the developer provide copies of the drainage studies and
information that the developer already has since the submittals provided in the earlier review
process (when the Ritz-Carlton was developed) may not be available in the city files and to
expedite the review/comment/design process.
A.J. Zabbia, Sunny Vann, John Sarpa, Kevin O'Connell, and Ferd Belz:
Lot 5: The proposed building footprint will actually provide more permeable surface area than
presently exists which will provide greater percolation area. As needed, a combination of storm
sewers and retention structures will be installed to convey the surface flows to the existing
system on the west side of the Ritz-Carlton or retain it on-site in sub-surface drainage systems.
Lot 3: The developer maintains that it has completely satisfied its entire obligation to provide
any drainage improvements, other than conventional surface features like curbs and gutters, by
DRCMJD96.DOC
4 OF 8
DRAFT
5/25/96
MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, 1'7';16 Covering Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen MtSubdivlSioll / PUD,Lots 3 & 5
DRAFT
r')
n
posting the $250,000 escrowed account with the City (during the Ritz-Carlton development) to
be applied toward developing a storm drainage master plan and implementing the drainage
improvements. Granting of easements for storm drainage conveyance around or through Lot 3
would be considered.
Comment: Regardless of the satisfaction of the requirements to provide on-site drainage
for Lot 3, the applicant will not be permitted to concentrate the drainage leaving the site in any
manner that will cause undesirable downstream impacts. The previous escrowed moneys only
satisfY the applicants obligations for storm drainage although do not satisfy the requirements
to control or mitigate, as appropriate, erosion, rock-fall, debris flow, avalanche, and other
natural and man-made events and hazards.
Parks and Open Space
At the request of Sunny Vann and John Sarpa, the topics related to parks, open space, and needed
easements will be discussed with the City Parks Dept. in a separate meeting.
Engineering
· Lot 3: Utility easements are required for all utilities (page 43) and at other locations for
future improvements.
Response:
Sunny Vann & John Sarpa: Utility easement would be granted as needed.
· Flood control R-O- W for snow melt/storm drainage must be granted to the City around and
through projects. Since the master plan of primary and secondary conveyance systems is
not in place, this development cannot proceed without dedication ofR-O-W's/easements to
the City.
· Aspen Mountain area drainage master plan study is planned to begin in the near future.
Although this may have been overlooked in previous reviews, the PioneerlV allejo Gulches
Detention/Debris Basin appears to lie in the center of Lot 3. This basin is intended to capture
the snow melt run-offfrom the mountain immediately to the south. (Urban Runoff
Management Plan, August, 1973). This can significantly change as a result of the future
master plan.
· Site generated and off-site storm run-off needs to be addressed in the feasibility study phase
of this project given the location at the base of the mountain in a natural drainage basin. This
needs to be studied and reported on by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. No
storm runoff from soils exposed by excavation and construction shall.b'e permitted to enter
City streets or alleys. Sediment transport or debris from the con~truction site onto City
streets is prohibited and preventative measures that will meet our approval must be employed
by the developer and shown on the construction plans.
DRCM3D96.00C
5 OF 8
DRAFT
5/25/96
(') A
MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, b:l6 Covering Utility Needs Near and Forthe Aspen Mt. SubdIVIsion I PlJD, Lots 3 & 5
DRAFT
· The Mill Street storm sewer needs to be extended further south up Mill Street to receive
drainage before it leaves the development site and to prevent it from entering the City streets.
The drainage design will need to satisfy the City design standards and procedures of Sections
26.88.040 and 26.88.050.
Response:
This entire discussion was incorporated with the above comments regarding storm drainage
conveyance on the lots and the streets with a couple additional points: I) the developer considers
it the City's responsibility to contact SkiCo regarding the impacts of snowmaking and drainage
that pass through Lot 3, in particular; 2) ground water flows are a concern of both the developer
and the City on site and down gradient and should be considered in ajoint effort of the
developer, the City and SkiCo; 3) the developer should be included in development of the flood
control master plan; 4) the developer does not want a retention structure on Lot 3; and 5) the
flood control master plan and the two lots drainage design will continue concurrently with the
conceptual planning and review of the proposed development.
· The entire subdivision will need to meet the City design standards and procedures of Section
26.88.040 and 26.88.050 for subdivisions.
Response:
Sunny Vann, John Sarpa & A.J. Zabbia: The developer intends to comply with the
subdivision design standards.
Comment: Easements and designated areas for snow storage, trash and recycling
containers and utilities will be located on the private property, not in the public rights-of-way,
and shown on the final subdivision plat.
· The developer needs to quantify what impact SkiCo may have in run-off due to snow melt
and erosion through the site and on to public streets.
· The City needs the geotechnical and environmental reports from the applicant to make
further evaluations, e.g. landslide hazard, site drainage, erosion control, sediment transport
control, and slope stabilization.
Response:
This discussion was incorporated into previous discussions above.
· Private Road: Indemnity clause from developer to the City for the publicly accessible but
privately maintained loop into Lot 3 is required with submittals and on plans.
. If the homeowner's assoc. is to be dissolved, this roadway shall be re-constructed/up-graded
I
to City standards and dedicated to the pubiic.
Response:
Sunny Vann: Did not see the reason for this requirement since the road is private and not
open to public traffic.
DRCM3D96.DOC
6 OF 8
DRAFT
5/25/96
() ()
MEMO - Meeting Minutes of April 2, b;>o'Covcring Utility Needs Near and For the Aspen Mt. SUbOhlsion I PUD, Lots 3 & 5
DRAFT
Nick Adeh: Did not remember the exact source of the requirement other than concern for
public access on a proposed private street.
Comment: These review comments originated in the discussion of public access to a
private street and what liability the City may face for damage or injury to the general public who
may use the street. lt is recognized that "private streets" are generally unpopular and that vehicle
traffic will enter the proposed "private street" if for no other purpose than to turn around.
· All the plan (application) sheets need to be submitted on 24" x 36" size sheets.
Response:
Chuck Roth: Pointed out that plans are to be submitted in this format per the subdivision
requirements.
Sunny Vann: This is only a conceptual submittal and it is easier to view the entire
development on the submitted large format.
· The application does not include either a property survey nor a topographic map certified
and stamped by a PLS; submitted "maps" are uncertified, unstamped drawings and sketches.
Response:
Sunny Vann: The maps were taken from the previous submittal and include the recorded
maps.
Comment: The submitted "maps" may have been recorded, i.e. made public record,
however taken out of context of the entire survey, the "map" is not a legal subdivision plat per
Title 38, Article 51, CRS, 1973, as amended. Similarly for the "topographic" survey, without
complete information, it is not a legally binding document for the purposes of property law and
quantitative analysis for proper engineering design. As a conceptual planning tool, it may be
acceptable, butno.t for definition of property boundaries, easements, rights-of-way, etc. and as
such will notbe accepted by this department. Since the final subdivision plats will be recorded,
submittals shall comply with the applicable standards of the Colorado Revised Statues.
. As a note of reference to the Wheeler Opera House view plane, a 5' II" person standing on
the sidewalk in front of the Wheeler Opera House can see all of the existing ski hut higher
than approximately 30 inches above the deck or door sill elevation on the west side of the
hut. The actual projection of the view plane will be reviewed further.
Response:
Sunny V ann: Reiterated that: I) the view plane intersects Aspen Mt. below the proposed
development site; 2) was intended to govern the height of construction in the foreground on
Hyman and Durant Avenues rather than in the background; 3) and that the Ritz-Carlton already
constructively impedes the view plane such as to mostly, if not, entirely hide the proposed new
development.
· Directional crossing (non-diagonal) handicap ramps shall be installed to provide access to
and through the development areas. Curbs, gutters and storm runoff inlets will need to be
located and constructed to retain water within the flow patterns and collection system, and to
DRCM3D96.DOC
7 OF 8
DRAFT
5/25/96
r'j . : ...: .... . (")
MEMO ~ Meeting Minutes of April 2, 17..".1 Covering Utility Needs Ncar and For the Aspen Mt. Subdh .sion I pLiD: Lots 3 & 5
DRAFT
prevent the flooding of handicap ramps, driveways, sidewalks, streets or areas other than into
the designated collection systems.
Response:
Sunny Vann: As above, general geometry and construction requirements and specifications
will be met throughout the project.
Sanitary Sewer Utility
For completeness of review and comment, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, (ACSD),
was requested to participate in the meeting to discuss this utility's requirements on the proposed
development. Tom Bracewell essentially read the several requirements discussed in his letter to
Dave Michaelson of February 29, 1996, emphasizing that: I) fees are collected prior to
commencing work; 2) that the developer would be responsible for the proportionate share of the
costs unless the development necessitated major system expansion; 3) and that clear water
connections to the sanitary sewer system are prohibited.
Response:
SUlmy Vann, A.J. Zabbia & John Sarpa: Acknowledged understanding of the District's
requirements and reiterated that the developer would be responsible for the proportionate share of
the costs for downstream work necessitated by this project.
Post development drainage leaving site must equal pre-development flows and the projects must
detain run-off by effectively routing the flows through open space for percolation and
evaporation, and allow for the pre-development level of discharge in non-concentrated points.
DRCM3D96.DOC
8 OF 8
DRAFT
5/25/96
>
o
f"ri
, . oil
To: Dave Michaelson, Community Development
From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office
Re: Aspen Mountain PUD Housing Requirements
Date: 30 April, 1996
~
I've reviewed the documents approving vario~ parts of the Aspen MOuntain PUD, including approvals of
the Phase I Lodge (Ritz Carlton) and resillential projects at Lot 5 (Grand Aspen) and Top of Mill . Based
on my understanding of these documents, I believe that the housing obligations related to the residential
portions of the Top of Mill and Lot 5 projects have been satisfied. .
The complexity of this whole projects arises because the housing requirements were developed for the
project as a whole, while various parts of the project have been approved separately. However, I think I
can summarize the situation as follows:
The original approvals, memorialized in the first PUD agreement, contain the housing requirements for
the entire project on all 5 lots. The requiiements consist of the following three elements:
. Housing requirements related to the lodge and associated commercial and restanrant space.
. Housing requirements related to 12 GMP Residential allOcations
. Housing requirements related to replacement of existing residential units on the 5 lots.
The first element was subject to amendment as the hotel project ~ refined. The second and third
elements of the reqnirement remained the same throughout the project'
The attached resolution of the Planning and ~l)ing CommissiOn, undel" Sunny Vann's memo, provide the
link among the various project approvals and the housing requirements, SlJfficient to convince me that no
additional housing was to be required for the residential portions of the project. . .
Exhibit "B", attached, outlines the refined housing requirements attached to the Amended PUD
Agreement These figures were subject to an audit of employment after two years of operation at the
hotel. The audit was conducted, and found higher than projected employment Howc:yer, as a part of the
amended PUD Agreement, the developer had provided more units than were required for the hotel,
residential GMP and replacement housing.
,
I
i
!
When 1 recalculate the reqnirements, based on the audit, I finel that the Phase 1 HotelljIld all assocmted
residential development were subject to a requirement to provide housing for 185 employees. Mitigation
for 198.5 employees was provided, as required under the Amended PUD Agreement.
l
,
r-;
f'lI
, /
RITZ_EMP
Residential GMP
Population of Unrestricted Units
4-3 BR's @ 3.0/0.U. (58%)
Employees to be Housed (42%)
12
8.7
12
8.7
Employee Housing Replacement
Employees to be Housed
29.0
29.0
Total Commercial Generation
Total Commercial Credits
Net Commercial Generation
Total Residential Generation
277.0
70.6
206.5
12.0
316.0
70.6
245.5
12.0
Commercial Mitigation @ 60% 123.9 147.3
Residential mitigation @ 42% 8.7 8.7
Replacement Requirement 29.0 29.0
Total Requirement 161. 6 185.0
Total Provided 198.5 198.5
Page 2
11
'-
f"")
'-
BOO<<
574 PAGE857
Employee Gener-a tion for- 110 te 1 Phase I, Galena Place, SUmm i t Place
. and Replacement 1I0using, Cont.
4. Non-Accessory Commer-cial~
'Phase I
New re ta i1
Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Employee generation
o
5. Residential GMP (Lot 4)
Population of unr-estr-icted units
4 3-0Rs @ 3.0/du (581)
Employees to be housed (42%)
12.0
8.7
6. Employee HOusing Replacement
Employees to be housed
Summary of Employees to be Housed
29.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Lodge Opera tions
Accessor-y Pood & Bever-age
I\ccessor-y Retail
Non-Accessor-y Cornmer-c ia 1 GM P
Residential GMP (Lot 4)
Replacement 1I0using
5 0.6
62.6
10.6
_0.0
8.7
29.0
161.5
Total, Lot 1 , Lot 2, Lot 4 and Replacement
Employees to be Housed ._
4"
'"
r'\
"'\.-'.-,n
w
-- -.. .,-
.'
'u-\.r,../" J'.~"'....~..'"\ .'-', _'
" 3;; "'[.-b:'~7'l::~,
,;,~ ....' ~ . /.':'\.
../.. '-:.4',:
....~ '.
April 4, 1996
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
ifl>.........
i,A~~.r< 1996
,
;
,
\
I
" ",..<...t '.' .
Robert Blaich
Marta Chaikovska
Sara Garton
Roger Hunt
Timothy Mooney
Jasmine Tygre
Steven Buettow
Re: Aspen Mountain Planned Development
Dear Commission Member:
The Aspen Snowmass Lodging Company manages 9 properties on Galena, Mill, Dean and
Summit Streets which are affected, in some way, by the proposed redevelopment plan submitted
by Savannah Partnership at the March 19th meeting.
Overall I have had numerous homeowners say they are impressed with the proposed development
and applaud the initial plan.
A number of the Associations will have Board Members present at the April 9th meeting.
Summarized below are some of their concerns:
1. Grand Aspen Hotel Site Lots #5 & #6
A. Alpenblick Townhomes - Located on the south side of Lot 5, site of 8 proposed
townhomes.
1. Height of the new townhomes and obstruction of views from the second floor
bedrooms facing town. The construction drawings elevation plan implies 42
feet above grade, but only 29.5 feet on page 40 of the Spec Book. Which is
correct?
2. The Board has concerns about movement that may occur when the foundation
hole is dug, and that stress fractures in the Alpenblick buildings will result.
What precautions and assurances will be given to the Association to limit
potential problems and, if problems arise, to expedite any necessary repairs
to make the buildings sound?
.747 Galena Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 970.925.2260 800.321.7025 Fax, 970.925.2264.
"
:1>.,-
~
~
Pg. #2
3. The proposed 53 foot height of the 22 unit condominium complex is a
concern. Presently, each townhome in Alpenblick buildings A & C have a
view across town.
B. Tipple Inn Condominiums - 516 S. Dean Street
- Located east of the proposed 22 unit condominium complex on Lot #5.
1. The Association is requesting that the 9 Silver Circle parking spaces, eliminated
in the proposed plan, be redesignated. Suggestions include: additional
parking in the Ritz garage or in the proposed under-ground garage.
2. The 53 foot height comprising the middle section of the proposed 22 unit
condominium complex is an item of concern. I have not been able to
determine the end height of the complex on the comer of Galena and Dean
Streets. Ultimately, the Association does not want existing views
compromised.
3. The Association is unclear if the new 22 unit condominium complex will be
moved closer to the Silver Circle. If plans indicate that the building will be
moved closer, TippIe Inn Association is concerned that the down valley view
will be obstructed.
C. Galena Place Condominiums - 616 S. Galena St.
- Located east of Lot #5
1. Height is a concern for the proposed townhomes and the 22 unit condominium
complex.
2. The Association has concerns over structural cracking and building movement.
They require assurances regarding reparations, as does Alpenblick Townhomes.
D. Durant Condominium Association - 718 S. Galena St.
- Located south east of Lot #5
1. Height of both complexes is a concern to the Association. They do not want
views of town and Shadow Mountain obstructed.
2. They also have concerns regarding structural movement.
Association representatives may bring up other questions and comments regarding Lots #5 & #6
at the April 9th meeting, but I think I have highlighted their greatest concerns.
'll.. . .......
^
A
Pg #3
II. Top of Mill Street - Site Lot #3
A. Fifth Avenue Condominium Association - 800 S. Mill St.
- Located north of the proposed duplexes and east of proposed triplexes.
1. The Fifth Avenue Association will hold its 1996 Annual Meeting on Saturday,
April 13th. At that time I expect to discuss all aspects of the proposed
development. I will forward all items of concern, highlighted at that meeting,
to you.
2. Height of the proposed duplexes, nearest to the Fifth Ave., may be an issue.
B. Summit Place Condominiums - 750 Summit St.
- Located north of proposed triplexes.
1. The Association requests that the entrance to the triplex development be
relocated, entering from Mill St. (between the two triplexes) instead. Summit
Street is very narrow and allows only one lane traffic during the winter
months. The street cannot accommodate additional traffic.
Savannah Partnership should be applauded for addressing many items of concern in the plans.
The Associations we manage look forward to working with the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Savannah Partnership, ensuring a neighborhood we can alllive with and enjoy.
If you have questions or comments prior to the April 9th meeting, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING COMPANY
o ~~.J.J eLJ!
Douglas L. Nehasil
Vice President
cc: Dave Michaelson
John Sarpa
n
, ;.j
r
r
Neighborhood Character
Design Guidelines
for Core Area Neighborhoods
in the
City of Aspen, Colorado
July, 1994
n
City of Aspen
City Council
John Bennett, Mayor
Augie Reno, Mayor Pro Tem
Teny Paulson
Rachel Richards
Georgeanne Waggaman
Historic Preservation Committee
Joe Krabacher, Chair
Bill Poss, Past Chair
Karen Day
Donnelly Erdman
Les Holst
Martha Madsen
Roger Moyer
Linda Smisek
Jake Vickery
Tom Williams
Planning Department
Diane Moore,
City Planning Director
Amy Amidon,
Project Manager/ Planner
f)
Credits
Consultants
Winter & Company
Planning' Urban Design' Historic Preservation
775 Poplar Avenue
Boulder, Colorado 80304
303-440-8445
Norc~ V. Winter
Julia Husband
Elizabeth Shears
r'\
(
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1
General Guidelines fo Ail Core Area Neighbohoods
Chapter 2
The East Aspen Neighborhood
Chapter 3
The West End Neighborhood
Chapter 4
The Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood
Chapter 5
The Shadow Mountain Neighborhood
Chapter 6
The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood
f)
1
7
13
19
27
33
39
f"""l
n
j
r"'\
Historic buildings, including those outside of historic
districts, contribute to the character of Aspen's
neighborhoods and should be preserved.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
n
Introduction
The design guidelines that follow apply to neighbor-
hoods in the core of Aspen. Their purpose is to
promote new buildings and alterations to existing
structures thatwill be compatible with the traditional
character of Aspen while also encouraging creative
design. Neighborhood boundaries are defined spe-
cifically for the guidelines and are drawn to re-
flect the distinct character of the sub-areas of the
traditional, close-in neighborhoods of Aspen. At the
same time, the boundaries follow generally under-
stood neighborhood definitions and also follow zon-
ing districts when feasible.
These guidelines apply to neighborhoods that are not
locally designated as historic districts, and therefore
the Commercial Core and Main Street Historic Dis-
tricts are not addressed in this document. Guidelines
for those areas are included in the city's Historic
District and Historic Land1mlrk Development Guidelines.
The following neighborhoods are included
in these design guidelines:
.
East Aspen Neighborhood
West End Neighborhood
Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood
Shadow Mountain Neighborhood
Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood
.
.
.
.
The boundaries of these neighborhoods are defined
On the accompanying map.
The tradition of design in Aspen
Early newspaper accounts document debates about
the appropriateness of street lighting and sidewalk
construction in the city, and the drive to plant street
trees received wide play in the press. The appearance
of a new mining Structure or a downtown commer-
cial building was heralded as evidence of progress in
the community and testimony to the city's durability.
Page 1
(),
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is an example of an architectural
design that was actively debated by Aspen residents.
Page 2
1""\
" ;1
When skiing began and mountain chalet architecture
was introduced, this also contributed to the debate
about design and the concern for community iden-
tity.
In part, recent design discussions have focused On
historic preservation issues. The city formalized a
design review process for locally designated historic
landmarks and districts in 1972, when the council
adopted an ordinance establishing the Aspen His-
toric Preservation Committee and a procedure for
reviewing proposed alterations to properties within
its jurisdiction.
The City then published policies about design for the
Preservation Commission in 1988, when the City
Council adopted the Historic District and Historic
lAndmark Development Guidelines, upon recommen-
datiOn of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commit-
tee. The historic preservation guidelines apply to the
historic overlay districts, which presently are the
Commercial Core and Main Street, as well as to
individually designated historic structures through-
out the city. The Historic Preservation Committee
uses these guidelines when considering the appro-
priateness of proposed alterations to existing build-
ings or evaluating new construction in historic dis-
tricts.
Aspen residents have also actively debated architec-
tural design outside of the historic districts for years.
They most recently focused On design issues in the
Aspen Area Community Plan, which notes that: "The
diversity of opinions about Aspen is one of its great
traditions..." A few years ago, design debates focused
On creating the pedestrian mall downtown, the de-
sign of the Pitkin County Library and conStruction of
the Rio Grande parking garage. More recent discus-
sions have included the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, the Har-
ris Concert Hall and affordable housing develop-
ments.
The underlying concepts of the design
guidelines
It is important to understand the nature and intent of
the guidelines. They are meant to shape and influ-
ence the character of design, but they do not mandate specific design solutions. They make a distinction
between "creativity" and simply being "different."
n
Creative solutions that are compatible with the de-
sired character of a neighborhood are strongly en-
couraged in Aspen, while designS that seek to con-
trastwith the established context simply for the sake
of being different are discouraged. The guidelines
focus on basic principles of urban design that pro-
mote a sense of neighborhood identity and will en-
hance livability for long-term residents and visitors
alike.
The guidelines focus on one's perception of buildings
as seen from the "public way," which generally means
the street, but may at times also refer to an alley way.
They seek to promote a pedestrian-friendly environ-
ment that is based on the traditional scale and charac-
ter of the community.
The guidelines also promote a concept of building
that is "native" to Aspen. While "Native Aspen" is
difficult to precisely describe, it relates to the charac-
ter of building materials, the mass and form of struc-
tures, and the extent of detail that is used on them.
Generally speaking, these materials are simple, such
as painted clapboard, red brick, and rough-cut,ashiar
stone. Unfinished metal also is a part of the Aspen
tradition in some neighborhoods. By contrast, pol-
ished marble, shiny brass and mirror glass are not a
part of the native palette.
By and large, the basic native character of Aspen is
simple in design, with modest details. Buildings are
relatively small, in human scale. As a result, they
provide visual interest to pedestrians. In most neigh-
borhoods, buildings usually relate to each other in
"sets" along the street, often reflecting similar set-
backs, materials and orientation on the site.
Buildings are often of stick construction and they are
composed of linear, modular elements. Siding is of a
human scale and openings are similar in dimensions.
Other structures are masonry and these, too, exhibit
similar scale and openings. Trim around windows
and doors is substantial, but not exaggerated in size.
Most buildings have a distinct" cap," usually a gable
roof with moderate overhangs at the eaves. In virtu-
ally all cases, Native Aspen buildings have modest
entrances, which are oriented to the street, and land-
scaping that is simple, relying upon established local
species.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
(j
Introduction
It is important to note that while these characteristics
are found in historic buildings, they also are seen
across a spectrum of building periods and types,
including many that are not historically significant
structures. Early ski chalets, Bauhaus buildings and
1950s apartments share these basic design features
with their mining-era cousins. They all embody de-
sign features that have been a part of traditional
building in Aspen for more than 100 years. New
building that follows in the coming decades, there-
fore, should respect these established characteristics.
Types of construction considered
The design guidelines focus on "infill," that is new
buildings constructed in the context of established
Structures. They also apply to existing builclings
when alterations are planned that will affect the
exterior appearance as seen from the public way.
The context considered for a design
In general, the "context" of a project is defined as
those surrounding buildings and site features that
are in view when standing on the street edge of the
lot in question. It includes both sides of the street.
In many cases, the "block face," that is those
buildings within the block on both sides of the
street, are considered the immediate context.
However, some of the features that establish the
context for the project are scattered throughout the
neighborhood. In these cases, the context is much
broader and includes features found in a wider
reach than the immediate block.
The theoretical basis for the design
guidelines
The design principles that are presented in these
guidelines are founded on established community
policies. Of particular note is the direction estab-
lished in the Aspm Area Community Plan, (AACP)
which calls for neighborhood-based design guide-
lines and establishes a theoretical framework for
their application.
Page 3
f)
New buildings should be designed to respect the existing
character of historic structures, such at this one, which
may be found nearby.
Page 4
n
The Community Plan addresses five areas of concern,
"Growth," "Housing," "Transportation," IIOpen
Space, Recreation & Environment," and "Character."
Each of these categories includes policies thatrecom-
mend the use of design guidelines that are "Charac-
ter-Based." As a part of the planning process, a citizen
committee produced a "Community Character Analy-
sis" in fall, 1991. These guidelines build on that
analysis.
The plan provides clear direction for promoting de-
sign that will enhance neighborhood character by
encouraging building designs that will improve liv-
ability, reduce house sizes and integrate neighbor-
hoods in terms of visual appearance.
The Community Plan recommends that the city con-
sider the quality of design when reviewing projects,
such as through the Growth Management Quota
System. The plan further states that" ...housing should
be compatible with the scale and character of the
community and should emphasize quality construc-
tion and design.."
The Community Plan also addresses commercial and
retail development. A special concern expressed is
that the small lodges that have been a part of Aspen's
tradition remain a viable part of the community
because: "These small lodges immediately set the
stage for the guest experience in Aspen. These lodges
promote a sense of scale and feel that provide the
visitor with a transition into the uniqueness of Aspen.
The community must find ways to maintain these
small lodges and the experience they offer to our
guests."
The character of landscaping is also a concern. The
plan expresses concern for the preservation and re-
placement of existing trees when they are lost be-
cause of development. The plan favors preservation
of the ditch irrigation system and therefore these
issues are addressed in the guidelines that follow.
The Community Plan notes that provisions of the
town's Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan should be
implemented. That plan, which promotes a pedes-
trian-friendly environment as a means of encourag-
ing the use of alternative modes of transportation,
also focused on the needs of individual neighbor-
hoods. Enhancing the street as a welcoming place for
pedestrians and bicyclists, therefore, is an underly-
ing concept behind many of the guidelines that fol-
low.
f")
Design Quality and Historic Preservation
Policies in the Community Plan
The Design Quality component of the Community
Plan specifically calls for the development of "Char-
acter Guidelines" for neighborhoods that are not
designated historic districts to assist new develop-
ment in fitting within the context of existing neigh-
borhoods.
The plan states that: "The importance of quality infill
design within the larger historic setting is recognized
as being a vital component to our economic well
being." While encouraging an "integrated" image,
the plan also praises a reasonable diversity in archi-
tecture: "Modem buildings, woven throughout the
traditional townsite and along the hillsides, create an
eclectic design quality that contributes to the small-
town uniqueness of ourcommunity."Theseconcepts
also are expressed in the guidelines that follow.
Goals for these design guidelines
Given the direction that the Community Plan' so
strongly mandates and the city's tradition with de-
sign review, the following goals are established for
the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines. When
considering the appropriateness of a proposed de-
sign with respect to the design guidelines, one should
also detennine if the project would help to accom-
plish the following.
Goal A: To preserve established neighborhood
character where it exists
Neighborhood character may be defined by the scale
of buildings, the use of traditional materials, and an
orientation to pedestrians. Street plans and plats are
distinctive characteristics of individual neighbor-
hoods and should be respected. Descriptions of the
character of each of the neighborhoods are provided
in the text that follows. Respecting established mate-
rial palettes, building form and massing will help to
preserve neighborhood character.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
(")
Introduction
Goal B: To enhance the livability of individual
neighborhoods for their residents
Livability is enhanced with an inviting pedestrian
experience, which also promotes use of alternative
modes of transportation. Preserving a pedestrian-
friendly, human scale that will encourage long-term
residential use is a goal as well. Promoting a sense of
neighborhood identity, by encouraging a sense of
visual relatedness among buildings, also will en- .
hance livability. This especially applies to neighbor-
hoods that are more diverse architecturally. To do so,
buildings should appear in scale, and have fronts that
have clearly defined entrances that relate to the street.
Goal C: To encourage creativity in new design
New buildings should not imitate historic styles, but
must be compatible with them. Creativity does not
mean being so radically different that the sense of
neighborhood is destroyed. Creativity is a tradition
in Aspen which should be continued, within the
bounds of compatibility. The goal is to seek a balance
between having all buildings be similar and having
new buildings be completely different from their
contexts. The basic building elements should be simi-
lar to those established, but detailS should be cre-
ative, interesting and delightful variations on tradi-
tion.
Goal D: To preserve individual historic resources
of Aspen
Historic resources include buildings, structures, sites
and objects. Individual historic structures are found
throughout the core area, as well as in districts; these
are from a range of periods. Their preservation and
adaptive re-use should be supported and new, sur-
rounding development should respect these re-
sources.
Goal E: To promote the use of alternative modes of
transportation
When the scale and character of a neighborhood is
inviting to pedestrians, they are encouraged to use
alternative means of transportation, which also is a
goal of the community. These pleasant streetscapes
also provide attractive settings for transit stops.
Page 5
f'1
How the guidelines are organized
The guidelines are organized into two major sections:
The first section includes design guidelines that ap-
ply to all of the designated neighborhoods. These are
usually broad in nature and address design variables
that are common to all areas. The second section
includes design guidelines forneighborhoods. These
apply to development within the selected areas, in
addition to the general guidelines that apply to all
neighborhoods.
Each of the five following neighborhoods possess
unique qualities. This distinction inneighborhoods is
a key to the diversity of Aspen, and conservation of
that diversity is a major underlying concept of the
guidelines.
All of the neighborhoods are primarily residential in
character. Some of them have a relatively consistent
architectural image, while the visual character of
others is affected by their mixed uses. The guidelines
reflect this difference.
How the guidelines may be used
These guidelines serve as advisory materials for a
variety of applications, including special reviews
and planned unit development projects. Forexample,
they may apply to special reviews conducted by
planning staff and the Planning Commission. They
also may apply to design review applications as
suggested in the Aspen Community Plan, such as
those considered by the Public Project Review Group
(PPRG) and GMQS evaluations. .
When considering such reviews, the guidelines ap-
ply to all building in the designated areas, except that
certain public buildings may be designed to be differ-
entiated from the urban fabric, to serve as accents,
and therefore other special review criteria may ap-
ply.
The guidelines are also for voluntary use where city
reviews do not apply. Property owners are encour-
aged to consider the guidelines when planning alter-
ations, new construction and site improvement be-
cause to do so will help assure that the pedestrian-
oriented, human-scaled character that is a part of
Aspen's tradition will be continued.
Page 6
n
The "mass" of a structure is considered to be its
overall building volume or bulk, as itis perceived
from the public way. The "scale" of a structure is
it perceived size and proportions. A project con~
veys a "human" scale if it includes building mate-
rials and components that are similar in size to
those which can be expressed in terms of human
proportions. For example, a brick is of a size that
can be held in the hand and its size understood by
one who touches or sees it.
Note:
When determining the appropri-
ateness of a proposed design, con-
sider how the project will help
accomplish the design goals listed
on page 5, in addition to how it
will meet the relevant design
guidelines.
rJ
~~
~
h- =i~
.#f~! -=-
~":i!:'I"=--'I'I. ,== \
~';:!", . ";;;;i~:l
-=1-';0;; . -',""';:;::':..."- J~
-.='~l-T . ._'~"~
&~'i"
~i' Ii' '='-h=;.j=l, 1
-"}'1i~~;I~~~$~
~I'=~!~~~;.".C'
.- iZ' ~. .
:< 0=
""'.- .
~.
".
All buildings should help to establish a sense of hU1Tl1ln
scale that is inviting to pedestrians. through the use of
porches. appropriately-scaled windows. architectural
details and other s1Tl1lller components of construction.
Existing,
smaller
building
Proposed,
larger
buildIng
Step buildings down in scale as they approach s1Tl1lller
adjacent structures.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
f)
Chapter 1
General Guidelines for
All Core Area
Neighborhoods
These design guidelines apply to all the neighbor-
hoods identified on the neighborhood character
boundaries map.
Mass & Scale
1. All buildings should help establish a
sense of human scale that is inviting to
pedestrians.
a. In Aspen, a "pede, ,:rian friendly," scale is not
monumental; it is relatively small in scale and
relates to the size of building components seen
historically.
2. New buildings should appear to be
similar in scale to those in the established
neighborhood, or to the scale that is
desired for the neighborhood.
a. Where portions of a new building would be
larger than buildings seen traditionally, set the
greater mass back from the street to reduce its
perceived scale.
b. Divide larger projects into modules that are
similar to those of buildings seen traditionallyin
the neighborhood.
c. Step buildings down in scale as they approach
smaller adjacent structures.
d. Locate some floor area in secondary Structures,
to reduce the overall mass and scale of building
on the site.
e. Use windows and doors that are similar in size
and shape to those seen traditionally to help
establish a sense of scale.
Page 7
r')
Building entrances should be similar in scale to those
seen traditionally.
~~D
I ,
'~i
'i---
,- ~
~ --
-
~
..
Steep slopes on roofs, similar to those seen traditionally,
are preferred.
Page 8
n
3. The street elevation of a building
should be designed to appear in scale with
those seen traditionally.
a. Standard architectural features should also be
in scale.
4. Building entrances should be similar
in scale to those seen traditionally.
a. Avoid "grand" entries that would be signifi-
cantly larger than the scale of those seen tradi-
tionally.
Building Form
5. All buildings should use roof and
building forms that establish a sense of
visual continuity for the community, by
repeating typical forms.
a. For buildings, rectangular building forms are
encouraged. Compound forms that are result of
combining these simp Ie rectangular forms are
also appropriate.
b. For roofs, gable forms are preferred especially in
residential areas. Steep slopes on roofs, similar
to those seen traditionally, are preferred. Sub-
stantial overhangs are typical and should be
used.
c. For appurtenances, such as dormers, wings and
porches, variety is encouraged, but an overall,
simple character should be retained.
o
Site Design
6. Orient the primary entrance of a
building toward the street.
a. The primary fa<;ade should help establish a pe-
destrian scale and provide visual interest.
b. In some areas, a uniform set-back. establishes a
building line; in other neighborhoods, they lie
within a narrow range of set-backs. This site
plan relationship is an important characteristic.
Respect set-back. and alignment patterns where
they exist.
d. Avoid setting entries below the level of the
sidewalk, such that access is from a sunken front
yard. Yards should be near sidewalk level.
e. Reflect the platted grid where it exists, by ori-
enting building walls such that they reinforce
the perception of the neighborhood grid.
7. Place the building entry at an elevation
that is similar to those seen traditionally in
the neighborhood.
a. Where raised foundations were used tradition-
ally, a new building should be set at a similar
elevation.
b. Avoid the use of sunken tenaces to provide a
primary entrance at a level lower than that seen
traditionally.
8. Where feasible, locate structures such
that they maintain solar access to adjacent
properties.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
f}
General Guidelines
APPROPRIATE ORIl!NTAnON~
r..---.l----,- "1-'-",
f I : I
, i I !
I , , ,
1~!0>Iq]irn
, I~ I '
L-___L ..-L-__L___-1
INAPPROPRIATE ORIENTATION
Reflect the platted grid where it exists, by orienting
building walls such that they reinforce the perception of
the neighborhood grid.
No!
Avoid setting entries below the level of the sidewalk,
such that access isfrom a sunkenfront yard. Yards
should be near sidewalk level.
Page 9
o
Building materials also should help to establish a sense
ofhU1lll11t scale andfit with their setting. Brick and wood
clapboard are traditional materials that convey a sense
of human scale..
Trim has
appropriate
depth
Trim depth
is too
thin
D
- r
II'
D
Yes
No
Trim elements. such as those around a window, should
be in scale with similar ones that were used
traditional/yo Their dimensions should be substantial.
without appearing oversized.
Page 10
()
.,'.l
Building Materials
9. Use natural, indigenous building
materials to establish a sense of continuity
throughout the community.
a. Building materials also should help to establish
a sense of human scale and fit with their setting.
b. Typical building materials are native stone, red
brick and painted, wooden clapboard. Their use
is encouraged. Log construction also may be
considered in some neighborhoods. Synthetic
materials are generally inappropriate.
C. Materials should have a demonstrated durabil-
ity in similar applications.
d. Greater variety may be considered for trim ma-
terials, however natural, "native" materials are
also preferred for these elements.
e. Appropriate materials for sloped roofs are wood
or composition shingles and metal panels, such
as standing seam.
Architectural Features
10. Architectural features that enhance the
pedestrian experience are encouraged.
a. Windows, doors and other features should beof
a human scale and configured to invite pedes-
trian activity.
b. Creativity, and even whimsy, in the treatment
of architectural finishes and details is especially
encouraged, when these features are compat-
ible with the established character of the neigh-
borhood.
C. This is an area in which it is appropriate to
distinguish new building from old, by using
details that are recognized as being new.
. d. Trimelements, suchas around windows,should
be in scale with those used traditionally, and
should be substantial, without appearing over-
sized.
e. The primary entrance should be clearly defined.
f)
11. Minimize the visual appearance of
solar collectors and skylights.
a. These elements are generally new to mostneigh-
borhoods in Aspen, and their use can alter the
character of the neighborhood.
b. Locate skylights and solar collectors away from
the street elevation where feasible.
c. Position skylights and solar collectors such that
they are flush with the roof line when feasible.
Garages
12. Minimize the visual impact of garages.
a. In residential areas, detached garages are pre-
ferred. This will help reduce the perceived mass
of the overall development.
b. In residential areas, locate garages to the rear
when feasible. If they must be accessed from the
street, locate them to the side of the primary
structure, not in front.
c. Where garages are visible from the street, use
the smallest garage doors possible, to reduce
their visual impact. Treat the door to appear
similar to the background siding materials.
d. When garages are to be attached, minimize the
percentage of overall building front that is allo-
cated to garages. The width of the garage should
be less than 50% of the building frontage. Single
car garages are preferred (for "Single family
houses).
e. When a garage is to be attached and face the
street, slope the driveway downward toward
the building to reduce the perceived height of
the garage. Locate the garage level slightly be-
low grade, to minimize its perceived mass.
f. Inlargedevelopmetlts, also minimize the amount
of ground floor wall area that is allocated to
garage openings.
l
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
r-,
.^ >1
General Guidelines
Position slcylights and solar collectors szu:h thaJ they are
flush with the roof line when feasible.
t;: ::-;t r---------+
~.-.--- I
I r-----r I I
I I I I I I
! ~-----~ I I'
I 1 I
! ! I i
I' i I !
I , I
: i I
PREFERRED I I IlQLJl ROT
, ' I lRECOMMENDED
, 1 L. ---..
In residential areas, locate garages to the rear when
feasible.
Where garages are visible from the street, use the
smallest garage doors possible. to redzu:e their visual
impact. Double doors, such as these, are discouraged.
,
Page 11
fl
Minimize the visual impacts of service areas, as they are
seen from the street.
All historic structures in Aspen should be preserved.
Many have experienced alterations that are not in
keeping with their historic character. In this case.
asphalt siding obscures the original wood siding. Such
buildings should be rehabilitated, using the city's
preservation guildelines.
In addition to these generai guidelines, also see the
relevant neighborhood guidelines:
East Aspen Neighborhood pg. 13
West End Neighborhood pg.19
Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood pg. 27
Shadow Mountain Neighborhood pg.33
Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood pg.39
Page 12
(")
)'
Driveways
13. Minimize the visual appearance of
driveways and parking surfaces.
a.
In residential projects, locate parking areas to
the side or rear of the building. Providing a
semi-circulardrive across the front lawn is inap-
propriate.
Avoid creating pull-in parking along the entire
front of a property. This erodes the definition of
the front yard.
Minimize the amount of hard paving surfaces
that are used in parking lots.
Differentiate drive paving materials from that
of the street. This will help to reduce perceived
scale. Decorative patterns are encouraged. Po-
rous materials are encouraged.
Landscape the edges of parking lots.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Service Areas
14. Minimize the visual im pacts of service
areas as seen from the street.
a. Locate service areas to the rear and provide
access from an alley when feasible.
b. Screen service areas with fences and plantings.
Impact on Historic Buildings
15. Preserve historic structures
throughout the community.
a. Minimize negative impacts on historic struc-
tures when planning alterations.
b. For treatment of older buildings that may have
historic significance, see also the City's Historic
District & Historic Uindmark Droelopmtmt Guide-
lines.
16. New buildings should avoid negative
impacts on adjacent historic properties.
a. This applies to individually designated proper-
ties throughout town.
b. Largernew buildings should step down in scale
as they approach adjacent historic structures.
c. The edges of historic districts are especially
sensitive. New development should step down
in scale, or provide greater separation between
historic buildings and new construction in these
areas.
r')
The East Aspen Neighborhood.
Log siding is among the building materials found in
East Aspen that convey a sense of being "native." Such
materials are preferred.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
()
Chapter 2
The East Aspen
Neighborhood
The East Aspen Neighborhood is approximately
bounded by Spring Street on the west, Waters Av-
enue on the south, and the Roaring Fork River on the
east and north. See the attached map for specific
neighborhood boundaries.
The character of East Aspen
East Aspen began as a residential area for miners and
as a result, early miner's cottages are scattered
throughout the neighborhood. The magic of this part
of town is contained in the remnants of what was the
working core of Aspen. The train passed through the
area from Independence Pass and this, along with the
water works and the hundreds of small miners cabins
that existed, conveyed a feeling that Aspen was a
vital community, filled with young miners searching
for riches.
Early in the development of skiing in Aspen, the East
Aspen Neighborhood began to accommodate winter
visitors in skilodgingwhichaveraged two stories in
height. Many of these buildings convey a sense of
alpine architecture, with exposed wood rafters, wood
trim and stucco walls. Balconies overhang the fronts
of buildings, providing depth to the facades. These
small lodges varied in scale and character from the
earlier mining cabins, providing contrast in the
streetscape. The area remained scaled to the pedes-
trian.
Today, the neighborhood has a mixed scale, with a
collection of single family and multi-family units.
Street edges and yards are clearly defined, with a
variety of plantings and fences. Some portions of the
neighborhood developed with curvilinear streets,
although the majority are rectilinear. The river has
been an important feature in this neighborhood, shap-
ing some building lots and terminating some streets.
Sidewalks are intennittent at present, but the City's
pedestrian plan calls for completing them. In time,
therefore, this area will be even more attractive to
pedestrians. The area is especially important because
it stands as the eastern entrance into the traditional
core of Aspen and its character sets the expectation of
what is to follow.
Page 13
A
It is increasingly critical that the remnants of the
mining days that are found in East Aspen be pre-
served, or Aspen will forever lose its ability to visu-
ally trace its roots to the miners and workers that
made Aspen the community that it was. Slightly
more than twenty historic sites survive in the neigh-
borhood. Most are very simple miner's cottages, one-
and-one-half stories high, with the gable end ori-
ented to the street. Materials are varied, and include
log and clapboard siding. These miningera buildings
should be preserved whenever feasible. Similarly,
the early ski lodges also convey a sense of history and
these should be preserved whenever feasible.
Large scale, single family houses and large scale,
multi-family buildings have more recently appeared
in the neighborhood. This trend will change the scale
of the neighborhood if future new buildings are not
configured to appear similar in mass and scale to
those seen traditionally. New building also must
enhance the street as a pedestrian experience by
presenting facades that are visually interesting.
Design goals for the East Aspen
Neighborhood
Given the tradition of building in East Aspen and the
concern for preservation of early resources and for
the quality of new buildings, the City holds these
design goals for the East Aspen Neighborhood:
Goall. To strengthen the traditional scale of single
family residential buildings
New single family housing should appear to be in
scale with housing seen traditionally, to the greatest
extent possible.
Goal 2. To develop accommodations buildings that
are more compatible with neighborhood
character
Page 14
n
Even though multi-family uses are anticipated in
addition to single family housing, all development
should, to the greatest extent possible, relate to the
traditional scale of single family housing. Breaking
up the massing of new buildings into a set of smaller
forms will help to achieve this.
Goal 3. To promote a sense of integration in the
neighborhood for new buildings
New buildings should embody the forms, scale, ma-
terials and character seen traditionally in the neigh-
borhood.
Goal 4. To encourage development of new build-
ings that will relate to the proposed side-
walks in this area and thereby enhance the
walking experience in the neighborhood.
Buildings should have primary entrances at or near
grade, that are oriented to the street to provide a sense
of human scale. Facades should be designed to ap-
pear similar in scale as well.
I'"}
Traditionally, the width of a plane of a building front
rangedfromfifteen to thirty feet wide. New buildings
should continue to express these proportions.
Entries should be in scale with those seen traditionally.
"Grand" entries, such as this, are inappropriate.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
(")
Design Guidelines for the
East Aspen Neighborhood
The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all
projects in the East Aspen Neighborhood, in addition
to the chapter of General Guidelines for All Neigh-
borhoods. When considering the appropriateness of
a project with respect to these guidelines, also con-
sider how the project will help to accomplish the
design goals for the neighborhood.
Mass & Scale
17. New building should be sensitive in
scale to existing, smaller buildings in the
neighborhood.
a. Buildings should appear to be similar in scale to
traditional residential Structures of the East As-
pen neighborhood. This is especially important
in this neighborhood.
b. Divide larger projects into modules that are
similar to those of buildings seen traditionally.
Traditionally, facade widths for single family
houses ranged from 15 feet to 30 feet wide.
c. Step buildings down in scale as they approach
adjacent smaller structures.
d. Locate some floor area in secondary structures,
to reduce the overall mass and scale of building
on the site.
e. To help establish a sense of scale, use windows
and doors that are similar in size and shape to
those seen traditionally.
Building form
18. Building forms should appear similar
to those used traditionally in Aspen.
a. See the General Guidelines.
Page 15
rJ
"
I
i il
I
.
;a a
D mn
.~ . J ~l
--
8
8
Divide larger projects into modules that are similar to
those seen traditionally.
Gable roof fonns are preferred.
Avoid sunken terraces or drives that separate the yard
from the street level.
Page 16
t)
Site plan
19. Provide a front yard in all develop-
ment.
a. Clearly define the yard.
b. Minimize the amount of paving that is exposed
to street.
20. Buffer edges of the site from adjacent
properties with fences or hedges.
a. Fences should be low and open in character
especially in front of the building.
b. See also the general guidelines.
21. Locatetheprimaryflooratornear side-
walk grade.
a. Avoid sunken terraces that separate the main
entrance from the street level.
Materials
22. Use "natural, or native" building
materials.
a. Finished clapboard, log and masonry are appro-
priate.
b. See also the General Guidelines for All Neigh-
borhoods.
c. Greater variety in trim materials and those of
windows and doors is appropriate in this neigh-
borhood.
Windows & Doors
-23. Use windows and doors that are
similar in size and shape to those seen
traditionally to help establish a sense of
seal e. .
24. The solid-to-void ratio, as seen from
the street, should be similar to that seen
traditionally in residential areas of Aspen.
f')
i\rcrutecturalfeatures
25. The use of porches is strongly
encouraged.
a. Provideporches, oriented to the street and scaled
to be similar to those seen historically.
26. Oearly identify the primary entrance.
a. The entry should be in scale with those seen
traditionally in residential areas of Aspen.
b. Use doors similar in scale to those seen tradi-
tionally in residential areas of Aspen.
c. Consider a central, shared entry for multi-fam-
ily units that would appear to be a single, domi-
nant entry.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
t"")
East Aspen
Provide a porch, which is oriented to the street and
scaled to be similar to tlwse seen historically.
Page 17
f""\
tJ
Page 18
11
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
n
Chapter 3
The West End Neighborhood
The West End Neighborhood is approximately
bounded on its southern edge by the east-west alley
that lies north of Main Street, by Castle Creek on the
west and the Roaring Fork River on the north, and
Monarch Street on the east. See the attached map for
specific neighborhood boundaries.
Historic character of the West End
Neighborhood
During the mining boom years, the West End was
densely developed as a residential neignborhood
and included a variety of wood frame Structures.
Masonry buildings could also be found. Even early in
its history the neighborhood had strong sense of
identity, because buildings held many similarities in
their designs.
Development generally followed the rectilinear grid
of the city and wide streets were laid out. Trees and
irrigation ditches edged the streets. Vegetation was
well-established, appearing in many early photos;
the street trees were irrigated with ditches. No side-
walks were constructed here; people simply walked
in the streets. Buildings were oriented to reflect the
grid, with the primary entrance facing the street. The
simple, rectilinear forms of the buildings were set
parallel to side lot lines, further expressing the tradi-
tional grid layout.
A typical house form emphasized verticality, be-
cause its foot print was relatively small in compari-
son to its height. TIlls was true for one, one-and-a-
half, and two-story houses. A typical lot size was
6,000 square feet, and a house ranged from 1,000 to
2,200 square feet. TIlls often was stacked on more
than one floor. Perhaps by coincidence and perhaps
by design, building sizes seemed to correlate to lot
sizes: Larger houses were typically on larger lots,
frequently with substantial side yards.
Building types included miner's cottages, catalogue
homes and large two-and-a-haIf story houses. Most
houses had a solid-to-void ratio that was similar to
others in the neighborhood. Typically, the front wall
was more solid than void.
Page 19
A
!
After mining declined, the neighborhood saw little
new building, until skiing stimulated investment in
the area. Rustic log houses and chalets appeared in
the 1940sand50s,and Bauhaus-inspired architecture
followed.
The current character of the West End
Today, the rest End remains primarily single family
detached in character. Yards are clearly defined and
contribute to the distinct residential character of the
area. Semi-transparentfences, such as metal or wood
picket, are used along with hedges to define lot
boundaries. The streets remain free of sidewalks, a
feature which is vital to the traditional character of
the neighborhood.
Street trees establish a sense of visual continuity and
provide for a pleasing streetscape and should be
preserved. As these trees reach the end of their life-
span, they should be replaced.
The West End remains very much a walking neigh-
borhood. This is important to its residents and also to
the many visitors who walk through the neighbor-
hood touring its historic architecture or making their
way to thE nusic tent or to trails along the north edge.
Alleys run east west through each block. They are
unpaved and many have several historic outbuild-
ings along them. This simple character should be
retained while accommodating more alley buildings.
Most homes have parking located off the alleys, and
this is a tradition that should be continued.
Open space and private gardens also are important to
the character of the West End. A few small pocket
parks are located in the area, as well as the Music
Festival tent. Good views of the surrounding moun-
tains are seen from most streets and, for those houses
on Lake A venue, of Hallam Lake.
Page 20
C)
Today, the West End contains the greatest number
and variety of historic structures found in Aspen.
Queen Anne, Carpenter Gothic and Italianate details
?urvive on many Structures. The largesthistorichomes
m Aspen are found here. Approximately ten Na-
tional Register listed properties are found in the West
End.
Newer structures have appeared in more recent de-
cades, and although many of these buildings right-
fully speak of their own time, they respect the tradi-
tional building vocabulary by having porches and
primary entrances thatface the street and by present-
mg facades that are in scale. The resulting variety in
architecture and creativity in detail can be see in the
neighborhood, while it still retains its overall sense of
integrity.
Not all newer structures have employed the tradi-
tional vocabulary of elements, however. Some have
built in a grander scale that is out of character. Others
have sought to introduce a sub-urban image, with
driveways in front yards and others have hidden
their entrances on the side or behind large fences.
Some have included garages that dominate the fronts
of their buildings. Such developments should be
discouraged and those that do exist should not pro-
vide the context with which future development
should relate.
The West End remains one of the most desirable
places in town to live. Pressure exists to develop
much larger houses, and to design them in ways that
.fat! to address the street in the traditional character
and scale. In many cases, new buildings literally
tower over neighboring historic Structures, and his-
toric buildings themselves have also been renovated
so that an extremely large addition looms behind a
small cottage.
Our greatest challenge today is to direct new devel-
opment to be more compatible with the traditional
single-family, residential character of the West End.
.,...."
Design Goals for the neighborhood
Given the concern for the protection of the traditional
scale and character of the West End, the City holds
these goals for design in the West End:
Goall. To preserve the scale of traditional single
family residential structures
Single family structures were larger than in other
areas of town, but still relatively small. This tradi-
tional scale should be expressed new development.
Goal 2. To enhance the pedestrian experience in
the neighborhood
(")
West End
Providing buildings that face the street, with clearly
defined entrances and articulated to convey the tra-
ditional scale of building facades, will enhance the
pedestrian experience. Street trees should be preserved.
Goal 3. To promote a sense of visual integration in
the neighborhood, that is balanced with
variety
Incorporating elements seen traditionally in the West
End, such as porches, dormers and verticallypropor-
tioned windows will help strengthen the sense of
visual continuity.
Goal 4. Topromotethedevelopmentofalleyhouses
to maintain neighborhood scale and ac-
commodate affordable housing
Locating some mass in secondary structures will help
reduce the perceived mass of the overall lot develop-
mentwhile also providing space for affordable hous- The simple character of alleys should be preserved.
ing.
Aspen Neighbothood Character Design Guidelines Page 21
f")
n
Page 22
^
" )
If a structure is to contain more than 3000 square feet, it
slwuld be divided into a series of discreet T1IIlsses that
appear sT1lllller in scale to buildings seen traditionally in
the neighborlwod. These masses should then be liTJked
with a "connector" that is subordinate in size to the
modules it joins .
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
rJ
/
West End
Design Guidelines for the
West End
The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all
projects in the West End Neighborhood, in addition
to the chapter of General Guidelines for All Neigh-
borhoods. When considering the appropriateness of
a project with respect to these guidelines, also con-
sider how the project will help to accomplish the
design goals for the neighborhood.
Mass & Scale
27. New structures should appear similar
in scale to traditional residential structures
of the West End.
a. New building shouid be sensitive to existing,
smaller buildings. Typical buildings were from
1,000 to 2,200 square feet.
b. Divide larger projects into building masses that
are similar to those of buildings seen tradition-
ally. The maximum perceived mass of an indi-
vidual building should be no more than 3,000
square feet. If a structure is to contain more than
3000 square feet, it should be divided into a
series of discreet masses that appear smaller in
scale to buildings seen traditionally in the neigh-
borhood. These masses should then be linked
with a "connector" that is subordinate in size to
the modules it joins .
c. Locate some floor area in secondary structures,
to reduce the overall mass and scale of building
on the site.
d. Step buildings down in scale or height as they
approach adjacent smaller structures.
e. Door and window openings should be consis-
tent in scale with those found in neighboring
historic structures. Larger openings may be in-
cluded as accents, but should be broken up with
mullions or muntins.
f. No uninterrupted wall surface parallel toa street
should be more than 30' in width, to assure that
buildings appear similar in scale to those seen
traditionally
Page 23
1'""'\
The solid-to-void ratio is the amount of wall in
proportion to window and door openings that
is seen on a building wall.
Buffer the edges of the property from adjacent
propenies.
Set the building in line with others on the block, where
setbacks are unifonn.
Page 24
f)
Solid-to-void Ratio
28. The solid-to-void ratio should be
similar to that seen traditionally in the
West End.
a. Avoid large arrays of windows, particularly on
the front elevation.
Building form
29. Use building forms that are similar to
those seen traditionally in Aspen.
a. Each building should have a simple rectilinear
form as its primary form.
b. A gable or hip roof should be the primary roof
form. (The roof pitch should be in the range of9-
to-12 to 12-to-12.)
c. Variety in the shape of appurtenances, includ-
ing porches, is encouraged.
d. Divide larger building areas into separate build-
ing masses, linked by "connectors." This will
help reduce the perceived mass of the develop-
ment.
e. Secondary structures are also encouraged, to
reduce mass and scale.
Site plan
30. Provide a front yard in all develop-
ment in the West End.
a. The yard should be in scale with those seen
traditionally in the neighborhood.
31. Buffer the edges of the property from
,adjacent properties.
a. Use fences or hedges, butdesign them to remain
semi-transparent, to allow views in from the
street. Fences should be low in height, to allow
views into front yards.
32. Set the building in line with others on
the block, where setbacks are uniform.
a. Set-backs also may reflect the size of the. ot,
however; on larger, deeper lots, a greater set-
back for the building may be appropriate.
n
,0"-"'0"'""1
I j
I 0
o I
I .
. I
L. .
Yes
r--,
i i
. I
I .
. I
........,
Provide a porch, oriented to the street and scaled 10 be
similar to those seen historically.
No
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
f)
West End
Building Materials
33. Use finished materials for primary
building materials.
a. Painted wood siding, wood shingle and brick
are appropriate in the West End.
b. Log and metal are generally inappropriate.
c. See also the General Guidelines for All Neigh-
borhoods.
d. The use of wood shakes, reflective metal, or clay
tile is discouraged.
Architectural features
34. Clearly identify the primary entrance.
a. Orient the porch toward the street.
35. The entrance should appear similar in
scale with those seen traditionally in the
West End.
a. Use doors that are similar in scale to those used
traditionally.
Page 25
r'"
, i
~
. jI'
Page 26
I'")
The architecture of the Smuggler Mountain
Neighborhood is varied and includes historic houses.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
-
n
Chapter 4
The Smuggler Mountain
Neighborhood
The Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood lies north of
Main Street, between Mill Street and Original Street.
It is bounded on the south by the Roaring Fork River.
See the attached map for more boundary details.
A varied topography is a distinctive feature of the
Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood that has influ-
enced street plans, building orientation and form.
Flat hollows and benches are joined by rolling and
sloping terrain in this neighborhood. TIris terrain has
generated a winding, freeform layout of streets and
lanes, many that dead-end, and has allowed for few
alleys. The resulting lot and block configurations
have unsymmetrical shapes and many lots have
unique edge conditions along the Roaring Fork River
and the base of Smuggler Mountain.
Because it is so varied, the area actually can be consid-
ered to contain four to six subareas. When designing
new buildings or considering alterations, designers
should consider the specific context closely in order
to respond to these changing conditions within the
neighborhood.
Since many buildings are at the base of Smuggler
Mountain, there is a dominant building orientation
toward the south and west to take advantage of the
afternoon Sun and down-valley views.
The architecture is varied, including historic houses,
mobile homes, log cabins and chalets from the 1950s.
Except for some more recent apartment buildings,
most structures are small in scale. Building forms
vary, and roofs include gable and shed, some in
exaggerated proportions. Balconies occur frequently.
The materials are equally varied with a predomi-
nance of stained clapboard wood siding, board and
batten, logs, stone and concrete block.
Page 27
t1
New single family construction should appear similar in
scale to that seen traditionally. This older house is
among those in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood
that provides a context for the scale of new buildings.
Divide larger structures, such as this, into building
masses that appear similar in scale to those seen
traditionally.
Page 28
n
Overall, the Smuggler Neighborhood contains a rela-
tively high density of smaller dwellings. A typical
residential massing in this neighborhood is about
1,200 to 1,800 square feet in size.
A few large vacant parcels remain that could be
developed and other sites may redevelop. New dense,
multifamily projects may be feasible, therefore, and
since these buildings can significantly affect the char-
acter of the neighborhood, they should be carefully
reviewed.
Goals for the neighborhood
A greater sense of unityisneeded. New development
should appear more visually cohesive with the neigh-
borhood than some recent buildings have been and it
should enhance the pedestrian experience. The Smug-
gler Mountain area should have a scale and character
of a dense single family, residential neighborhood,
even as it accommodates a variety of housing types.
With this in mind, the city holds these design goals
for the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood:
Goal I, To preserve a scale of single familyresiden-
tial buildings
New single family construction should appear to be
in scale with that seen traditionally in this neighbor-
hood and in nearby residential areas.
Goal 2. To encourage multi-family buildings to be
more compatible with the neighborhood
character
Multi-family construction should be designed to in-
clude elements similar to those seen traditionally,
including a primary entrance oriented to the street, a
distinct front yard, and similarity of form and mate-
rials.
Goal 3. To establish a sense of visual integration in
the neighborhood
Repeating the use of traditional building elements in
future construction will result in a sense of visual
continuity.
f)
Use building forms that are similar to those seen
traditionally.
Gable roofs are appropriate on structures in the
Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guideiines
<)
Smuggler Mountain
Design Guidelines for Smuggler
Mountain
The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all
projects in the Smuggler Mountain Neighborhood, in
addition to the chapter of General Guidelines for All
Neighborhoods. When considering the appropriate-
ness of a project with respect to these guidelines, also
consider how the project will help to accomplish the
design goals for the neighborhood.
Mass & Scale
36. New buildings should be similar in
scale to traditional residential buildings of
Aspen.
a. Structures should be in modules of approxi-
mately 1200-1800 square feet maximum. Divide
larger projects into building masses th;. are
similar to those of buildings seen traditio' "lIy.
Unk separate building masses, with a "connec-
tor." This will help reduce the perceived mass of
the development.
b. No uninterrupted wall surface parallel toa street
should be more than 30' in width, to assure that
buildings appear similar in scale to those seen
traditionally
c. The solid-to-void ratio should be similar to that
seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen
to help establish a sense of scale.
Building form
37. Use building forms that are similar to
those seen traditionally in Aspen.
a. Each building should have a simple form as its
primary shape.
b. Because many lots may have varied conditions,
a variety of simple, yet even playful, building
forms is appropriate.
c. A variety of roof forms, in a range of sizes and
proportions, is appropriate. Gable, flat and shed
roofs are appropriate. "Prow" roofs also are
appropriate. Hip roofs are discouraged.
d. Eave depths should be similar to those seen
traditionally in residential areas of Aspen; these
provide scale and a shadow line adds visual
interest to the facade.
e. Contemporary interpretations of traditional fea-
tures, such as porches, are also encouraged.
Page 29
r-.,
Avoid creating pull-in parking that is directly off the
street. This weakens the attraction of the street to
pedestrians.
Buffer the edges of the site from adjacent properties with
fences or hedges.
Provide open space that is functional and that also
serves as an amenity that can be seen from the street.
Page 30
tJ
Site plan
38. Provide a clearly defined front yard.
a. This will provide a sense of open space and help
define pedestrian walkways and automobile
parking areas.
b. This open space also will provide relief from
dense development in the area.
39. Buffer edges of the site from adjacent
properties with fences or hedges.
a. Fences should be low in height, to allow views
into front yards.
b. Locate the primary floor at or near sidewalk
grade; avoid sunken terraces that separate the
main entrance from the street level.
40. Provide open space that is functional.
a. The open space should be of a size that can be
used or that at least has a significant visual
impact as a landscaped area.
41. Locate the primary entrance at or near
the ground elevation.
a. This applies to all buildings, including multi-
family construction.
A
The use of natural or native ITUlterials in the Smuggler
Mountain Neighborhood is strongly encouraged.
Provide a porch, oriented to the street, and sized to be
similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the
residential neighborhoods of Aspen.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
t)
Smuggler Mountain
Building Materials
42. A variety of building materials is
appropriate in the Smuggler Mountain
Neighborhood.
a. Use of natural, or native materials is encour-
aged.
b. Other finished materials, including wood and
metal siding, may be considered.
Architectural features
43. Porches clearly identify the primary
entrance.
a. Provide a porch, oriented to the street, and
scaled to be similar to those seen traditionally in
residential neighborhoods of Aspen.
44. The primary entrance should appear
similar in scale to those seen traditionally
in residential neighborhoods of Aspen.
a. Avoid "grand entries."
b. Use doors similar in scale to those seen tradi-
tionally in the residential areas of Aspen.
c. Consider a central, shared entry for multi-fam-
ily units such that it would appear to bea single,
primary entry.
45. A variety of window and door designs
is appropriate in this neighborhood.
46. At the street level, consider using win-
dows similar in scale to those seen tradi-
tionally in residential areas of Aspen.
a. This will help to establish a sense of human
scale.
b. These windows may be arranged in new arrays,
however.
Page 31
r'1
r,
Page 32
~
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
f)
Chapter 5
The Shadow Mountain
Neighborhood
The Shadow Mountain Neighborhood is bounded by
the alley north of Hopkins Avenue on the north and
Shadow Mountain on the south. Its western bound-
ary is Seventh Street; the eastern edge is First Street.
See the attached map for more details of the bound-
aries.
Character of the Shadow Mountain
Neighborhood
This neighborhood developed at the base of the moun-
tain, and once contained numerous miners cottages.
Streets were laid out following the town grid, and
houses were sited on their lots with the primary
entrance facing the street. Early photographs indi-
cate that porches were a feature of many of the houses
that once stood in this area. Approximately ten struc-
tures of potential historic significance remain in the
neighborhood and should be preserved. Irrigation
ditches were established in the Shadow Mountain
neighborhood, vestigesofwhichsurvivetoday. These
should be preserved.
The second railroad to arrive in Aspen, the Colorado
Midland, came through in 1887. The silver crash of
1893 devastated the rail companies and by 1921 the
track was removed. This right-of-way remains vis-
ible in some parts of the neighborhood today.
A diversity in buildings can be seen today, including
variety in scale and type. Some early ski lodges were
located in this area. These were joined in more recent
years by larger multi-family and single-family build-
ings. Some of these projects have not addressed the
street in the traditional manner and have weakened
the appeal of the street to pedestrians.
Views of mine dumps and of the mountain are major
features, along with mature trees and significant
amounts of open space. New development should
respect the edges of these public resources.
Page 33
(')
~
J
The neighborhood has become a network of key
pedestrian and bike routes which Can play an impor-
tantrole inhelpingto reduce automobile traffic in the
city. It Is therefore vitally important that the neigh-
borhood develop as one that is of a human scale and
that is designed to be attractive to pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Goals for the neighborhood
Substantial development opportunity exists in this
neighborhood, along with pressure to create large
projects that turn their back on the street or that
.establish a grander scale than that seen traditionally.
It is vital that new development not do so, but rather
that it enhance the character of the street and contrib-
ute to a sense of visual continuity. Therefore, the City
holds these design goals for the Shadow Mountain
Neighborhood.
Goal 1. To preserve the scale of single family resi-
dential buildings seen traditionally
Whennew single family houses are constructed, they
should respect the scale of earlier housing, and should
not appear too "grand" on the street.
Goal 2. To develop accommodations buildings that
are more compatible with neighborhood
character
Buildings larger than single family houses are antici-
pated and these should be divided into modules that
appear similar in scale to single family houses. They
also should incorporate elements seen traditionally
on single family houses, such as porches.
Goal 3. To promote a sense of visual integration in
the neighborhood
By repeating traditional building features, forms and
materials, a sense of visual continuity will result in
the neighborhood.
Page 34
(!"""\,
Avoid creating a single, large mass, such as this, that
will be out of scale with residential structures seen
traditionally.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
f)
Shadow Mountain
Design Guidelines for the Shadow
Mountain Neighborhood
The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all
projects in the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood, in
addition to the chapter of General Guidelines for AIl
Neighborhoods. When considering the appropriate-
ness of a project with respect to these guidelines, also
consider how the project will help to accomplish the
design goals for the neighborhood.
Mass & Scale
47. New structures should appear similar
in scale to traditional residential structures
of the neighborhood.
a. Divide larger projects into modules that are
similar to those of buildings seen traditionally.
b. Locate some floor area in secondary structures,
to reduce the overall mass and scale of building
on the site.
c. Step the height of the building down in scale as
it approaches nearby, smaller Structures.
d. Use windows and doors that ar-e similar in size
and shape to those seen traditionally to help
establish a sense of scale.
e. The solid-ta-void ratio should be similar to that
seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen
in order to help the building appear to be similar
in scale.
Page 35
rJ
,
Use a "native" building material, such as wood or
masonry, for the primary building material of a
structure. The use of stucco as a primary material is
discouraged.
Page 36
()
Building form
48. Use building forms that are similar to
those seen traditionally in the Shadow
Mountain Neighborhood.
a. A building should have a simple, rectilinear
form as its primary shape. A variety of building
types is seen in the area, and therefore a wider
interpretation of traditional building forms is
appropriate in this neighborhood.
b. Gable roof forms are preferred in this area and
creating a combination of varying roof lines,
rather than one large surface, is encouraged.
This will help reduce the perceived scale of the
building. Eave depths should be similar to those
seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen;
they provide scale and a shadow line that pro-
vide visual interest.
c. The use of porches is strongly encouraged.
d. Variety in design of appurtenances, including
dormers, wings and porches, is appropriate in
this neighborhood.
Site plan
49. Provide a front yard in all develop-
ment in the Shadow Mountain Neighbor-
hood.
a. This is particularly important in this area.
b. Clearly define the yard.
c. Buffer the edges of the site from adjacent prop-
erties with fences or hedges.
d. Provide adequate site storage out of view of the
front yard in multi-family developments.
Building Materials
50. Use "natural, or native" building
materials for primary materials.
a. Great variety in the selection of materials for
doors, windows and trim is appropriate in this
neighborhood.
("'\
Architectural features
51. OearIy identify the primary entrance.
a. Provide a porch, oriented to the streetand scaled
to be similar to those seen historically.
b. The entr)l should be in scale with those seen
traditionally.
52. Use doors and windows that are
similar in scale to those seen traditionally
in residential areas of Aspen.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
tJ
Shoduw Mountain
Use doors and windows that are similar in scale to tlwse
seen traditionally in residential areas of Aspen and
clearly define the primary entrance.
Page 37
f"'"l
f"""l
~ ;;1
)
Page 38
#d
>,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
RE:
Aspen Mountain POO Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) Planned Unit Development (POO)
Conceptual Review
DATE:
April 9, 1996
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has established two public hearings (04.09.96 and 04.23.96) to
review the conceptual POO Plan application for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain POO. Lot 3 (Top of Mill)
will not be presented to the Commission until a later date. Due to the complexity and importance of the site
in the context of the central core of the City, staff has used the first staff memorandum to address conceptual
issues that should be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the early stages of review.
Issues staff feel are appropriate to frame at this point include the proposed use, mass and scale, the general
relationship to the existing neighborhood, and the sensitivity to the critical nature of linking the site with the
Little Nell and gondola area. These issues are summarized in thec9Iltext ofth~applicable criteria for
conceptual POO review. As consensus is reached on the broader aspects of the project, staff is suggesting
that the review become more detailed in scope.
PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The project is being processed as a four-step application, with reviews
occurring at different steps. Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below.
Step 1 - P & Z
Conceptual PUD
Subdivision! I)
Step 2 - Council
Conceptual PUD
Subdivision (I)
Step 3 - P & Z
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Rezoning
Conditional Use
8040 Greenline
Viewplane
Step 4 - Council
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Rezoning
Notes: Italics represent public hearings
(1) Subdivision for only Lot 3
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Sunny Vann and John Sarpa
LOCATION: Lot 5, Aspen Mountain POO. Lot 5 is located on Dean Street south of the ic~ rinlc between
Mill and Galena Streets, and extending south to the Alpenblick condominiums. The parcel includ~s a
portion of the Dean Street right-of-way, which was vacated in connection with the original PUD approval.
ZONING: LfTR POO' (Lodgerrourist Residential, mandatory POO review) A small area of the vacated
Dean Street right-of-way is zoned CL, Commercial Lodge.
LOT AREA: 86,605 gross square feet. When the vacated right-of-way is subtracted from the total lot area,
the net lot area for the purposes of calculating FAR is reduced to 73,070 sJ.
1
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to develop 30 multi-family units on Lot S.
Twenty-two units will be located within a single, high-density, multi-family structure along vacated Dean
Street (the "Dean Street building"). Just south of the Dean Street building, eight townhouse units are
clustered into two primary structures of four units each, fronting on Mill Street and Galena Street. Dean
Street will be closed to vehicular traffic and converted to a landscap~d pddestrian mall, which is intended to
link the Ritz-Carlton and Lot 5 to the gondola plaza. q
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following
departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows:
Environmental Health: Environmental Health has reviewed the project, and had concerns regarding that the
Traffic Study prepared by TDA Inc. which assumed average annual occupancy rates, as opposed to Institute
of Traffic Engineers (ITE) rates. Staff notes that due to the decrease in trips from the elimination of the
Grand Aspen Hotel, it not likely that mitigation will be necessary.
Environmental Health did note that the proposed parking (72) far exceeds the 30 spaces recommended in
the traffic study, and recommends that the parking be reduced to encourage other means of travel.
Ordinance 30 requires two spaces per unit, requiring 60 spaces. Staff would suggest that the potential for
utilizing some of these excess spaces for public uses could be coupled with the removal of on-street spaces
in the central core, consistent with the intent of enhancing the pedestrian experience of Aspen. .
Engineering Department: The Engineering Department is now responsible for compiling comments from
Parks, Water, Electric and Streets as well as comments from Engineering staff. Staff notes that a large
majority of these comments are either in regards to Lot 3 (Top of Mill), or are technical issues more
pertinent to discuss at the final POO.
Housing: Housing has not submitted comments at the time of writing.
Additional Comments: Due to the historical complexity of the project, the City contracted with Alan
Richman to review the application from the perspective of the past agreements and amendments to the POO.
Mr. Richman's comments germane to Lot 5 are summarized below, and attached as Exhibit B:
. The "Approval Parameters" in Table I (page 5) and Table 2 (pages 9-10) of the application appear to be
accurate for the Lot 5 site;
. The GMQS allocation representations regarding both Lot 3 and 5 are accurate, and reflect recorded
agreements;
. The statement on page 17 of the application that there are "ISO hotel units and seven deed restricted
housing units in the existing Grand Aspen Hotel" is consistent with the PUD in reference to the
maximum number of lodge units that can operate within the POO (447) and the required housing for the
Ritz Carlton and Ice Rink projects. The seven emplovee units must be relocated as part of anv approval
for Lot 5;
2
. The POO agreement (page 39) also makes the applicant responsible for net new employees and other
employee housing requirements as may be detennined during the amended approval process for the Lot
5 component of the POO.
Staff has attached all of the background material submitjed by Alan and referenced in his comments.
STAFF COMMENTS
PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a
development application for POO review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Staff
has framed the responses in the context of the conceptual issues identified in the sUmm:rr)'.
General Reauirements
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: Although it is true that the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan did not specifically address Lot 5
of the Aspen Mountain POO specifically, several policies appear to be relevant to the project. For example.
under "Design Quality and Historic Preservation" includes a policy to "Study which areas in the downtown
core could be developed in order to attract social activity i~ specific places." Although the Downtown
Enhancement Plan effort has just begun, the critical relationship of Lot 5 with hth the Ritz-Gondola
corridor along Dean Street and the Ice Rink emphasizes the public nature and future potential of the site.
The project currently proposes a curvilinear landscaped plaza along the vacated right-of-way of Dean Street
to provide an enhanced pedestrian path from the Ritz to the Little Nell Plaza. This linkage has been a
priority for the City for some time. Staff s concern with the proposed Dean Street pedestrian mall as
proposed is the private nature of the proposed project, in the context of the public setting adjacent to the Ice
Rink and proximity to Ruby Park and the downtown core. The project's public aspect is reduced by the
applicant's intent of only using free market allocations and abandoning plans to use 50 hotelJlodge credits
approved with the original PlJD.
The possibility of animating the mall by including first floor commercial development, and allowing for
some form of outside seating to encourage public use of the area is an issue worthy of discussion. Staff
recognizes that additional GMQS allotments for commercial development would be necessary. An option
that could potentially overcome this constraint would be to develop a conversion factor between either the
lodge or free market credits to allow for small-scale street level commercial uses without competing through
the GMQS system.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area,
Response: Neighboring development includes the Ritz-Carltotlhotel andnumerous mixed use multi-family
condominiums, commercial and public uses. The Dean Street building is located directly acrosS from the
ice rink and the Rubey Park bus station. As discussed ~b()v~. t,he private residential nature of the project
appears to conflict with the public setting, particularly in light of enhancing the pedestriar, pathway along
vacated Dean Street.
3
Height: The highest point of the Dean Street building is approximately 55 feet to the top of the proposed
mansard roof, exceeding the maximum height in the underlying zone district by approximately 2:7 feet.
This is nearly double the allowed height of 28 feet in the VIR zone district. The height steps down to
approximately 32 feet at the ends of the structure. In addition, the Dean Street Structure will encroach into
the Wheeler Opera Viewplane to a maximum of 30 feet. The applicant contends that this encroachment is
minimal due to the existing development behind Lot 5 (Durant and Fifth Avenue Condos). The viewplane
review will occur at the Step 3 of the review process. .
The Mill Street/Galena Street Townhomes are proposed for 29.5 feet in height, only slightly exceeding the
28 foot allowable standard, and is generally consistent with the structures to the south and east.
Bulk: The Dean Street building, based on the proposed architectural design, will be an imposing structure
when compared to the Grand Aspen site and other existing uses to the east of Galena and the adjacent edge
of the downtown area. In fact, adjacent underlying zoning in the CC and C-I zone district are 40 feet. As
proposed, the structure would extend the scale and urban design feel of the Ritz Carlton east along Dean
Street.
Although this is not certain, it appears that the largest portion of the structure may obscure the viewplane of
Aspen Mountain, when viewed from the Ice Rink, to a horizontal line formed by the catwalk. Staff
suggests that the applicant's submit photographs with the proposed front facade of the Dean Street building
superimposed, from the following six geographic locations that appear the most sensitive to the proposed
structure:
. The Ice Rink Patio directly across from the proposed structure;
. The front entrance to the Ruby Park Transit Station;
. The southeast corner of Wagner Park;
. The southwest corner of Galena Street and Durant Avenue;
. The seating area located in front of Paradise Bakery;
. The Wheeler Opera House.
In addition, the applicant has agreed to provide a massing model with adjacent structures to assist staff and
the Commission in determining compliance with this standard.
Consistency with the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines: The applicable section of the Goals
for the Aspen Mountain Neighborhood are attached as Exhibit C. Specific components applicable to Lot 5
include the need to enhance the pedestrian experience at the street level, protect views of Aspen Mountain, a
promote a sense of visual integration in the neighborhood while also encouraging a diversity of building
types. All of these goals suggest that the height and use of the property should be modified.
4
7. Architectural Site Plan: An architectural site plan will be provided with the Final PUD application,
however the conceptual plans and profiles are of some concern to staff. The proposed Dean Street
Building is a significant architectural departure from the Grand Aspen and other adjacent uses to
the east and north, and the mass and scale of the structure is similar in tone to the Ritz Carlton.
8. Lighting: All lighting will be designed to minimize impacts on neighboring development and
streets. A detailed lighting plan will be provided with the Final PUD application.
9. Clustering: Not applicable
10. Public Facilities: Existing facilities are adequate to service the project, and all costs associated
with the provision of facilities will be born by the applicant. Staff notes that the applicant has had
on-going conversations with Engineering, and staff would suggest that the majority of infrastrucrure
issues should be discussed at fmal PUD submittal.
11. Traffic and Pedestrian C)rculation:.AlI units will ~ave a<:<:ess I() a public street. The sub-grade
parking garage will be accessed from Mill Street, which is highly preferable to Galena in terms of
site distance and traffic circulation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the applicant re-study the following conceprual
issues:
1. Consider reducing the height of the Dean Street Building to reduce the imposing mass of the front
facade;
2. That the applicant, in cooperation with the Community Development Department, investigate the
possibility of integrating street-level commercial uses to animate the plaza and the pedestrian experience
along Dean Street pathway towards the gondola;
3. Provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with a series of photographs from important sites
around the City with the Dean Street Building facade superimposed to illustrate the potential visual impact
of the proposal;
4. Recognize the linking function of the Dean Stre~t corridor and seek to integrate the proposed
structure, the ice rink, the gondola, and development to the west (such as the Ritz) through the careful
design of corridor elements.
Exhibits:
"A" - Referral Memos
"Bn _ Alan Richman Memo
"C" - Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
6
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
area.
Response: Lot 5 represents the last significant development opportunity in the immediate area. Although
the \lTea iis essentially fully developed, that redevelopment can be expected in the general area. Staff would
svggest the proposed height variance request, if approved, will impact the viewplanes from these properties,
or set precedent for future development. In addition, the proposal would place passive, private land uses
adjacent to an active public space and transit center.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments
are obtained by the applicant.
Response: As discussed at length at the work session and described in the application, no GMQS
allocations are required for the development. Thirty-nine of the forty-seven residential units proposed for
Lots 3 and 5 are to be developed utilizing reconstruction credits which were previously approved the City
and confirmed in the Amended PUD Agreement. The remaining eight residential credits were obtained via
the GMQS process. Final approval can be granted to the project following the completion of the PUD
review process. Staff notes that the GMQS allocations are maximum ceilings for development of Lot 3 and
5, and in no way should be considered approved densities on either parcel.
Additional PUD Standards
1. Density: The LrrR zone district requires 1,000 square feet of lot area per bedroom. The project
proposes 72 bedrooms, which requires 72,000 square feet of lot area. Sufficient lot area is available
to accommodate this density. No reduction in density is necessary due to the presence of slopes in
excess of 20%. Staff notes that the net lot area is 73,070 sJ. The proposal represents the maximum
number of bedrooms that can be placed on Lot 5.
2. Land Uses: Multi-family dwellings are a pennitted use in the LrrR zone district.
3. Dimensional Requirements
4. Off-street Parking: 72 parking spaces will be provided in a sub-grade parking garage, which
slightly exceeds the minimum number of 60 required spaces (one off-street space per bedroom, or
two per unit).
5. Open Space: The LfTR zone district has a nummum open space requirement of 25%. The
applicant represents that approximately 39% of the undeveloped area on Lot 5 meets the open space
definition. Staff notes that the proposed design leaves sufficient open space to provide visual relief
to adjacent properties by breaking up the structures and providing east/west corridors parallel to
Dean Street, and north/south between the townhome structures.
6. Landscape Plan: A detailed landscape plan will be provided and reviewed with the final PUD Plan
application. Staff has suggested that the eventual configuration of the passage way on Dean Street
is a critical component of the project, and should be refined at this stage of the process.
5
.:
Exhibit A
MEMORANDUM
,j
To:
Dave Michaelson, 'Deputybirector
Community Development Departme~t
. .
From:
Nancy MacKenzie , Environmentai Health Department .",&.-P .
Date:
March 8, 1996_.
Re:
Aspen Mountain Subdivision/pUD (Lots'3 & 5) Conceptual
Submission, -Rezoning and Text Amendment
Parcel ID# 2737:182-85-003 & ~05
---------------~--------~---~~~~~----~-~~------
------------------------------~----------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
Aspen Mountain S1.lbdivision (Grand Aspen. and Top of Mill) rand use
submittal unde-r a1.lthority of. the Mlirticipal Code of .the City of
Aspen. and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:.. Section 11-1.7 . "It ,hall be unlawful for
. the owner or' occupant ,o{ any building. used for' ~esidence 'or bUSiness. pu~6s~s with.in the city to COnstrue': or
reconstruct an on. site sewage disposal ~evice_n
The plans to provide wastewater disposal'for this project through
the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this Department.. The
ability .of the Aspen Cons.olidated Sanitation District to handle
the increased flow. for the project should be determined by the
ACSD. The applicant has failed to provided documentation that the
applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the
proposal and that the. service agency is capflble of serving the
deyelopment.
ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23 -55 "All buildings,
struo:;:tures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use wa-ter shall be connected" to the
municipal water utility system.R
The pr6visionof potable water from the .City of Aspen 'system is
consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply
of safe water'. The City of Aspen Water Department shall determine
1
if adequate water is available for
water' supply meets all standards
Health for drinking .water quality.
the
of
project. The City of Aspen
the Colorado Department of
WATRR' QUALITY IMPAC'1'S4 se.cti.on '11-1 .3 n~or. the purpose of ,I maintaining and
protecting .its municipal water' supply from' injury and pollution, the city shall ex~rcise r,egulatory and
supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits' of the City of- Aspen and over !jaIl'streams. andsQurces
contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (51 ,miles above the points from-which municipal
water supplies' are divert'ed. n
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive
and. parking areas. will be evaluated by the City Engineer. This
application is not expected to impact down stream' water quality.
AIR 'OHATJITY' Sect:ions 11-2.1: nIt. is the purpose of [the air 'qu.ality section ,of the
Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity pos~ible: by requ~ri:r;tg the use of ~ll
available practical methOds and techr.~ques to control, i?revent- and ,reduce air pollution throughout.- the city_.
The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and' "avoid t.ransp.ortation demands that cannot be met" as
well. as to _ "provide clean air by protecting ~he natural air sheds ~nd reducing pol~utants'"
The major concern of our department is the impact of
increasing traffic in a non-attainment area designated by the
EPA. Under the requirement.s of the St!"te Implementation Plan
for the Aspen area,. PM-10 (which comes almost. all from
traffic driving on paved roads). must be reduced by 25% by
1997.. In order to .achieve that reduction, traffic increases
that ordinarily would occur.as a result of development must
be mitigated, or else the gains brought about by commuhity
control measureS, will be lost. In 'addition, .in order to
comply with the mu~icipal code requirement to achieve the
maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available
practical methods to reduce pollution, traffic increases of
development .must be offset. In order to do this, the
applicant will need. to determine the traffic increases.
generated by the project, commit to a set of control
measures, and show that. the traffic decreased by the control
measures is at least as great as the traffic increaseS of the
project without mitigation.
A Traffic and Parking Study. was prepared by TDA Ihc. to describe
the impacts and mitigation for the proposed project. The study
concludes that .no mitigation is required since the proposed
development decreases the number of p. in. peak trips from .
background conditions. However this assumption is based on using
2
an. average .annual occupanyy rate. The standard ITE trip
gene;:-ation rates should be used. The units will generate trips
from residents., guests, cleaners, maintenance, etc year round and
especially during winter when PM~10 poJ{lution is ? concern.
However, the total number of units J's being' reduced. The hotel
will not be developed. It can be aJlticipated that .therewill be a
decrease in traffic and that they have already mitigated their
impacts.
Page 68 states that according to the Traffic and Parking Study
prepared by TDA, Inc., the proposed parking substantially exceeds
.the estimated demand. Based on their analysis, TDAestiinat'es that'
only 3.0 spaces (vs 72) will be required to accommodate the
development on LotS, and only 20 (vs 36) spaces will be required
on Lot 3 (excluding the five single-family residences). If
Community De~elopment agrees with the applicant's contention that
the parking supply being proposed is actually greater than the
parking demand,' this Department would recommend reduction in the
number of parking spaces being considered . This is be,cause
adding excess parking serves to facilit.ate use of cars instead of
to encourage walking .and other means of travel.
FIREPLACE/wOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a
firep:acejwoodstove permit with the Environmental Health
. Department before the building permit \'Iill be issued. In
metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which includes this. site,
buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified
woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of ~ecorativegas
fireplace appliances 'per . building. New homes. may NOT have wood
burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel.
Barns and agricultural buildings may not install any type of
fireplace device.
FUGI'T'IVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan isreguired which
includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads
and disturbed areas, . daily cleaning of adj acent paved :r:oads to
remove mud. that has been carried out, speed limits, cr other
measures nec.essary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the
property line or causing a nuisance.
3
A majar cancern is fugitive dust duringcanstructian.. A ccnditicn
.of apprcval .shculd be. ccntinual re:mcval .of. any mud or dirt and
maintenance of streets in.. a c.lean ccnditicn thrcughcut . the
prcject,'by having their .own flusher truck. .on the site and
flus~ing as many times a day as necessary.
DEMOT,I'T'ION Prior to demaliticn the applicant shauld notify the
Calarada Department .of Health and'have the material tested by a
licensed asbestastester.. Any asbestas must be remaved BEFORE
demalitian. . It. .must be remaved by a licensed asbestosremaval
cantractar and it must be dispased .of in a.licensed landfill.
The Enviranmental Health Department willnat be able ta sign the
demalitio;" permit until it receives the .asbestaS test repart.
UNDERGROUND P1'>.RKING The applicant. must cansult with an
engineering firm abaut the design .of the' undergraund parking
structure ventilatian system ta ensure that. ventilatian is
adequate ta prevent carban monaxide fram rea9hing high levels.
inside the facility.orin the nearby areas .outside it. In .order to
determine whether thepraposed design prevents excessive levels .of
carban'manaxide from cancentrating inside' the .structure and in
nearby areas and buildings, the applicant will .need ta submit the
praposed . ventilation system plans ta the Colarada Department .of
. Health far their evaluation to meet the abave . criteria. The
applicant will also need ta cantact the Calarada Health Department
ta apply far'an air 'pallution permit.
CONFORMANCE.WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HE1'>.LTH LAWS:
NOISE ABA'T'EMEN'1'.: Sect i on 16-1 "The city council. finds and: declares that noise is a
significant source of'environmental pollution that represerits a present and increasing threat '-to the public
peace and to the health, -safet.y and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and. it, its visitors.
. .Accordingly, it 'is the policybf cO\lncil to provide. standards for permissible noise' levels in various
areas .and-manners and at various times and t.o prohibit noise in excess of t.hose levels."
During canstruction, naise can nat exceed maximum
saund level standards, and canstruction cannat be
between the.hoursaf. 7.a.m. and 10 p.m.
permissible
dane except
. .
It is
phase
very likely that
.of this' praj ect
naise generated
will have same
during the canstructian
negative impact an the
4
.
neighborhood. The applicant. should be aware. of this and take
. measures t6ininimize the predicted high noise levels.
5
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Dave iMichaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
1 Nick Adeh, City Engine~
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer fl;,:5,
March 12, 1996 (Revised)
To:
Thru:
From:
Re:
Aspen Mountain SubdivisioniPUD (Lots 3 & 5), Conceptual Submission,
Rezoning & Text Amendment
The information provided to us to date is insufficient to make a full review of the proposed project
therefore this response is a preliminary draft, subject to amendment, based on further information to
be provided by the applicant.
Our comments, questions and concerns about various aspects of the proposed project are:
Water Utilitv
. 15 service connections to neighbors plus one hydrant to be moved from 6 inch line and
reconnected to existing 12 inch line through Galena and Summit streets
. The existing 6 inch line through Galena and Summit Streets to be abandoned after removing
water services remaining on 6 inch line
. City needs easements for water lines
. The Water Dept. has verified sufficient capacity in the distribution system t6 service this new
development
. Service to the proposed units above the 8040 line will require an auxiliary pump system to
provide adequate flow and pressure for domestic use and fire suppression as stated in the
application
. The Water Dept. is concerned about the apparent conflict of interest created by Leonard Rice,
Water Engineers, (Mr. AJ. Zabbia) working for the developer when this consultant has been
retained by the City as its consulting engineer for the Water Dept.
Electric power Utility
. Sufficient illumination is needed on new streets and possibly on existing streets, particularly
on upper Galena St. and Summit St.
. Parts of this development arc within the Holy Cross servicc area so the electrical plans will
also need to be reviewed by Holy Cross Electric.
3/12/96
DRCM3A96.DOC
MEMO. Aspen Mt. Su'bdivision / PUD. lots 3 & 5
Streets
. Full-width Roto-milling of existing asphalt pavement and installation of a leveling course
plus 2 inch asphalt overlay is required to support the traffic and the frequent cuts due to
service trenches.
. Utility trenching: Straight asphalt line cutting; 12 inches beyond trench width to establish a
straight neat line plus installation of 4 inch asphalt patch prior to street overlay is required.
Maintain 1/2 inch asphalt lip at concrete gutter pans.
. On-site drainage; Text of application (pg. 43) mentions storm water and snow melt draining
from the project site to City streets which will not be permitted. Drywell inlets or other on-
site drainage system will be allowed if soils permit.
. Pre and post development drainage leaving site must be the same, i.e. the projects must
detain run-off and effectively route the flows through open space for percolation and
evaporation, and allow for the pre-development level of mitigated conveyance.
Parks and Open Space
. Open space and trail alignments are not shown and they are required
. Bike path has moved from existing easement (pg. 46) - proposed route must meet
requirements of and be approved by Parks Dept.
. Lot lines on PUD conflict with dedicated easemerits, (Lot 3) - must be corrected to existing
easements or make an acceptable trade with the City.
. Proposed open space is a "private" park which needs to be readily accessible to the general
public as a public space
. Proposed landscaping will require additional reviews during design process
Engineering
. Lot 3: Utility easements are required for all utilities (page 43) and at other locations for
future improvements.
. Flood control R-O-W for snow melt/storm drainage must be granted to the City around and
through projects. Since the master plan of primary and secondary conveyance systems is
not in place, this development cannot proceed without dedication ofR-O-W's/easements to
the City.
. Aspen Mountain area drainage master plan study is planned to begin in the near future.
Although this may have been overlooked in previous reviews, the Pioneer/V allejo Gulches
Detention/Debris Basin appears to lie in the center of Lot 3. This basin is intended to capture
the snow melt run-off from the mountain immediately to the south. (Urban Runoff
Management Plan, August, 1973). This can significantly change as a result of the future
mastcr plan.
. Site generated and ofT-site storm run-off needs to be addressed in the feasibility study phase
of this project given the location at the base of the mountain in a natural drainage basin. This
2
ORCM3A96.DOC
3/12/96
:\tlEMO _ Aspen MI. Subdivision I PUlJ. lots 3 & 5
needs to be studied and reported on by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado No
storm runoff from soils exposed by excavation and construction shall be permitted to enter
City streets or alleys. Sediment transport or debris from the construction site onto City
streets is prohibited and preventative measures that will meet our approv~l must be employed
by the developer and shown on the construction plans.
. The Mill Street storm sewer needs to be extended further south up Nill Street to receive
drainage before it leaves the development site and to prevent it from entering the City streets.
The drainage design will need to satisfy the City design standards and procedures of Sections
26.88.040 and 26.88.050.
. The entire subdivision will need to meet the City design standards and procedures of Section
26.88.040 and 26.88.050 for subdivisions.
. The developer needs to quantify what responsibility and role SkiCo may have in mitigating
run-off due to snow melt and erosion through the site and on to public streets.
. The City needs the geotechnical and environmental reports from the applicant to make
further evaluations, e.g. landslide hazard, site drainage, erosion control, sediment transport
control, and slope stabilization.
. Private Road: Indemnity clause from developer to the City for the publicly accessible but
privately maintained loop into Lot 3 is required with submittals and on plans.
. If the homeowner's assoc. is dissolved, this roadway shall be dedicated to the public.
. All the plan (application) sheets need to be submitted on 24" x 36" size sheets
. The application does not include neither a property survey nor a topographic map certified
and stamped by a PLS; submitted "maps" are uncertified, unstamped drawings and sketches
. As a note of reference to the Wheeler Opera House view plane, a 5' 11" person standing on
the sidewalk in front of the Wheeler Opera House can see all of the existing ski hut higher
than approximately 30 inches above the deck or door sill elevation on the west side of the
hut. The actual projection of the view plane will be reviewed further.
. Directional crossing (non-diagonal) handicap ramps shall be installed to provide access to
and through the development areas. Curbs, gutters and storm runoff inlets will need to be
located and constructed to retain water within the design drainage patterns and collection
system, and to prevent the storm drainage from collecting on, flooding, or running across
handicap ramps, driveways, sidewalks, streets or areas other than into the designated
collection systems.
3
3!12/96
DRCM3N)6.DOC
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
Alan Richman Planning services ~ I
. 1
Grand Aspen/Top of M1ll Conceptual PUD
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
February 28, 1996
Purpose
Pursuant to your direction, I have reviewed the 1996 Conceptual PUD
submission for the Grand Aspen Hotel and Top of Mill properties.
I have also examined the City's files on the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision, in particular, the 1984/1985 Conceptual and
Preliminary PUD files and the applicant's original submission
booklets for what were then identified as "the residential
projects".
The purposes of my review are to assist you in understanding the
history of the Aspen Mountain PUD project as it pertains to the
current submission and to help you to determine whether the
applicant has correctly described that history for you in the
application.
In general, I find that the applicant's review of the history of
the PUD, which begins on page 2 of the submission, is accurate. In
particular, the applicant's review of the "approval parameters" in
Table 1 (page 5) and Table 2 (page 9-10) appears to be correct.
However, in reviewing the project history for the Top of Mill
portion of the property, the applicant has either not mentioned
some pertinent events or has not emphasized certain issues which I
think may be important. I will provide you a description of these
issues below.
It is also important that you are aware that my work with the PUD
essentially ended when I stopped working for the City in 1989.
Although I subsequently performed limited contract .work for the
City on the PUD in 1990 and again in 1992, those were very specific
assignments which did not provide me an overall perspective of how
the project approvals were changing. In particular, I have not
been involved in what are known as the "Section M Amendments". I
would suggest that you talk with Amy Margerum and Diane Moore if
you have any questions about the history of those amendments.
Project Review
Following below are my comments on the application.
your review, my comments are organized to follow the
presentation in the application booklet.
To simplify
order of the
1. Page 3 of the application booklet states that "The approval
process for the Top of Mill project was suspended following
conceptual approval pending further evaluation of the site".
It is correct that conceptual approval was the last formal
approval granted to the Top of Mill project. I previously
provided you a copy of city council Resolution 84-23, which
granted that conceptual approval, subject to conditions.
subsequent to that approval (and just after the lodge projects
received preliminary approval on January 22, 1985), the
applicant filed an application for preliminary approval of the
residential projects on January 28, 1985. I submitted two
memos to the P&Z reviewing that submission, dated March 5 and
March 19, 1985 (copies attached). Our review of the project
had to proceed in phases because we did not receive some key
referral comments in a timely manner.
These late-arriving referral comments addressed what we
identified as the "natural hazards review". Based on comments
recei ved from the colorado Geologic Service, staff recommended
that action on the Top of Mill project be tabled until further
analysis and study of the potential for landslide, debris
movement and mud flood to affect this property was completed.
The P&Z concurred and review of the project ended at that time
and did not commence again during my tenure with the city.
I also attach P&Z Resolution 85-6, dated April 2, 1985, which
delayed the approval of the Top of Mill preliminary PUD
submission until 12 specified conditions were met.
I have also provided you with copies of the relevant staff and
referral agency comments on the preliminary submission and can
show you where the original files are located in city Hall.
2. On page 9 of the application it states that the principal
change to the Roberts approval in 1988 was to change the
number of lodge units. While this was certainly one outcome
of that review process, it was not the only reason the
applicant made the amended submission. Its primary purpose
was to achieve a re-design of the hotel, including changes in
architecture, site layout, internal configuration, etc. The
focus of the 1988 debate was on the height, massing and floor
area of the hotel and on impacts such as employee housing.
3. On page 10, Table 2 correctly notes that 8 of the units
planned for Lot 5 arose from a prior GMQS allocation. I
recall us completing a GMQS amendment procedure for the
residential units in 1988, just prior to final approval of
that amendment. You may need to complete another GMQS
amendment, as a technical matter, prior to final approval of
this proposed amendment.
2
4. On page 13, end of the second paragraph, the applicant makes
the statement that six covered parking spaces for summit Place
are to be provided on Lot 3 on or before January 1, 1997. I
have been unable to find the source for this condition. You
should ask the applicant to provide the applicable reference
for you, as the Amended PUD Agreement (page 31) provides that
parking for that project would be on site (sub-grade).
5. The statement on page 17 that there are 150 hotel units and 7
deed restricted housing units in the Grand Aspen Hotel means
the PUD complies with prior conditions as to: (a) the maximum
number of lodge units which can be in operation within the PUD
(447 units, as per representation 2 on page 42 of 1988 PUD
Agreement); and (b) the required housing for the Ritz Carlton
and Ice Rink projects. As the application states, the 7
employee units must be relocated as part of any approval for
Lot 5. Please also note that the PUD Agreement (page 39) also
makes the applicant responsible for providing "off-site
employee housing for net new employees and other employee
housing requirements as may be determined during the amended
approval process for the Lot 5 component of the project".
6. The description of the Ski club condition on page 22 is
accurate. The original reference for this condition is found
in representation 9 on page 44 of 1988 PUD Agreement.
For your information, although the City was not responsible
for choosing the new building site, we completed considerable
work on possible sites. In fact, there is a study of
alternative sites for a new building contained within the 1985
preliminary PUD file for the residential projects. The study
was done by Larry Yaw for the Ski Club and focuses on sites in
and around Willoughby Park and Lift 1A. During this time
period, staff worked as a "catalyst" for a plan to build a ski
museum and Ski Club building in this area. I can describe
this for you in greater detail if you think it is relevant.
7. On page 25, the application mentions the payment of $250,000
to the city toward preparation and implementation of an Aspen
Mountain drainage plan. The original reference for this
condition and the intended uses for the funds are found in
representation 10 on pages 44-45 of the 1988 PUD Agreement.
The applicant accurately states on page 25 that this
contribution relieved the applicant of a prior commitment to
provide on-site detention facilities within the open space
easement contained within the Top of Mill property. However,
on page 65 of the application, the applicant makes another
reference to what this payment meant, that I do not believe is
correct. On page 65 the applicant states that based on the
amended PUD, "storm water generated as a result of the
development of Lot 3 is to be mitigated by the City".
3
It was my understanding that the on-site detention facilities
were principallY intended to detain water and debris that
originate off-site and run onto this site during a storm
event. When it was determined to be premature to decide on
the best form that this hazard control would take, the city
agr~ed to allow the applicant to contribute towards its study
a~d ultimate resolution, rather than to build facilities that
mlght not prove to be adequate. I do not recall that the city
accepted this money with the understanding that the city would
become responsible for mitigating the additional drainage
impacts the development would place on the city.
8. An aspect of the project history not mentioned in the
application is that the city gave the applicant approximatelY
11,000 sq. ft. of land (8 lots) it owned within the Top of
Mill site in exchange for a portion of the Koch Lumber
property (Koch park). The rest of the Koch property was given
to the city in exchange for a series of street vacations
within the PUD. The 8 lots had been zoned public and were
rezoned to L-2 (now L/TR) by ordinance 85-11 on 5/13/85.
9. On page 54 (and again on page 76) the applicant proposes
rezoning the land within the Top of Mill property zoned R-15
to L/TR. For your information, the prior PUD application also
contained such a request. The staff did not support this
request and the attached Resolution 84-5 of the Aspen P&Z
recommended denial of this request for three reasons:
a. The proposed development could be achieved without the
rezoning.
b_ The rezoning would create a more favorable FAR for the
property, which could instead be achieved by a PUD
variation for FAR (a variation which has since been
removed from the RegUlations) .
c. The L-2 zone district would allow mUlti-family
development to occur, which was not consistent with the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designation for the area.
Before the rezoning could be considered by council, it was
withdrawn by the applicant (see 4/6/84 letter from Joe Wells) .
10. On page 58, the application states that 60,260 sq. ft. of the
Top of Mill parcel (about 25%) will be open space. In
reviewing the 1985 preliminary PUD booklet, I note that on
page 50, it states that about 170,000 sq. ft. (70%) will be
open space. I have not spent any time analyzing the site plan
to see why the open space has changed by so much. However, I
would remind you that the definition of open space was changed
in 1988 and it is possible that some areas which qualified as
open space in 1985 do not still qualify today.
4
11_ Some other aspects of the Top of Mill design which appear to
differ from the representations made in 1984/85 include:
a. The prior design did not bring vehicles into the site.
Instead, they were directed to a sUb-grade parking
structure. There was only a single street within the
project site, oriented to continue the City's grid street
network. The application booklet repeatedly made the
point that "powerful axial views up Mill Street will be
maintained and reinforced". The City ultimately vacated
the top portion of Mill Street to facilitate this design
(see City Ordinance 85-14, adopted on 5/13/85 and as
referenced on the final plat).
b. The 33 units within the Top of Mill project were all
planned to have 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area, contained
within a 1,000 sq. ft. footprint.
12. The analysis of mountain view plane issues (page 84) is
consistent with the staff approach to that issue in 1984/85.
For your information, during the prior review we discussed
mountain view plane and 8040 greenline issues at the
conceptual stage, but only gave final approval to the issues
when full architectural and grading plans were submitted at
preliminary plat. I ~?uld .also point out to you that in 1988
the mountain view plane provisions were amended to take into
account the potential that the review of a development in a
view plane that is blocked by another structure should take
into account whether future re-development of that structure
may re-open the view plane. I do not know if that amendment
is relevant to this situation, but wanted you to be aware of
that change since the original review.
13. Finally, I would remind you that the PUD agreemen~ established
park dedication fees for the residential units to be built at
that time. Such fees would appear to also be applicable to
these dwelling units.
I hope this memorandum provides you the information you require to
understand the complete history of these projects. Please let me
know if it would be helpful to you for me to go into greater depth
on any of the issues discussed herein or to provide you any
additional analysis.
5
,.
IlEIlORAllDOM
FROM:
RE:
Aspen planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Richman, planning Office
Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential projects - Preliminary
POD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews
TO:
DATE:
March 5, 1985
=================================================~=====================
APPLICAIlTS' RroOEST
The Applicants request preliminary PUD/subdivision approval for the
residential projects included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. Other
associated review procedures to be followed at this time are are follows:
1. Confirmation of prior RBO for Ute City Place 1
2. Condominiumizationl
3. 8040 Greenl ine; and
4. Conditional use for short-terming in the R-15(L) PUD zone
district.
This application is being processed subsequent to the completion of
your review of the lodge component of the POD. Permission to pha se
and separately review the lodge and residential components was expresslY
granted by Council on August 27, 1984, provided that the approval of
any preliminary stage not become effective until the preliminary
review for the entire PUD has been approved. You granted preliminary
approval to the lodge component of the PUD by your Rescl ution 85-1 on
January 22, 1985, including a condition that the approval not be final
until you have also approved the preliminary residential comfOnent.
PROJECf DESCRIPTION
The residential proj ects incl uded within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD
are as follows:
1. Internal to Hotel - 14 units (8 via GMP application, 6 via
reconstruction of demolished units within the PUDlo
2. Top of Mill - 33 units (all units are a reconstruction of
demolished uni ts wi thin the PUD).
3. Summit Place - 3 units (two units are already under construc-
tion, exempt from GMP as a duplex on a previously subdivided
lot; the third unit is to be a reconstruction of a demolished
unit within the PUD).
4. 700 South Galena - 4 units (all via GMP application).
5. Ute city place - 22 units (all units are employee units and
have been granted a GNP-exemption as deed restricted housing).
In summary, there are a total of forty (40) units which the applicant
has verified and wishes to reconstruct within the PUD, and twelve (12)
units for which the applicant has received GMP allotments and proposes
to build within the PUD. The twenty-two (22) employee units at ute
city Place represent one element of the total employee housing solution
for the project, which also includes the following:
1. Alpina Haus _ 43 rooms (change in use from lodge to employee
housing, 46 emp10yeeS to be hol' ~)
2. Copper Horse - 14 rooms (change in use from lodge to employee
\
\
housing, 43 employees to be housed).
3. Airport Business Center Apartments (32 units (deed-restriction
of units which are presently in the free market, 69 employees
to be housed).
4. Ute City Place - 22 units (construction of new deed restricted
housing, 37 empl oyees to be housed).
The total of 195 employees to be housed within these foJr (4) projects
is intended to meet the applicant's commitments wH:h respect to the
lodge, residential and commercial GMP applicatidns submitted during
the last 18 months, plus the replacement of any housing which 'exists
and is being demolished or was otherwise committed to within the PUD.
While employee housing represents one key issue which will require
review at this stage of the process, there are a variety of other
issues which should receive your attention at this time. The maj or
items which the Planning Office feels require review, based on our
comprehensive review of the conditions of conceptual approval, are:
1. Basic land use and site design issues, particUlarly in terms
of landscaping, height and compatibility with surrounding
developments, ineo rporating the preliminary PUD, 8040
Greenline, and condi tion use cri teria of the Code.
2. Circulation plans for the. site, including roads, trails,
parking solutions and overall access for emergency purposes.
3. Plans .for mitigation of natural hazards, including potential
geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain, stormwater drainage from
the mountain onto the site, contaminated soils on the site,
and potential mine subsidence on the site. .
4. Miscellaneous issues such as the Koch Lumber land trade, the
relocation of the Aspen Ski Club's building and condominiumiza-
tion of the free market units.
REVIEW APPROACH
Normally, the Planning Off ice' s approach to a proj ect of this ~~.gnitude
would be to in! tiate our review wi th Borne of the broad s1 te concerns
(i.e., t1, 2 and 3 above} and then move on to the relatively peripheral
concerns such. as employee housing and miscellaneous i terns. However, the
Planning Office has been severly hampered in it.s review of this
project by some unusual delays in receipt of referral m~mos ,from
several key agencies. Recognizing the very technical nature of of
some of the issues being addressed by these individuals, we have
decided to concentrate this memo on those items where adequate informa-
tion is presently available (principally employee housing and items 1
and 2). We will forward additional memos to you prior to your review
of the other issues when better review data is received.
Following is the schedule which we propose for review of the residential
projects:
Tonight - Employee Housing, Architectural Concerns
March 12 - Site Design and Circulation
March 19 - Hazard Mitigation
March 26 -Miscellaneous Concerns and Wrap Up
April 2 - Resol ut i on
This memo before you tonight should be adequate to take us through the
first two meetings and a follOW-Up memo for the 3rd and 4th meetings
will be written subsequently. This schedule has been reviewed and
approved by both the applicants and the Chairman.
2
EIIPLOYEE HooSING
The key concerns with respect to employee housing are included in the
attached City Council Resol uti on 84-27, endorsing the Aspen Mountain
PUD revised employee housing proposal. The major aspects of that
Resolution were as follows:
1. The applicants should recalculate the employee housing
generation figures, based on revisions to the lodge program,
and further document that existing employee housing units
have been replaced.
2. The applicants should deed-restrict the units in the Alpina
Haus, Copper Borse, Ute City Place and Airport Business
Center Apartmentse
3. The applicants should identify needed building improvements
to the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse.
4. The applicants should identify parking and transportation
plans for the employee housing units.
5. The applicants should address eight (8) specific conceptual
conditions for ute City Place.
In response to requirement 1, the applicants have submitted an update
of their employee housing generation figures, contained on pages
139-142 of the submission. Jim Curtis, representing the applicants,
i:tdicates that the new requirement for the hotel and residential
projects, based on GMP commitments, is 195 employees, as compared to
the 201 employees previously to be housed. The recalculation also
includes the employee housing units which must be replaced to mitigate
the displacement pressures of condominiumization.
Looking specifically at the employee generation figures, we find that
the reduced level of accessory retail space in the hotel is the
primary reason for the drop in lodge employees at this time. Given
the fact that the same approach is used by Jim in the original and
updated calculations, Jim Adamski comments that "the Housing Office
concurs with the applicants' methodolOgy and calculations and therefore
endorses this portion of the preliminary Plat."
As you may recall, the only issue which the Planning Office rai sed
with respect to the replacement calculation was the applicants' substitu-
tion of a commitment to house all thirteen (13) of the employees
generated by the 36 units of the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP for the prior
Cantrup commitment to house 35 employees in 24 units. This issue was
resolved during the review of the lodge component in favor of the
applicants' proposal.
The second item, with respect to deed-restrictions, has been properly
addressed through the applicants submission of the necessary documents,
to be incorporated In the pUD Agreement.
The third item, with respect to Building improvements, has been
addressed by Jim curtis in a letter contained on pages 161-162 of the
application. In essence, Jim found that both buildings are well
maintained and therefore have nO major mechanical, roof or structural
problems. Therefore, the applicants have committed to various cosmetic
improvements to make the Mits somewhat more pleasant for occupancy.
The fourth item, with respect to parking and transportation, requires
first, that the the applicants retain all on-site parking at the
Alpina HauS and Copper Borse. The applicants have agreed to retain
the lIon-site spaces at the Alpina Haus and the 4 on-site spaces at
the Copper Horse to comply with this requirement.
The second parking requirements. was that the applicants mitigate the
effects of this below Code parking ratio by providing at least one
3
\
parking space for every twa employees at the housing units. Across
the four residential projects, the applicant is providing 100 spaces
for the 195 employees housed (see Table I, page 163). However, in
town, the applicant is only providing 42 spaces f9r the. 126 employees
housed, a ratio of .one (1) space for every three employees housed.
The other half of the parking equation is parking for employees at
their place of work. The applicants' traffic consultant belleves that
there will be unused parking spaces in the hot"l which .could be
segregated for employee parking. The likely cusliion avai~"ble Is .18
ta 56 spaces, plus, 10 permanent spaces f9r employees. 'roaddress the
parking short-fall which is likely ta resul t, the applicants propose
the f all owing:
1. Employees will be discouraged from driving to work through
management policies such as assigning spaces taspecific
employees. Please note that three of the projects are
within walking distance of the hotel and are on bus rautes,
while the ABC praperty will be served by an employee shuttle
and the RFTA buses. (See page 166-170 of application).
2. Employees will be prohibited from bringing their cars ta the
hotel during peak occupancy periods.
In my .opinion, the applicants have not adequately addressed ~he..need
f or employee parking at the em pI oyee' s place of residence f or the
in-town prajects. I suggest that the applicants be asked to provide
documentation that a ratio of, one space for every three employees is
adequate, given historical auto ownership patterns. If such documenta-
tion is unavailable, the applicants should be required to provide a
minimum of 21 additional spaces in and around the 3 in~town projects to
bring the ratio up ta .one space per twa employees.
On the other hand, I feel mare comfartable with the lack .of emplayee
spaces on the hotel site. My reasans for concurring with the applicants
proposals in this regard are the availability of public and private
transit service, the ability of the. hotel operator to control the
employees and my expectation that adequate on-street controls can be
enforced ta prevent long-term parking by employees.
The fifth item, with respect to the eight canditions of conceptual
approval of ute City Place requires the following responses:
1. The water system interconnect originally required of this
project has already been made by the City Water Department.
2. The applicants have re-evaluated, at the request of Jay
Hammond, the proposed curb cut entryway on Coaper to the
parking area and have faund that by maving the cut away from
the West End Street intersection to the vicinity of Cleveland
Street, the traffic .conflict problems identified earlier can
be solved. Jay feels that the new location will ell1ninate
the need to prohibit left turns into the lot from. Cooper
Street and will help to provide better access to several
properties which are currently not well served by the alley
behind the Ute City Place Project.
3. The applicants have agreed to provide a sidewalk along Cooper.
4. The applicants have provided a landscaping plan which provides
the majority of its planting along Cooper Street. The
street trees Incl ude cottonwoods, spruce and aspens, with
the spruce specifically intended to screen the parking lot.
Shrubs and ground cover are used for accent purposes only.
The adequacy of the plan, only requesting that some minor
changes be made ta the praposal.
5. The applicants have agreed to eliminate all fireplaces in
the Ute City Place proj ect, going beyond the requirements .of
the Code.
4
6. The applicants are providing 27 spaces for the 37 employees
to be housed, in excess of the one (1) space per two (2)
employees requirements.
7. There is no response to this issue required.
8. The question of rezoning this site to RBO is one to which I
have given a giieat deal of thought. In effect, this site
is already zoned RBO, although that zoning designation was
given to ~ particular project. However, the rezoning
ordinance'did not indicate that the RBO designation would
expire if the project expired, and so I believe no rezoning
is required.
what I believe is necessary at thia time is for us to reconfira that
this project is in compliance with the RBO which was granted to this
site. On pages 129-133, the applicants make some very convincing
arguments about the appropriateness of this site and project for the
RBO designation, including:
1. It exceeds the 50% deed-restricted housing requirements of
'RBO by having 100% of the units so designated.
2. It is in a neighborhood which is primarily free market
housing and therefore helps to disperse employee units.
3. Its design and bulk is in keeping with surrounding uses.
4. It is on a bus route and close to shopping and the lodge.
It provides adequate on-site parking.
In my opinion, since we found the prior ute City place Project to be
in conformance with RBO criteria, this project should be found to be
in even greater compliance for the following reasons:
1. The FAR in the project has been reduced from 1.34:1 (using
current calculation methods) to 1.1:1.
2. Open space on the site has been increased from 18% to 23%.
AI though thi s amount of open space is below the new: Y
ImIX>sed 35% requirements in the R-MF district, this requirement
can, and we believe should, be waived, as per Section
24-10.5(f) of the Code. Please also note that the project's
height continues to be at 28 feet (not the 25 feet required
by the zone) due to the applicants' having obtained a
variance from that newly imposed provision of the Code.
3. Landscaping on the site exceeds that previously proposed.
Parking has been increased from 26 to 27 spaces and is
accessed in an improved fashion.
4. The project is 100%, rather than approximately 67% employee
housing.
Based on the above considerations, I believe that the project should
be confirmed as meeting the intents and purposes of the existing RBO
zoning designation.
The only remaining issue with respect to employee housing is the
applicants request for condominiumization. The applicants have requested
condominiumization of the ute city place units for {X>ssible sale to
employees. Jim Adamski raises a concern, shared by the Planning
Office, that due to the seasonal nature of many of the lodge employees,
purchase may be an inappropriate option. The Housing Authority has
therefore asked for the abil ity to review the mix of rental and sale
units three months prior to their deed-restriction for a determination
as to what percentage of the total project housing mix can be condominl-
umized.
5
With the exception of th~ ,above issue, no other concerns relative to
Section 20-22 appear to be relevant at this time, since the one
existing unit on the site has never been rented on a long-term basis.
We will impose the relevant conditions on this proposal (i. e., six
month minimum lease) in our resolution containing conditions.
ARCBITEcrDRB, SITE DESIGN ANn CIRcULATiON ..
The residentjal projects have changed as regards basic design, to
varying degrees since conceptual sUbmission. The Top of Mill proj ect
has rem~ained essentially the same as its original presentation, with
the ex~eption that the project has addressed the conditions and
concerns raised at the. conceptual stage~ The 700 S. Galena project,
as presented to you in the recent residential competition, has changed
significantly, and, in our opinion, much for the better. Finally, the
Summit Place and Ute City Place proj ects remain essentially as they
were originally presented at the conceptual stage. Poll owing is a
review of the key architecture, site design and circulation issues for
these four projects.
1. Top of M111
The major improvement to the Top of Mill project is its compliance
with Condition t7 of Resolution t84-27 which requires that
building height be kept to 33 feet from the lowest floor level to
the mid-point of the roof. Parking and part .o,f e~ch unit have
been placed underground, to reduce massing, and the illustrative
site plan now shows five (5) single-family and fourteen (14) duplex
structures, as compared to the three (3) single-family and
fifteen (15) duplex structures shown preViouSly. There are no
mul ti-family units within this proj ect.
The development approach to the si te has been to cl uster the
units into "courtyard-like settings" in two distinct areas of the
property. '!'he lower part of the property, in the vicinity of the
Mountain Queen and Summit Street, contains five (5) duplex
structures in a clustered configuration. The unIts are accessed
by entering the parking structure on Summit Street, and by taking
an elevator and pedestrian system through the complex. .A 25 foot
easement has been created on Summit Street to handle the anticipated
traffic; and to comply witb Condition .9 of the Resolution.
The upper part of the property begins in the portion of Mill
Street which is being vacated, where oars and emergency vehicles
enter 'the a1 te and can turn around, park in the six (6) guest
parking spaces or enter the upper parking garage. Three (3)
of the single-family houses are clustered in the vicinity of
this entry area, al though retaining a view corridor up Mill
Street to the Mountain. The remaining two (~) single-family
units are located at the very top of the "bowl". The. remaining
eight (8) duplexes on the upper portion of the site are principally
arranged to form .courtyards. open tothemountai,n., ,Once again,
internal access to all units is through the park.ing garage,
elevators and a pedestrian system.
The Top of Mill proj ect maintains approximately 70% of the
property in open space, including a major open space easement in
the northwest corner of the property above the Mountain Queen,
and landscaped open space throughout the project. The landscape
plan includes formal landscaping with a transition toward more
natural planting as one moves towards the upper 1 imi ts of the
site. Condition t8 of Resolution 84-23 required that existing
mature vegetation be retained to the maximum extent possibl e and
that landscaping be used to screen view of the project from Mill
Street, Lift lA and the ski area.
It is important for P&Z to recogniz e that the site will be
extensively disturbed during the construction phase. Drawing 3A
shows the limits of site excavation to encompass about 2/3 of the
entire site. It should be noted, however, that little of this
6
area is in a RnaturalR condition today, and much of the disturbance
will be to cover materials left on the site, including toxic mine
remains, and to construct a retention pond for storm drainage and
the ski tr~il. The drawing also shows two groves of aspen trees
which will be disturbed by the project. The applicant intends to
investigate the possibil ity of replanting trees in the retention
pond since it is intended to hold water during only a portion of
the year. Other areaS where trees will be disturbed are in the
lower portions of the site, where both evergreens and cottonwoods
will be removed, and possiblY relocated. Jim Holland's conunents
on the applicants proposed landscaping are that the .planting
replacement program appears quite adequate.-
There were a number of important conditions in Resolution 84-23
related to circulation through the Top of Mill site. Condition
t4 required -resolution of the Engineering Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of
the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes.-
To respond to this issue, the applicants employed Rolf Jensen and
Associates, who prepared the report contained on Pages 95-96 of
the application. The report indicates that the project' s design
does not comply with the Uniform Fire Code criteria for accesS.
The maximum travel distance from an access road to an exterior
wall of a building in the project is 318 feet, well in excess of
the 150 foot standard. Therefore, to mitigate this problem, the
consul tant recommends the following:
A. Provide automatic sprinkler protection throughout living
units and parking areas.
B. provide dry standpipes, located SO that exterior walls of
buildings are within 150 feet of an outlet.
c. provide a turn around space at the dead-end of Mill Street,
and provide Fire Department connections for the dry standpipe
system at this location.
The appl icants have committed to the above mitigation measures
and the City Engineer informs me that he is therefore satisfied
with this resolution of the problem.
Condition 15 had to do with the vacation of Mill street. In
response to this condition, the applicants have agreed to realign
all utility lines at their own expense, and have therefore been
able to obtain sign-offs from the utilities, concurring that the
losS of right-of-way will not interfere with their current or
future needs. ~Furthermore, the proposed street vacation ordinance
for all vacations within the PUD, contained in AppendiX B,
specificallY reserves to the City rights-of-way and easements for
utilities and the right to use the vacated street for emergency
vehicles and the diversion of public traffic during emergency
purposes.
Condition 19 required that an adequate easement on Summit street
be granted to the City. The applicants have granted the 25 foot
easement desired by the City Engineer and have further moved the
buildings on the lower portion of the site such that the summit
Place and Top of Mill Wlits are 40 feet apart. The applicants
have also noted that their traffic consultant, TDA, "felt that
the disadvantages of opening Summit street outweigh the benefits.-
In a conversation with the city Engineer, this concl usion was
found to be quite doubtfuL While we are willing to accept the
applicants desire to keep summit street closed at the beginning
of this proj ect, we question whether ul timately circulation needs
of the 'area will outweigh the advantages of the ski-in trail
which crosses Summit street. We expect that parking restrictions
will be needed on the street and that monitoring of traffic
problems in the area will be necessary.
7
Condition 110 required the applicants to provide "a landscaped
sidewalk across the Top of Mill site and within the Summit Street
easement so as to facil itate pedestrian and emergency vehicle
access between Monarch and Mill Streets." The appli cants have
committed to an eight (8) foot wide paved sidewalk along Summit
Street from the driveway access for the lower parking structure
to the west property line, to be landscaped with grasses.
Condi tion 112 required that the applicants increase the parking
on the Top of Hill site from eighty (80) to ninety (90) spaces.
The applicants now propose ninety-two (92) spaces in the follo~ing
locations:
Upper Structures Spaces
Lower Structure Spaces
On-Grade Guest Spaces
58
28
..[
TOTAL
92 spaces
TWo other issues which should be discussed wi th respect to the basic
land use and site design of the Top of Mill property are its
compliance with 8040 greenline criteria and the use of the
property for short-term rental purposes, which the appl icants
believe is a conditional use in the R-15 (L) PUD zone.
The intention of 8040 Greenline Review is to evaluate all develop-
ment above that line and any development up to 50 yar ds below
that line for its compatibility with the natural features of
Aspen Mountain. The applicants have specifically address each of
the relevant criteria as follows:
1. Adequacy of water pressure and other utilities: These
issues have been addressed in the conceptual PUD submission.
Booster pumps will be provided to insure adequate water
pressure to the upper units.
2. Adequacy of roads. for fire, protection, snow. removal and
maintenance: The issue of fire protection has'ilIre:a'dy'beeri'.
addr,esaed above. We awa! t the City Engineer I B commenteon
the other items.
3. Site suitability including slope, ground instahtlity, mud
flow, rock fall and avalanche danger: These issue,S have
been extensively discussed in reports prepared by Chen and
Associates and will be reviewed at a subsequent meeting when
referral comments are available.
4. Effects on run-off, drainage, erosion and water pollution:
The referral comments on these items are also forthcoming.
5. Effects on air quality: According to the applicants analysis,
the fireplaces and vehicle emissions impacts of the project
will be a minor increase in particulate!';, hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide, but that there will be a decrea se in
all vehicle emissions categories. Confirmation of tl)ese
claims has yet to be obtained from the Environmental Heal th
Department.
6. Compatibility of roads and stru<:tureswitll,terraln: "In,,()ur
ea-rIler review of the project, we indic8tedthat_ tile" unl~~
will comply with the height requirement of the zone ,arid are
compatible with surrounding uses. Units have been stepped
up Mill Street, and use the relatively invisible location of
the bowl to best advantage. New road construction in the
area has been keep to an absolute minimum.
7. Disturbance to terrain, vegetation and land features through
grading: As noted above, the development will result in
e xtensi vc 81 te gr adi ng and dlst urbance of vege ta tl on. J 1m
Holland has approved the applicants' tree replacement
8
program. The site grading which will take place will not
affect natural terrain but instead w ill disturb previouslY
modified lands. The net impact of all of this disturbance
should be a substantially reclaimed area, although admittedly
the lOBS of Borne of the existing trees will [eBul t in less
of a "natural" feel to the site.
8. Placement of structures and roads to increase open space,
minimize roads, cutting and grading and preserve the scenic
mountain: As noted above, roads are kept to a minimum within
the site and open space is at approximately 70%. The
retention of the view corridor through Mill street is a key
to the success of the design. as is the stepping of units up
the hill. There will be significant cutting and grading, as
noted above.
9. Reduction of building height and bulk: Bulk has been reduced
through the use of underground parking and the design of
structures as single-family and duplex units.
In summary, the applicants appear to have met the intent and
purposes of the 8040 Greenline Review through their project
design. Final 8040 Greenline approval should only be granted
after adequate referral comments addressing criteria 2 through 5
have been received.
The other issue with respect to use which should be discussed is
the question of conditional use. Since the property incl udes
land zoned R-1S (L) PUD, the applicants have applied for a
conditional use permit for the rental of the Top of Mill units on
a short-term basis. The R-1S zone use requirements in Section
24-3.2 of the Code state that lodges are a conditional use in the
R-15 zone district where an -L" is shown on the map. In my
opinion, rental.of these units on a short-term basis does not
represent a conditional use, rather, it is actually a request to
except condominiumized residential units from the six (6) month
minimum lease restriction. My reason for this determination is
the deftni tion of lodge in Section 24-3.1(0) which ine! udes the
following language:
"A building containing three (3) or more units, none of
which units contain kitchen facilities. intended for temporary
occupancy of guests..
Since none of the buildings on the Top of Mill site contain three
(3) or more units and all contain kitchen facilities. this use
cannot be considered a lodge and is ineligible for a conditional
use permit. Excpetion of these units from the six (6) month
minimum lease provisions will be considered as a miscellaneous
issue during a subsequent meeting when residential condominiumiza-
tion of the free-market units is discussed.
2. 700 South Gal enA
The 700 South Galena project has experienced the most significant
changes since conceptual submission. Rather than developing the
site as a twelve (12) unit condominium complex, the proposal is
instead to building two (2) duplexes in more of a townhouse
configuration. with the remaining eight (8) units having been
transferred to the lodge building. The major reasons for these
changes are to accommodate the concerns of neighbors and the city
Council'S conditions of approval, and to address the desire of
the City to realign Galena Street.
The principal features of the project as regards archi tecture,
site design and circulation are as follows:
A. The duplexes will conform to the height limitations of the
zone, thereby complying with conceptual Condition tl6.
9
B. The project provides fifteen (is) underground spaces and
four (4) on-grade guest spaces for the twelve (12) bedroom
compl ex. The parking areas are accessed off the northern
edge of the property.
C. A sidewalk is shown for the length of the property and
allows pedestrian access to the units through a courtyard.
D. The applicants have agreed to realign Galena Street, in
keeping with Condition f17 of Resolution 84-23 and much to
the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. The realign-
ment has avoided the issue identified in Condition Il4
regarding, the identification of any easements which must be
acquired to construct fhe project. The gas line beneath the
site nO longer encroaches onto the site and is instead
within the right-of-way. Furthermore, the existing dead-end
overhead electric line remaining along the rear of the site
will be buried, for which a utility easement has been located.
3. SUlDIlit Place Townhouses
There are virtually no design or circulation issues which have
been noted to date wi th respect to the Summit place aspect of the
POD. The architectural style of the project has been established
as a result of the prior work on the exterior of the ori gi nal
duplex. The third unit will match ,the,other two homes, while the
foundation for the fourth unit wIf1 be removli!d to make room for
the ski-in trail. The three (3) units all meet height and bulk
limits for the zone. No conditions relative to Summit Place were
identified at the conc'eptual stage, and no additional concerns
have arisen at this time.
4. ute City Place
Compliance of this project with its condItions of c"nceptual
approval has been reviewed above. Since this project has already
been taken th rough the enJ.i re subdivision process for a very
simil ar conftguration, it seems re~undant to apply these' procedures
once again. We believe that a ftnding as to. compliance with the
conditions of conceptual approval should be adequate to deal with
Preliminary POD issues concerning site design and circulation.
SUIUlAllY
This memo is intended to introduce you to the residential, projects
contained within the Aspen Mountain Lodge and to address the 'following
review concerns:
1. Employee Housing; and
2. Architecture, Site Design and Circulation.
I anticipate developing a second memo for your meeting on March 19,
addressing the fOllowing issues:
3. Hazard Mitigation; and
4. Miscellaneous Concerns.
Following the series of meetings at which these topics are reviewed, I
will draft a resolution which comprehensively addresses the points you
have raised regarding these projects.
lO
IlBIIORA!lDUIl
RE:
Aspen planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Richman, Planning Office
Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects - Preliminary
POD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
March 19, 1985
;========-=====================================================~=======
INTRODUCTIOR
In our previous memorandum to you on this subject, dated March 5, we
provided you with a general description of the Top of Mill, Summit
place, 700 South Galena and Ute City place projects. The memO also
reviewed these projects in terms of basic land use and site design
issues, circulation and employee housing. These issues were reviewed
and completed at your meetings on March 5 and March 12.
The purpose of th i s memO is to address the remaining concerns with
respect to the residential projects for the discussions which are to
take place on March 19 and March 26. As a reminder, the issues to be
discussed are as follows:
1. plans for mitigation of natural hazards.
2. Miscellaneous outstanding issues emerging from conceptual
conditions of approval
3. Residential condominiumization.
The meeting on March 19 is intended to address topical area '1, while
that on March 26 should deal with areas .2 and t3 (unless time permits
on March 19 to complete all outstanding issues). Finally, on April 2
we hope to present you with a resolution for action on these projects.
NA~RAL BAXARDS REVIBli'
There are four (4) types of natural hazards which have been addressed
by the applicants in response to the conditions of conceptual approval.
Taking these issues in rank order, from the least complex'to the most
complex, the areas addressed are as follows:
1. potential mine subsidence on the site.
2. Contaminated soils on the site.
3. Stormwater drainage from the mountain onto the site.
4. Geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain.
l. potential Iline Subsidence
The study of mine subsidence potential by Chen and Associates is
contained in Appendix 0 of the submi Bslon. The study was a
literature review, as opposed to an on-site analysis, and made
the following findings:
"The Aspen Mountain Lodge proj ect site is located at
least 200 feet from the area where large concentrations
of mine workings have been mapped. Based on our
experience wi th similar projects, the geology and type
of mining, a safety zone of 200 feet from mine workings
should be satisfactory. Records of underground mine
workings below the site were not found. There is Borne
possibility that mine workings (small, shallow pits,
abandoned exploration tunnels or shafts, mine water
drainage or ventilation tunnels) may be present at the
site which were not mapped or recorded thro~gh 65 years
of mining. Because the proposed site is located
outside of the main ore bearing zone, the possibility
of major unrecorded mine workings below the site is
very small. In this regard we recommend that field
observation by an experienced geologist be made when
the snow cover is gone..
I have discussed this study with Jay Hammond and it is our
opinion that the field obserVation suggestion by then should be
impl emented. It should be required that the resul ts of these
reports be available to the Building Inspector prior to the
issuance of any building permits on the site.
2. Contaainated Soils
Appendix D also contains the Chen and Associates chemical investi-
gation of near surface soils. The purpose of this study' was -to
determine whether the soils might be classified as potentially
hazardous materials, based upon testing proced~re~r~q~~~~4~? by
the u.s. EPA. 'II Twelve test pits we~e_excavllted and. t'he:,' samples
were analyzed for total lead content and EP toxicity. The
resul ts of this analysis were that among the three zones sampled,
Zone 1, in the southermost portion of the site and Zone 2, just
above the proposed terminus of Mill Street, fail ed the toxicity
test, while the sample from zon.e 13, in the central and lower
portion of the si te,was not classified as hazardous.
Based on this analysis, the consultant identified four (4)
mi ti gati on al ternatives:
a. Do nothingl
b. Excavate the contaminated soils and ship to a disposal
site;
c. Cover the contaminated soils with soils from off-site,
or
d. Develop a cut-and-fill plan using uncontaminated soils
from the property to cover contaminated ~oi16.
The consultant chose the fourth option based on its cost effective-
ness. Tom Dunlop comments that contouring the s1 te and covering
the soils is an effective techl\iqUe for mitigating the health
haz ard of contami na ted soil s. Tom further rec.ommen ds tha t
surface water be diverted from the contaminated areas to insure
that no contamination of groundwater takes place. In thi s
respect, we would note that no testing was done in the area of the
proposed detention pond. Such testing would seem appropriate
before approval is given to place the pond in this location.
Tom further notes that if any excavated material is to be shipped
off-site, it be limited to materials which are not contaminated.
We, therefore, recommend that no material from the. Top of Mill
portion of the site be permitted to be. moved off the ..site. This
limitation should effectively deal with all contaminated soil s,
since, 8S one moves further down the site, the hazards become
negligible. Tom also had several other informational requirements
which can be deal t with in your resol uti on.
3 & 4.
Storavater Drainage/Ceologic Hazards
The final two hazard issues have been addressed jointly due. to
the comment by Jeff Hynes Of the COlorado Geologic Survey that:
.Three general hazards are directly associated with
this proposal. They are: unstable and potentially
u'stable slopes; debris flows; and flash flooding.
These processes are dynamically interrelated in extremely
2
complex ways in which each can be the cause or the
result of any of the others. Events can be random,
sequential or episodic in nature with highly variable
time delays between related events.-
The applicants had Chen and Associates prepare two studies on
these hazardS, one being a study of the 1984 landslide event.
while the other looked at the potential for debris flow originating
on the north faice of Aspen Mountain. A study of stormwater
drainage was ,prepared by Rea Cassens and Associates, to coordinate
the overall; 'site drainage needs with the off-site impacts of mud
flower del:}ris floWS and other materials transported from the
mountain onto the site. .
The applicants have summarized the conclusions of the Chen and
Associates report as follows:
a. -Debris flows have occurred in the past with reoccurrence
intervals measured in hundreds of years.
b. Mud-floods have occurred in the past. The mud-flood is
similar to the water flood except for significant volumes of
transported sediment. The mud-flood return period is 25 years.
c. The potential for a debris flow from the landslide reaching
Aspen Moun tian Lodge and th~ Top of Mill sites as any thing
but a fluid ,'mud flood" appears relatively low. The "mud
flood- hazard can be mitigated in the same manner and using
the same structures as proposed for storm drainage.
d. Based on the results of our investigation, it appears that
hyper-concentrated mud-floods with solids concentration of
about 40% by vol ume pose the most risk of damage to the
proj ect.
e. We believe the potential risks and mitigation measures for
the project should be eval uated by hydrologic and hydraulic
methods. Water flood volLmles, however, should be increased
by 50% to account for transport of solids in the flows.
f. Conceptual mitigation measures would include the construction
of detention/debris basins, diversion structures and channel i-
zation. provisions for periodic debris removal and cleanup
should be included in the design of mitigation measures.
g. The monitoring program has not indicated any significant
movenent of the landslide masS during the period of this
study. The lack of data showing a clearly defined failure
surface has limited our ability to analyze the landslide and
propose corrective measures. However, the preliminary
results indicate a relatively shallow failure surface within
the mine dump material or near the contact of the original
ground surface and the mine dump.
h. continued monitoring of the inclinometers and piezometers is
recommended through at least the last spring of 1985.
Addi tional monitoring may be required beyond this time if
the Aspen Skiing Company desires to develop corrective
measures for stablizing the landslide.-
Jeff Hynes, of the colorado Geologic Surve:, has provided us with
a detail ed review of these studies, focu..:ing on study methods,
conclusions and recommendations. Jeff's full response is included
in your packet, but can be summarized with the fOllowing highlights:
a. "While Appendices D and E provide a great deal of valuable
information, they are less than what is necessary to understand
and predict the behavior of this slope-failure-prone area.
b. The level of investigation of the reini tiated landalide of
3
last June is insufficient in both detail and time span to
adequately characterize this slide mass and/or predict its
future behavior.
c. Stability analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions
rather than actual, ,measuredcharacteristicB of the landslide
due to insufficient data. One of the critical assumptions
made was that the materials were drained. This is most
probably not the critical condition of the landslide deposit
nor the fteld conditions observed in conjunction with the
movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions,
a safety factor of less than 1.0 was achieved in one of the
two cases. This case was cl assified as "marginally stabl e"
in the Chen Report. By definition, the correct classification
for this case is unstable.
d. Characterization of the prinCipal mode of debris movement as
a mud-flood, and therefor mitigatable by channelization does
not take into. ace"unt.. the episodic nature and potential
interaction t>etween,__;s~v,~rCtl ~ve~_t:!J. ,A, ,small landslide or
debris flow which would present only a trivial threat to the
actual structures. eould effectively block or al ter the
drainage network rend"ring it. all but useless. tOd"fendthe
development from the flash flood which could occur before
the blockage was cleared, or even noticed...
e. In summary, we would like to concur with and reiterate the
recommendations found in the. Chen. reports calling for more
detailed studies of the mas~ wasting and slope failure
processes affecting this area. The complex! ty of these
phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood
in order to make any reliable predictions about their
likelihood, recurrence interval, and the risk they pose to
the anticipated development. Additionally, the excess
moisture ,c(),ndi,tionsas,s,ociatedwlththe ~Bpring thaw and
runoff period' represents th'e critical phase of the landslide
problem. Given _ the m(>,Y,eme9tand, ~urfac:e disruption last
June, it is highly. likely that this slide mass will absorb
more water this spring than last and may move again.
f. Based upon the aboveconsid,er~tlonB we recommend that the
City postpone any decision on this application until detailed
studies have been completed and the hazards are better
understood and realistic risk ass~s,sments.can be performed.
The timing of the studies should be such. tha.t.the critical
period (melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field
investigations. "
Given the recommendations made by Mr. Hynes in points e and f
above, I reviewed this issue in a meeting with the City Manager,
City Engineer, an.d Chief Environmental Health Offtcer. We all
concur with the recommendations made by Chen and Associates
and by Jeff Hynes that further study is needed before any decision
on this application can be made. We recommend that Chen and
Associate:s_ be requested to set up a study program for monitoring
and analysis of the hazard and that this program be reviewed by
Mr. Bynes for his concurrence. These conclusions have been
discussed with the applicants who concor with the approach we are
taking, and who have already moved forward w.ith developing the
necessary study and contacting Mr. Hynes.
Based on these conclusions, we further recommend that the applicants
return to City Council for reconsideration of the ~o~dition which
limits the lodge portion of the pun from proceeding .to ftnal plat
until the residential projects have received preliminary approval.
In our opinion, the main reason for this condition was to insure
integrated planning of the site frCln the standpoint of architecture,
site design, circulation and similar issues. Since these issues
have been addre'.':ied and resolved to the City's satisfaction at this
time, we Bee no reason to hold up progress regarding the lodge itself,
4
as well as the 700 south Galena, Summit Place and Ute City Place
projects. However, this approach does leave the applicants at some
risk since it means that TOp of Mill is essentially an unapproved
portion of the PUD at this time. We feel that the City's interests in
the POD can be preserved since the eventual development of the site
will likely be in the form proposed at this stage or at some lessened
density.
IlISCBLLAIIIlOUS CORDI'l'IORS OF APPROVAL
I
There were two conditions of conceptual approval which did not fi't into
any of the categories previously discussed. These conditions'l <tl and
.2 of Resol ution 84-23) dealt wi th the Koch Land Trade and the relocation
of the Ski Club's buildings.
The condition with respect to the Koch Property reflected the Council's
desire to consummate the land exchange in conj unction with the ftnal
plat submission. The applicants have contacted the city Attorney and
Planning Office to establish a procedure for dealing wi th the land
exchange. As you are aware, the exchange involves two (2) pieces of
land, one being traded in exchange f or the City Lots in the Capitol
Hill Addition and the other being freely given as a gift to the City.
The City Attorney and I concur that the best way to deal wi th the
subdivision of the land into two parcels for purposes of its conveyance
to the City is as a subdivision exception. This procedure is expected
to be completed simultaneously with the Final Plat action, with the
request having been recently submitted by the applicants.
As one condition of obtaining the Capitol Hill lots, the applicants
agreed to construct for the Aspen Ski Club a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality than that which it nOw occupies on
the City lots. This commitment also showed up as Condition .2 of
Resolution 84-23.
In response to this condition, the applicants have reiterated their
commitment to construct anew Ski Club building of increased size and
improved qual ity rel ative to the Cl ub' s present situation. It has al so
come to my attention that the Ski Club is noW actively involved in a
search for a new building site. The attached letter from Larry Yaw to
Alan Novak waS written in response to an earlier letter by Dick
Meeke< of the Aspen Ski Club. Laryy has evaluated the suitability of
three sites based on eight criteria, all as originally identifted by
the Ski Cl ub.
The three sites identified for the new building are within or in the
vicinity of Willoughby park. Larry Yaw finds the parcel currently
used for the volleyball courts to be the most suitable of the locations
and proposes that the volleyball use be relocated to the Koch parcel.
While it is not the P&Z's (or the applicants') responsibility to
choose the site for the building, it would be helpful at this point to
give the Ski Club some guidanCe about the proposed locations. Given
the lack of site planning for the Koch parcel, I am somewhat doubtful
about displacing this use without a straight-forward replacement
plan. It seems more reasonable to me toconslder some form of recon-
struction of, or addition to the ARA building to house the Ski Club.
COHDOKINIUIlIZA'l'ION
On pages 32-38 of the Bul:tDission, the applicants request subdivision
exception for the purposes of condominumization of the 700 s. Galena,
Summit Place and Top of Mill units. The units within the lodge have
already received your recommendation of approval for condominiumization,
while the lUllts at ute city place were addressed 1n an earlier memo.
The applicants' responses to the criteria of Section 20-22 are as
follows:
a. No extsting tenants need be given written notice, as the
condominiums are new construction or the completion of
5
previously unoccupied units.
b. The appl icants request exception from the six (6) month
minimum lease provisions. As with the units within the
lodge, the intent for these" unIts is to rent them on a short-
term basis to visitora. Given the location of these projects
within the lodge district, where the intent is for short-term
occupancy, we concur with the {exception request.
c. The applicants have demonst'rated that the supply of affordabl e
housing will not be redljCed by agreeing to replace, as part
of their employee housing calculations, any units which are
eliminated ~ the construction of the project.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the condominiumization
request, including exception from the six (6) month miriimum lease
restriction.
SOIlllARY
This memo completes the planning Offtce' revieli of the preliminary
PUD/Subdivision and associated reviews, for the residential projects
included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. When the Planning
Commission has made its comments on each of the issues included within
out report, we will be abl e to prepare a resol ution summariz ing your
action on the projects.
AR:jl r:apz. aml. 3 .19
6
RICl-4ARD O. LAMM
GOVERNOR
I.. t\!J (g;t.1l~~1)}~,_ ('
~ --~)
~~~.
g~g
*~~~.
.~.
>>J87G ..
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT .oF NATURALRESOURCES
71S STATE CENTENNIAL BUI\.D1NG - 1313 SHERMAN STRE
QENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-261'
PI-85-0003
JOHN W. ROLD
QlREC'-OR
Dm
1oIM1'.
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
.....~
March 8, 1985
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN LOOGE RESIDENTIAL GMP
Dear Mr. Richman:
We have reviewed the PUO and Subdivision Submission and Appendices O&E as well
as the general and engineering geology of the area.
Based upon this review, our historical involvement in the area, and the events
of last June we would like to make the following comments regarding this
proposal and the geologic hazards and constraints associated with it.
_ The entire north face of Aspen Mountain is adversely affected by one
or more geologic hazardS or constraints, (Bryant, 197Z).
_ All other factors held equal, the degree of risk associated with
slope-related hazards increases with the slope and proximity to the
source area.
_ Three general hazards are directly associated with this proposal.
They are: unstable and potentially unstable slopes; debris flows, and
flash flooding. These processes are dynamically interrelated in
extremely complex ways in which each can be the cause or the result of
any of the others. Events can be random, sequential or episodic in
nature with highly variable time delays between related events.
Slope failure processes appear to cause minimal impacts in their natural
setting because they are an integral part of the IIdynamic equilibrium" of
the site. This equilibrium can be significantly altered by construction
disturbance, seriously affecting the behavior of the process with respect
to "thi ngs-put-i n-the-wayll .
_ While Appendices 0 and E provide a great deal of valuable information,
they are less than what is necessary to understand and predict the
behavior of this slope-failure-prone area.
GEOLOGY
STORY OFTHEPAST... KEYTOTHE FUTURE
,~
f
Mr. Alan Richman
March 8, 1985
Page 2
- The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of last June
is insufficient in both detail and time span to adequately characterize
this slide mass and/or predict its future behavior.
I
- Stability analyses were based, in part, upon asslll1tptions rather than
actual, measured characteristics of the landslide du~ to insufficient
data. One of the critical assumptions made was th&t the materials were
drained. This is most probably not the critical condition of the
landslide deposit nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with
the movement 1 ast June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions, a
safety factor of less than 1.0 was. achieved in one of the two cases.
This case was classified as "marginally stable' in the Chen Report. 8y
definition, the correct classification for this case is unstable.
- Test pit investigations yielded a debris flow sequence and a carbon-14
date of about 5000 B.P. Statigraphic relationships for this locality
indicated a cruderecurranceinterval ~f,oneeYent per thousand years.
Que to the nature of debris flow phenomena, this value should be taken as
a maximum recurrance interval. since generally only a portion of the total
number of events occupy any given location on the overall fan complex.
- Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as a
mud-flood, and therefor mitigatab1e by channelization does not take into
account the episodic nature and potential interaction between several
events. A small landslide or debris flow which would present only a
trivial threat to the actual structures could effectively block or alter
the drainage network rendering it all but useless to defend the
development from the flash flood which could occur. before the blockage
was cleared. or even noticed. Conversely, presuming that any major mass
wasting event would move slowly enough to permit mitigation is begging
the point. In many cases the only appropriate mitigation is to abandon
areas adversely affected by la~ds)fdes and debris flows,
In summary we would like to concut with and reiterate the recommendations
found in the Chen Reports calling for more detailed studies of the mass
wasting and slope failure processes affecting this area. The complexity of
these phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood in order
to make any reliable predictions about their likelihood, recurrance interval,
and the risk they pose to the anticipated development. Additionally, the
excess moisture conditions associated with the spring thaw and runoff period
represents the critical phase of the landslide problem. Given the movement
and surface disruption last June, it is highly likely that this slide mass
will absorb more water this spring than last and may move again.
8ased upon the above considerations we recommend that the City postpone any
decision on this application until detailed studies have been completed ard
the hazards are better understood and realistic risk assessments can be
performed. The timing of the studies should be such that the critical period
(melt/runoff) be inclUded in the detailed field investigations.
~-
(-
("
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Glenn Horn
Jay Hammond ~
February 22. 1985
TO:
FROM:
RE:
==============================================================
This memo is intended to serve as an supplement to 'Chuck Roth's
memo to you of February 11, 1985, regarding the proposed Aspen
Mountain Ski Area Master Plan. pursuant to our discussi",' ..Le:
in consideration of the recently released Chen report on the
geologie stability of the Strawpile area. the Engineering Department
~ould offer some additional comment on the application.
The recent application by the Aspen Hountain Lodge project for
preliminary approvals relating to the residential Top of Mill
speaks to on-site mitigation of potential 'mud flood" hazard from
the pioneer Gulch area above, the project site. The application
notes, however, that some tw~-thirds of the pioneer Gulch do mlt.
flow into the Top of Mill. ~bis flow is intercepted by roads and
existing drainage routing on the ski area. Top of Mill, therefore,
only offers mitigation of the debris flow hazard in the form of
on-site channelization and detention/debris basins for a portion
of the flows. several measures cont.ained in the Chen report are
not addressed by Top of Mill and, in view of their location on
Ski Company property, would seem appropriate for their considera-
tion.
Geologic Hazard On Aspen Mountain
Based on the Chen report, we would recommend conditioning any
approval of the ski area master plan expansion on a commitment by
the Ski Company to undertake the following:
1. Continued monitoring of the inclinometers. piezometers and
topographic location of the inclinometer casings to evaluate
potential mitigation measures.
2. Construction of further mitigation measures as may be deemed
appropriate by Chen and Associates including. but not necessarilY
limited to the following:
a. On-site grading to improve drainage and remove water
from slide area.
b. Installation of on-site structures, channels, membranes,
surface and subsurface drainage facilities as may be recomm-
ended.
c. construction of appropriate on-site detention/debris
basins with provision for periodic debris removal.
^ /
/
(~'
Page Two
Geologic Hazard on Aspen Mountain
February 22, 1985
c
Some of the above items, particularly on-going monitoring may be
undertaken by the developers of the lodge project, however, in
the absence of a clear indication of those portions of the Chen
recommendations the lodge developers intend to pursue, we would
assign the responsibility to the Ski Company. Let me know if you
require further clarification;
JH/co/GeologicAspenMt
.~
If':,
.,." ~~i~.
~
.....~
~
~~
C\
0.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONI~~ COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR THE TOP OF MILL. SUf~lIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AND
RECO~lllENDING A REZONING TO R-lS(PUD}(L} FOR THAT pORTION OF THE
TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND O~mED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution No. 5
(Series of 1984)
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
nl\pplicantsn), have oubmitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of Hill and Summit Place condominium
components of the Aspen Hountain PUD; and
and approvals including 801;0 Greenline ancl tlountain View Plane review
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site
currently zoned Public und p.,-lS (PUD) (L); and
to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R-
WHEREAS, the Applicants have vlithdra\.m their request for rezoning
l5 (PUD) (L); and
referred to as the ncommisoionn) did consider the I\pplicants' requests
WHEREAS, the Aspen planning und Zoning Commission (hereinafter
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the Top of Hill and Summit
place condominiums. 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review.
and rezoning from Public to 1.-2 at meetin9s held on l.larch 20th. 1.larch
27th and April l7. 1984, and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted
on April lOr 1984; an~
to the Applicants' reouest for 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane
WHEREAS, the Commission 'I1ishes to defer formal action with respect
review until its consideration of the I\pplicants' preliminary PUD/sub-
division submission. given the technical nature of the variouS review
cr i teria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequatelY
~eseSS project impacts; and
any project needing PUD or subdivision approval which has received
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-11.3 (f) of the ~1unicipal COGer
e. 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. 84-2-_
Page 2
~mEREAS, the Azpen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section
24-11.4(g) of the 11unicipal 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 Rez61ution No.7, Series
of 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did review, Section 24-11.3(f) of the
tlunicipal Code notwithstanding, the 700 S6uth Galena condominiun
component of the Aspen flountain PUD with respect to the conceptual
PUDlzubdivision criteria of the Municipal Code at meetings held on
April 24th, f.1ay 1st and I!ay 8, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of Nill 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 si9nific~nt reduction in the overoll height
of both projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Plannin<J and zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen, Colorauo:
Section 1
That it docs hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant
conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and
24-8.7 of the Hunicipal Code, to the Top of l-iill, 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 ~rotection 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 l'~ill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all utility rights, the prOVision of appropriate
utility casements, 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 e~ch
utility's current or future needs.
5. The Applicants' submiosion of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plen for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the el:tent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention pondS.
i\
f'
Resolution No. 84-.--2-
Page 3
6. The height of the Top of Hill condominium units not exceec1inQ
thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the 10\'iest floor
elevation to the midpoint of the roof.
7. The Applicants1 revision of the Top of }!ill site plan so
as to increase the distance between the two single-familY
units located at the southern terminuS of Hill street in
order to expand the view through the project from the Street
to the ski area.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
mature vegetation on the TOp of Hill 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 I-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 c:m acceptable trail easement
acrOSS the Top of Hill site so as to provide accesS, to
the extent feasible, to the base of Little nell and Lift
1-1\.
11. The Applicallts' 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 Applicnnts' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problcns 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 da~age 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
alonq the north facade and a maximum of forty-three (43)
feet - in any other location as cOJ71pared to the maximum height
allowed in the underlying L-2 zone district of thirty-three
(33) feet, all as measured from natllral grade to the ridge
of the roof and as shown on the Applicants 1 revised elevations
dated April 27, 1984. These restrictions are to be noted
and recorded on the Applicants' final PUD/subdivision plat.
15. The Applicants I 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-
divisiop .,?proITal.
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 Cride, 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 residenti~lGMPapp1ications not speci-
fically referred to above being made a condition of this
approval.
Section 2
That it does hereby reco~nend that the Aspen City Council deny
the Applicants' request for a rezoning from Public to L-2 of that
portion of the Top of Hill site currently mmed by the City and does
hereby recommend instead that the parcel (5) be rezoned to R-lS (PUD) (L) ,
at such time as the partel{s) may be conveyed to the Applicants,
for the following reasons:
1. While the proposed development is consistent with the intent
of the L-Z zone category and of the Re'creationjAccommodations
Transition land, u~e,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 pr imary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable
them to take advantaoe of the'more favorable FAR ratio
available in the L-2 zone district.SincetheF~ provisions
of the Hunicipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PUD
regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of
the requested \rar iation is inappropr iate.
3. The L-2 zone district permits multi-family residential
uses in addition to sirigle~family units and duplexes and,
therefore, does not guarantee that development will occur
consistent wi th the, adopted Land Use Plan.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorador at their regular meeting on May __~, 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By R:
ATTEST:
!JM9'"".. /%",;
Barbara Norris, Deputy City-Clerk
RESOLUTIOR OF THE ASPER PLAllRIRG AND ZORIRG COI!I!ISSIOR
GRANTIRG APPROI'AL '1.'0 A PORTIOR OF TBE pREL!JURARY l'UD/SOBmVYSIOR
AND RECOMllERDIRG ASSOCIATED APPROI'ALS FOR TBE RIlSIDERTIAL PROJECrS
INCLUDED WITHIN THE ASPER MOUNTl\IR PUD
Resolution No. 85-6
WHEREAS. by their R'Isolution No. 84-23; the Aspen city council
(hereinafter, .Council ~,) did grant Conceptual PUO/Subdivision approval
to the Top of Mill,; summit Place and 700 south Galena Condominium
components of, the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, by thei r Resol uti on No. 84-27, Council did endorse the
revised employee housing proposal of the Aspen Mountain pUD and did
grant conceptual subdivision approval and exemption from the city's
growth management allotment procedures for the projectl s Ute city
place component; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 1984, Council did agree that the lodge and
residential components of the project could continue to be reviewed
separately, provided that the approval of any preliminary stage not
become effective until the preliminary approval for the entire PUO has
been granted; and
WHEREAS. by their Resolution 8S-l, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commi ssion (hereinafter, "Commission') did grant preliminary pUo/sub-
division approval for the lodge component of the Aspen Mountain pUo; and
WHEREAS, John H. Roberts, Jr., Alan R. Novak and Robert Calloway
(hereinafter "Applicants") have submitted an application for Preliminary
puo/Subdivision approval for the residential component of the Aspen
Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS. the Commission did hold a publ ic hearing on the Appl icants
submission on March 5, 1985, which hearing was continued to March 12,
March 19 and April 2, 1985, to consider the Preliminary PUO/Subdivision
application and associated review procedures for the residential
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
NOIf, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby recommend that approval of the Preliminary PUo/subdivision and
8040 Viewplane applications concerning the Top of Mill component of
the PUO be delayed until such time as the following conditions have
been met:
1. The Applicants shall continue their evaluation of the
geologic hazards from Aspen Mountain which may affect this
site by monitoring and reporting on the data gathered during
the critical melt/runoff time period. Based on this infor-
mation the Applicants shall provide responses to the concerns
expressed by Jeffrey C. Hynes, Senior Engineering Geologist
of the Colorado Geologic survey, in his letter dated March a,
1985. The Applicants shall submit their program for on-
going monitoring to Mr. Hynes for his review and approval
prior to the critical period.
2. The Applicants shall expand the scope of their soil contam-
ination sampling program to determine whether any toxic
materials are located within the area proposed to be used
for storm water detention on the site. If such materials
are fO\.md in this area, the Applicants shall develop a plan
to insure that toxic substances do not leak into the gro\.Dld-
Resoluticn Ro. 8S-~
Page :2
3.
water below the site, to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineer and Chief Environmental Health Officer.
The Applicants shall develop a soil monitoring program and
detailed grading plans for the entire Top of Mill si te to
satisfy the concerns of the Environmental Health Offtcer
thtlt no toxic material be moved .off the. sit" or. l:leexl:"llslyely
,disturbed. and that the toxic soils on the Site ,;nlbe
properly covered and con trolled.
The Applicants shal.l insure that all exposed mine dumps and
tailings on or around the perimeter of the PUD si te are
ts.olated fr?", human exposure to inhalation or ingestion by
the placement of f ill material over toxic soils and by
diverting all surface water from such soils.
The Applicants shall d"monstrate that they have taken into
account and worked c"operatively with the Asp"n Skiing
Company <Xl their planS to change the finish area for the
World Cup and to address plans to mi tigate site drainage
impacts from Aspen Mountain.
The Applicants shall commit t.<> h~"ing the bo()ster pump
system proposed for the Top of Mill project reviewed by the
City Engineer and Director of the Water Dept. prior to its
installation to determine its reliability and adequacy of
ftre flows. .
The landscapiJ'lg plan for the Top of Mill site shall be
revised tomoV'e trees and shrubs further fr?", the curb than
the two. foot dist~nce presently shown to avoid conflicts
with Cars and snow removal. The landscaping plan shall be
supported with an irrigation plan.
1
4.
s.
6.
7.
8.
A construction phasing program for the Top of Mill site
shall be submitted which meets the requirements of Section
24-8.9 (bJ of the Mtnicipal Code.
The Applicants shall comlllit to. providing the Bullding
Inspector prior to building permit reyiew wi th field data
demonstrating that units <Xl. the Top of Mill site are not
likely to be subject to subsidence from tnderground mines.
Adequate air handling facilities, satisfying the Environmental
Health Officer, shall be designed into the underground
parking structures to eliminate any buildup of air contam-
inants.
The Applicants shall place a note <Xl the plat for the Top of
Mill project advising potential buyers of the hazards
affecting the property if the continUing studies demonstrate
the existence .of such problems.
The Applicants shall submit documentation of their compliance
with the above condi tions to the Planning Offtce whiclt. shall
present the submissioo to the Commission at'a duly 'noticed
public hearing following its review by the appropriate
referral agenciesa
9.
10.
11.
12.
BE IT FURTIIBR RBSOI.VBD by the Commission that it does hereby
grant to the residential projects within the Aspen Mountain pun
(other than the Top of Mill) Preliminary ruD/Subdivision approval,
does recommend subdivision exception for the purposes of ccndominium-
ization and does confirm the compliance of the ute City Place proj ect
Resolntion Ro. 85-~
Page 3
with the provisicns of the Residential Bonus Overlay which was previously
applied to the site, subject to the following cenditiens:
1. The Applicants shall designate 30 of the already proposed
parking spaces en the pUD site to leng-term storage of cars
of specific employeeS housed at the Alpina Haus and Copper
Bor,se and ahall continue to search for added park~ing at
sites near these two housing projects.
2. As per s~ctien 24-10.5 (F), the P&Z waives compliance of the
Ute City Place project with the 35 percent open space
requirement in the RMF zone district. The Applicants shall
provide that at least 23% of the site remains as open space.
3. The Applicants shall rectify, prior to the occupancy of the
west wing lodge units, the life,. health and safety code
def iciencies in the Copper Horse and Alpina HaUB identif ied
by John Ostwald and Tom Voorhies of the Building Department
in th~ir memos dated March 20 and March 21, 1985.
4. The Applicants shall comply with the landscaping comments
provided by Jim Holland in his memo dated February 26, 1985.
5. The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the
employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and
occupancy to the rental or sale guidelines established and
indexed at the time or prior to issuance of the building
permit by the City Council's designee for moderate income
employee housing units. Verification of employment and
income of those persons living in the moderate income
employee units shall be canpleted and filed with the City
COlm eil or its designee by the owner commencing 00 the date
of recording hereof, in the pitkin County Real property
records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be
deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the
benefit of and shall be speciftcally enforceable by. the City
or its designee by any appropriate legal action including
injuncticn, abatement or evicticn of noncomplying tenancy,
during the period of life of the last surviving member of
the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
ColoradO, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of
fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the
pitkin Co un ty real property records, whichever period shall
be greater.
6. condominium maps for each project shall be submitted to the
City Ehgineer following substantial completion of their
constructicn for review and recornmendaticn prior to the sale
of any unit.
7. The plat shall be revised to indicate the curb designs
which have been recommended by the City En'lineer.
8. The final plat shall identify all slopes in excess of 30%.
9. The Engineering Department shall be copied on the Applicants
CDOH driveway permit for the ute City Place project.
10. The ute City place final plat submissien shall comply with
the standard size requirement for such documents.
11. All drainage needs for the Ute City place project shall be
handled on site. An irrigation system shall be installed to
serve the landscaping on this site.
12. The Applicants will initiate any or all customary air pollutien
control measures recommended by the Environmental Health
Officer to minimize wind blown fugitive dust leaving the
.
Resolution No. 8S-~
Page 4
site during the demolitioo and constructioo stages of the
project. Contact shall be made by the applicant with the
Air Pollution Control Division District Engineer of the
Colorado Health Department to determine if an emission
permit and/or fugitive dust control plan is required at
these stages.
13.
The six mal th minimum
is recommended to be
within the PUD.
lease restric{ioo of Section
~aived fat the residential
i
20-22 (b)
projects
14. The details of the al-site drainage plan for the PUD site
shall be made available for review by the City Engineer
during the final plat review process.
15. All written and verbal representations of the Applicants
with respect to the residential projects within the PUD are
hereby made conditials of this action.
BB IT ALSO RBSOLVBD by the Commissioo that it does hereby recommend
that Council delete the trail easement aloog the Top of Mill site and
pursue alternative alignments due to the topographic impracticality of
connecting this segment to other trails across the mountain and based
on the Commissien' s finding that the adopted Trails Plan contains no
.segments to which this easement could be linked.
BB IT FINALLY RBSOr.VBD by the CommisSion that it does hereby
recommend that Council proceed with the processing of th"final plat
for the remainder of the PUD, in spite of tllE,delay a.ssociated with
the Top of Mill project. The Commission refers the CounCil to its
Resolutien 85-7 to identify its reasoning CIl this recol1\lIlendation.
APPROI7BD by the Commissien at its regular meeting en April 2, 1985.
JlSPBR PLA!ltlI RG AIID Z OHI RG
COIlKISSION
r;?
By/01'7C
Perry H vey,
A'rTBST.
=V~ w JJw,+
Kim Wilhoit, Deputy Ci ty Cl erk
The Base of Aspen Mounrain Neighborhood once \Vas
the foCu.s of mining activity in rhe cir)' and it saw a
varier; of building rlpes and[orms. Todav, ie concenues
to exhibit divericy in as archirecr:ucl character and
scale of buddings.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Deslgn Guidelines
Exhibit C
Shadow Mountain Neighborhood
Chapter 6
The Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood is
boundedby Aspen Mountain on thesouthandDurant
Avenue on the north. Its western boundary is
Garmisch Street and its eastern boundary is High-
way 82.
Historic character of the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Aspen Mountain was a focus of mining activity in the
early years of the city. Earlyphotographs show a wild
mix of buildings, including tipples, trestles, mills and
other mine-related structures, rail yards, depots and
towers, and huddling at the base, a dense collection
of small miner's cottages.
Overall, the area exhibited an industrial character,
and the architecture was more rustic than that found
in other Aspen neighborhoods. The buildings had a
variety of forms and materials, which reflected the
diversity of uses in the area.
The scale of buildings was quite varied, ranging from
small one-story dwellings to imposing mill build-
ings. The tallest buildings in town were found here,
and theClarendon Hotel, which occupied almost half
a block where the Wagner Park Ball Field is today,
was among the largest buildings in town.
Building materials were varied and exhibited a range
of finish, from painted clapboard to rough-sawn,
unpainted timber. The mining structures were built
from basic materials. Large timbers were hewn from
logs, and untrimmed board planks were used for
siding and roof mg. Metal was also seen in braces and
connectors. Although houses were painted, little else
was.
Page 39
<
Current character of the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Although the signs of mining activity have long since
been removed, the Base of Aspen Mountain contin-
ues to exhibit diversity in architectural character and
building scale. Buildings have more of a vertical
emphasis than any place else in town and some of the
tallest structures are still found here.
In comparison with other neighborhoods, this area is
densely developed. A mix of building sizes, forms
and types is seen including condominiums, hoteis
and commercial structures. Most present a street
level that is of human scale and that is inviting to
pedestrians. Some multi-family residential buildings,
however, have been constructed with multiple en-
trances and an overall horizontal emphasis that is in
contrast to the traditional vertical character of the
area.
Building materials continue to be varied, even more
-.., than historically. Stucco, brick and wood are com-
n. A range of metals, tiles and stone are also seen.
Streets are clearly defined in the neighborhood, ofte."1
with a curb, gutter and sidewalks. Views to the
mountain are an important feature of this neighbor-
hood, and should be preserved when feasible.
Major public trails rtlIl near the base of Aspen Moun-
tain and opportunities for connecting to these exist
on many new development sites. In order to maxi-
mize the potential benefits of these trails, it is impor-
tant that the streets connecting them invite pedes-
trian activity.
Development trends in the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Recently, some structures have appeared that deny
the street, and instead turn inward, providing little
visual interest for pedestrians. Some entries are de-
tached from their buildings, and entrances are not
scaled to the pedestrian.
Page 40
The introduction of structured parking at the lower
levels of buildings is altering the street level experi-
ence, because extensive expanses of wall surface in
theseca5eS are blank, or garage openings. These plain
slll'faces have weakened the pedestrian appeal of the
street In some cases, important views also have been
blocked due to insensitive placement of some struc-
tures on their sites.
As a partofnewdevelopment, I1lo~conunerciaIu5eS
are being introduced into the Base of ASpen. Moun-
tain neighborhood. These uses can acJ.d appeal to the
street, if the facades are designed to be in scale andto
provide interest to pedestrians.
An important factor in the character of the neighbor-
hood is building use. Many structures are second
homes, or are accommodations facilities that see cycles
of intense activity followed by quiet periods. There-
fore, creating street)'falls that encourage pedestrian
activity during all cycles is important to maintaining
liveliness in the area.
Goals for the 13ase of Aspen Mountain
Neighborhood
A special concern is that the stre~ t level of buildings
be designed in a manner to enc()urage pedestrian
activity. Because many buildings in this neighbor-
hood are only occupied for shorts periods of the year,
and streets may appear lonely, it is vitally important
that buildings reinforce a streetscape that is of human
scale. Therefore, the City holds these design goals for
the Base of Aspen Mountain neighborhood.
1. To enhance the pedestrian experience atthe
street level
2.
To protect views of the mountain
3.
To promote a sense of visual integration in
the neighborhood while also encouraging a
diversity of building types.
Base of Aspen Mountain
Design Guidelines for the
Base of Aspen Mountain
Neighborhood
The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all
projects in the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighbor-
hood, in addition to the chapter of General Guide-
lines for All Neighborhoods. When considering the
appropriateness of a project with respect to these
guidelines, also consider how the project will help to
accomplish the design goals for the neighborhood.
Mass & Scale
Divide larger projects inro rrwdules rhar aTe similar to
[hose of buildings seen :radirionally.
53. Set taller buildings against the
mountains to reduce their perceived scale.
a. Although taller buildings can be accommodated
in this area, it is still preferred that the,r appar-
ent mass be minimized. incorporate some den-
sity into sloping roof forms to reduce the per-
ceived scale of the building.
b. Locate the building mass so as to avoid creating
icing conditions on public walkways.
c. A vertical orientation is preferred.
d. Divide larger projects into modules that are
similar to those of buildings seen traditionally.
e. Step buildings down in scale as they approach
adjacent, smaller structures.
Building Form Guideline:>
54. A variety of building forms is
appropriate in this area.
a. However, rectilinear forms are encouraged.
b. Buildings should havesloping roof forms. Gable,
hip, and shed roof forms are appropriate.
BuriLiLngs shollid have S[opLng roo/lonns. Gabie. hip,
and. shed roof shapes are appropriare.
Page 41
Aspen Neighborhood Char3cter Design Guide\ir.es
- ,,.
1'" .
~
.I
Q
TO:
NENOR~NDUH
~
~
I
Aspen Planning and zoni1g Commi?sion
Sunny Vann, Planning Ditector
FROM:
RE: Aspen Nountain PUD '_ Top of Hill, Sl1mmitPlace and 7(:0
South Galena <;onceptuaJ PUD/SubJivision Reviel'/ and Revised
Employee llouslng Propo1al
DATE:
/1ay 8, 1984
::::=::=:::=::= == == == ======= == =========;==========:==:.:::.=========================:-;:::
Attached for your review and considerat~on is the latest draft of
your resolution recommending 'once tua~ PUD/subdivision approval
for the Top of Mill, Summit PlaCe an~ 702 South Galena condominium
components of the Aspen Mountai~ PUD Th( resolution also recommends
a rez oning to R-15 (PUD) (L) f or "hat 'ortict of the Top of Mi 11 site
currently zoned Public and owned'b tfie Citf 'If Aspen. I haveincorp-
or~ted the additional conditiof1SY with ret,pect to 700 South Galena
WhlCh you requested at your May 1st meeting'
The purpose of tonight's meeting 's to rView and amend as required
the revised resolution and to fol, e'vi.e~/ the Applicants' revised
employee housing proposal. The Pl~~~7~~ ~f:fice's comments with respect
to the Applicants' revised proposal ~re optlinedbelow.
EMPLOY~E HOUSI~G
,
The atta.ched letters f~om Jim ~u t's I dated April 23rd and April
30, 1984, outline the Applicants", r 1 i~ed employee housing generation
figures and employee housing pro~ raelv ",Botb the generation figures
and the employee housing propo~o~ h' ~~ b~en reviewed and endorsed
by theJlousing Author.i5Y.".,_I"t_.~,r;a a:~ pointed out, hOI~ever',~hat
.., ~~~,e.~{fi1~~liim_;Ni'}~~~~'iiV~'~'~'~f~t~'i~~:'~~tll~1:~n€~~~.,i~~~~~S'~dZXr~6g~s'~ f
';-"""""j""\;"',""r;{"'-:Wif'~":';""',,~ 're Inend " .
the PUD contlnues. It should al~ b p2inted out, that the Appllcants'
revised employee housing propo'o e. consistent, in terms of the
percentage of employees housed,sal. lS ;:heir original lodge GMP repre-
t . t '. '. ' """.'''''''''1''''''''''"a"-n-'9''-''-''f~.'''c'. Wl th. "'''',rl''1 "'.... 't""':'~"o"."l'N'i"""c''''''on,o's at'.'
~ ~.r.""."-'~.:"F.'.~~~..'." '..." , e.r, ,Q;" '."". ,;.';j,!.k.'fl. ".,"'.;;'~.:;il.. ...0....1....)..'70". t. ".fl.'. e..': ,,,.,,.",,.t,.. ).&<'?"'~. . v"",. "'.."'.' ~.';1.....~..,;~......... ,r..'"".... p"kn.. '.. "'.'1t.~. "!;('ht",..., ''''',;c,'','''''',....';
l.~x,~ress:'"," ..... .' ....~ ,~7t?~~o;,:~(~~it~t~~P.~~e;~t~I%~~.ebu21uJlg~,))
Ihe"'ljene"Cfi'6"eYt li'l.c,;~'I:'OP'~lt'Y"I'bwn1~~ll-!ue~ J
As the attached materials il'ldi?at '. .1~r~~yised';p.i'op'~sJI wpuIdhbuse
~~i(~~~l~bJ{~~~~i!nIj;;il%if.~~~~I~~lo~a~:~I,~~:~~~~ i1 ; on;~p~~~fe ~tD? ~~ ~d T~T~ f~~
approval f<?r the lodge portiofl;~m~~~(~r;pen /:l~~l'lt~,i.l'l,..Py.J)'.~,~l!'1{l_.th,i\~,,"",
the converslong.;l':"."i;- .,:for.r""=,Ji!il,\;!,~.' ...,...t. " iil;,us Loag~'l'?to'deed-.;.
1;\1:!:"'Kq~C.!.;; "'_..c.;......,~W()tll'~~ r. ~qle.'growtli'."lfuP:a;cts,
"r" .' . ..,' .,": s~.,i~x"itri1p(~;f~:9m.=c'()rnptyl.ffgf
W Jl> '. . .' .t,~f19,g,~,9,Y:J:\~f>,. ofth e Hun i ci pa 1
Code. No further revlew.o this :'., 'nt/of the Applicants' employee
housing proposal isCrl!!S!U,Jf$cl.!?y ti:omgoneissio~ at this tim~. A c?nc:ition
of your approval, however, was th~e ~mm'APpl1cants submlt addl bonal
information ~/i th respect to the.t\,7.3tion ofparki'tt'CJ"'fp't'O'bl"&ms at
the Alpina Haus as part of their 'lml,lg'prel.iminary PUD/subdivision
submission. . oage
~~ . ~~~~; ~~~,:;tli!~~'~~~i~I.~~~'~ltLOdge, ~.~.~...... H~~L~h7~'~.d~~~.~r:~o;~::,
Lod.ge toen;ploY7eJ'(ouslng" Tf1~r'lQ\l\nt=,;:-,tl),;HR~,,"~f an ~n~l:'ldually
deSlgn?ted hlstonc structure, ho i1I..fi,!!11,'f s'eXemptoy deflllltlon from
the Clty:S growth management '1' ,t p::ocedl1res. As a result,
~'~~~~~c~1t;;~~~~:~e~hV"'cr6n;~t~~1~~Y,le ~llan ~t ~Oa~~.~ O~~~.;~.~f ~::~ ,:rc~~~:~~
~; thfUri:~~~,~?(~~{.~~;r'~~7~'.l~'~~;;er~leV er ,~~;t~~e~'~~~r~~: a~~pif~~~~~~l
lodge preliminary P(lJ)/SUbdiViHit ,\~ssion. ~.'he appropriateness
\l1l'Jhl1I'l'
" the P&Z
,
, hO~leve'
-- --.-. ---~.'.. +.-..,..-,--...__, ..C,._
EO.,_
V
-,~--------------'
o
Page 2
of both the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus for employee housing purposes
1s subject to p&Z and Council review in the context of the overall
Aspen Mountain PUD.
Together" the Alpina H~us and Copper Horse, will house 89 employees,
.or approxlmately forty-five "percent (45%) of the Applicants I employee
hous ing. commi tmen t. The te]n'r~"l'I1:TeJ::'"C5"f77t:h'e~'-eIlfPT6ieesc~nOI;""~-iiIproye'es)'tr
were onginally proposed to be housedJr anappr.o~~mately 50 unit
proj ectto be constructed on',Q.te:';;~Av\:!nu~~,'j/*ith,,:the'with'9rawali;;;;lfy
tl1i?,l2,I:9posa'],rrhe Appli can ts I now intend to. pJ:"oyide the .remail'ld3l,r
o fd t~ ef r.~Inr.J; . y e~~.-.!1~.'X.,.;]:2.~.I1.'bg.........c, 9.,m..,!1l '~:'!1le.r~.,.."a~.."~hE!,,lH},:,J.lii1:::.~ii...jJn~~.:l( fei:'f e i: ?Ill
an 1n a new ,P,'%!:l'-!li! ,'. ":.,Q..e,"'c,onsI\.i;rrtJc.ued"''rOn.''.East....Cooper'."Bt.re;E!,j;.:; As
outlined in the attached materials, the Ute City Place project on
East Cooper Street essentiallYinvOlvesth~c,onversion of a prior
GHP app r oval to .~,p()Drp(frcelft:."''''d i:i€ta::ie sl::rTctedemPloye.e:,;;h9.H.~in9)While
the a cqu i s it,i91),,;?!',f:.,~,~..P,~Jl1"',.. F.Ell? .~a~"!M?l,I.s.~X!g..cl t", the')' A ~i: ggXf~u.si Ife's $'.
<;:,E!l,:lJ;,~ wou Id:.re's!.ll,t'IDi1n:;1;t:he<deed"re:stnct10n" of currentlyunre:stt'icted?
units.'
From a procedural perspective, the Ute City Place project should
be considereda di~crete aildseparate proposal from the prior GHP
appr:Q,y.9l!-.'r.\i~::B\;.9,I~C;€:~lnyorv,e's tlie'c6ristr ucti on .g(~2riew" de ed-res~i:ist~d.. 1
emploY(!(!ho,ll.~ing uni tsexemptffoili'''tne'''City I s"g rowl::h"managefilent, all otinent I
~"...:' .._...,.'....:...,.- .... '" '."". :..' ,.-'i'.. "~ ....
pr6cedures~ As such, it 1S 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 invo:Lved
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.
Nospec:ific:"reVieW"byc'the'Commission is' required' for thedeed"'restdction. ....
of . "t he.,,:Atr""p8'tt~H.~tP;~~:~t~~h'f~.f:;'4:ni\:~Sl6'~IJ1P~,gy ee"'rfoU'srlig'\1"g'&"r'la~ti'f\fi';t/~';j":'"
The Commission; hOlvever, must find that the proposed utilization
of both the ABC and Ute City Place unHs is consistent with the Appli-
cants I relevant lodge GMP application representations and is appropriate
within the context of the ove raIl Aspen Mountain PUD approval. Further
analysis of these two new components of the Applicants I revised employee
housing proposal is provided below.
UTE CITY PLACE
t""'",.._~.",.., .'. _ ':'" ". ", _'. '. ..... ,,," '. .......
The originalUte""CiEy' Place application recei-ved a GMP allocation
in the 1981 residential competition. The original Applicant proposed
to develop blenty-two (22) units on a 1500 s. f. parcel zoned R-NF.
The project location is lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118, City of
Aspen (Cooper Avenue between \<lestEnd andClevelandAvenues). Of
the.".hlent y"'twO"'T22,"""units ;proposedby.t he.... ApplIc'ai1f;"eI g h t "'(8) were;
free ,1M r k e t7""ii'n'oc'xmrr fEHi.ff~ ('1"4'),'#'\1e redeed'::' restrl cH!'cf"'employee" housing.
unit's:'\The original application also received full subdivision review
and approval and was rezoned to R-MF (RBO) in order to accommodate
the density .12rop2!J.(!.d....~he:;:pr6jE'!:ctJ'las alsocondomini umiz ed' in orde r
t6allowsale of the:inaividuaJ:units. '
The Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD propo's'e'to"piff<.mifsefhiO
UteCi ty' PlaC'e'''i:fit:eT'''make..'min.ot'fevisions'inthe'6rigihalapproVed 1
projeckanddeeo:;Yeswr1'i'ce'al1 of the units pu rs~al'lt t6 the City 's'
employ~e'liq\l~rtfjg-'::gif{Cl~l'i'\ft'~"~.. The rev isedproj ect ~loula7 hOuse' th irty-
seven (37)' employees. 'Given the fact that the project will no longer
contain free market units, an amendment to the prior GNP 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 Pla~e project. Obviously, consideration of the
Applic antsI-.. reques.t.,.f or.'exempt'i:on'''f r omg rowth'man a-gement"fo r,th e
'conlift:'t'U-etF6'~~~~~'~O"""('22T~'\jfft't's"'''W't5li'ld''i'lT'SO'Jj6'7req.ltt'~~9;,;;; ......... .",
The specific review steps will involve conceptual subdivision review
by the p&Z and CQuncil, preliminary sllbr]ivision reviel'! by the 1".Z
and final subdivision review by the Council. In addition, a public
hearing will need to be held at the preliminary subdivision step
/
, I
V
o
Page 3
,in order to consider the Applicants' request for rezoning to Residential
BAnus O'r('rlay. COl.ln-::il wOIl!.,d aluo take action on this request wt
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 conGi~er the appropriateness of this component of
the Applicants' employee housing solution and of recommending conceptual
subdivision approval to City CO\lncil. 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 ~lace proposal appears to
be identical in most respects to the original project which received
preliminary subdivision approy~l by theP&Z,c;l1<:lJinalapproval by
City Council. ,The:"~af'dnnectureTs:'ideritfcai tothe'prror,rpYbpos'ah
w i thlll~the e xcepti'Qrt":~tliacT7fFie ;,' S iz,e;~'of:~~rh'e'rr e'emarXe\:"liriTt:'!ij;nas':b;~'eri~
,r3t~c:~:~~S:~n.~,1~,~:'~'h;:t;'li~i'f'h?'rt'~'~:PCi ~yT~',empfoyee 'h~?'~Iti92~:~~~~~~
As a result, the o\i'er,all FAR of,the pro) ect and the,bu~ldlng footpnnt
,have be,en.J::',~,d:,\J,9E!:C1ik;.13,4Pst!%l1tiaI1YJ A detailed analysis of the area
ahd bulk requirements of both the original and revised project will
be av~ilable 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 ex.isting zoning as compared to the,densitx".p'r5'Pc::>.e~J~L~tL!.,.~,~,,~)
be available at your Tuesday meeting. The':'Pla1i):'1,~n9,Ofhcesupports''1
the uti 1 i z ationofthe'\revi.sedtJte'c i t.~1:~fll'aC'Et""'b;',.ec:t:,a:S';;;,a:.rt:'of) .
, '.... '....,: ..' ,...... ,'" ..". ",', ';'..'.'."";_<".":'''.;:'''-'' ""'-,'-,,''-',..",.' ..' ". '. - ,:..;,." ",....."''''':'''.t''',.".I-l..!~,.,'.,.'.~,..,lo.''~'..,,'',..;.~~~:.,.'_,..",".J"..,,,.,~.,..,".,~.Q;',,,,__J,.',,.,...,,.,..,,.,,,..:,:..~<.,:,;,..::!?",J?t"""'Y~'A"~'~:':"'"'' ...,~
theApplicants','emp~oyee-holis~ng solutlon subJect to the attachment
of . appr6pria~-eol'l\iii'it::'1"6~i'I~' . .
AIRPORT BUSINESS CE~r.rER APARTMENTS
No s ec if i c: re.vJ;eww;;b';-:f:n~~,CommTssron:fsrequ:rre(f'fqr"the-de-e'a':::'PirsfrTct:1oh
of:.d;e:'Air'pc;'i:'6~:BU'~~'n~:;~Centerlln i't:s"to employ e'e' ....h 6 usIng"'guTdiUt he s~;
The Planning 6ifice"beHeves; 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) housJng"s91ution,
'i'ntr"relna i nder-of:"'ffie-.....AppIl.c.?nfs'...employee'l:i'olis iiig....c OminiEme nt, a ppro x i -"
mately sixty"'n.ih.e....T69T'I'employ.ees;would ". be met bythisproposa:l.
Based on prelimin&ry discussions to date, the Commission appears
to be di v i ded. ,..~.'gl1,,,E~.:;;r:>~.Ct,.tQ,..~h.t~..J,~,!;'g.~,.._..,..,,!.~~h8.~:~~J~,~,."g?,~l\t~d.;~ out,
however, that ,tlieBouslIlg' Authont}' hasendorsEldt~Is:proposa1rb'ased
prima r i 1 Y on th e fact. th a tth~;,i.f18lu~~g~;')2~7;t~e'Ei~"Unn:'s';;:iri'\7IP:e';~ppnc:ati t::e::
em p 1. ()Yee:M:ll)~'r11'(J;i.!?S+~4,,~k2,W...~~~t';;;E:,~;~J!,*,~;,..~!l'\l' '.t he'.q~ecd';::;;;te'~t:?;t'is;t:i.Pl1~()f
thirty-twOJ3?FexisHng J;reelllarKet: linits", l'lhi,le these units currenl:1y
serve an employee housing function, there is no mechanism which insures
their continued availability fOL employee housing purposes. In fact,
th'e'",ownet'S:"of""R:ne'''JIT''''~'fCB\j'$Trie1Is'''Cen fer unit s are c LIr r e n t ], Y d i s c u s s in 9
theapp rOEr&;' ..,.'. "'g;al{i?'~pprf2afi.6n"ifol:'!ic'8'iR'Ci'6mI rifumi~ni tion,w ith~
tne''''BOu'S'ffll'i. ;<,..
...', ,..,.,'
Given the fact that the utiliz,ation of .t~es.e. units a~ part of the
Applicants' employeehousintj.soliIfi6n....I~ouiCi resLiif Tii" the' 'deed::;'rest'Hctton
of ....,.p J: ev i ousTy'f;tli'\"~i'~'f'e"d'''''unl't.~Y,'''the' PTannfncrOffTcesll p'pc1'FFi{"th'is"
APP1i9al'it's''''''propioisar~ 'fhe 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 ~,9, 1984 letter, which is attached for your reviel",
addresses this conceLn and we are prepared to discuss it in further
detail at your Tuesday meeting. Any endoLsement by the Commission
of the Applicants' ;Jse of the ABC units should be conclitioned upon
the specific measures to be taken to mitigate transportation problems.
.... ., ...
,.
, I
.,,-,
Page 4
SUM~IARY
C',,\
w
Should you concur with the Planning Office r~commendations, we propose
to prepare il9r.Hht, resolu ti on endor sing the App],i can ts' . t"e\'fiTs'ed?"eiiipI"oYell.;":<
ho.us,ingptoposalJ and specifically recommending conceptual subdivision
approval!: ()rthe,'r~v,j,:sed'Ft~'CitT'Pl'ace-project, The resolution
would outlihe:"thel:''AppJ:icaritsF''proposa.1 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 indepi1ndent of your resolution
with respect to the Top of l1ill, Summit Place and 700 South Galeml
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 r~spect to their revised employee housing
proposal.
.
~
u
MEMORANDUN
'ro:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Sunny Vallll, Planning Director
FROM:
RE:
Aspen Nountain PUD - Revised Employee Housing Proposal
May 22, 1984
DATE:
=::= :::== ==== ::::=======~::::~ ====== ======:======= == ==::::.::== ============================
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to finalize the Planning and
Zoning Commission's position with respect to the Applicants' revised
employee housing proposal. A rough draft of a resolution endorsing
the Applicants' proposal and recommending conceptual subdivision
approval for the Ute City Place component will be available at your
Tuesday, May 22nd meeting.
The Planning Offic;e has had some diffiCUlty in drafting this resolution
given the disparate nature of the various reviews involved in the
employee housing proposal and the lack of consensus among the P&Z
members with respect to the Airport Business Center component. As
a result, the draft which you receive on Tuesday will ,necessarily
be incomplete. The resolution of any remaining issues will also
be difficult given the anticipated absence of a number of the Commission's
members.
Nonetheless, the Planning Office will attempt to gain consensus with
respect to any unresolved issues with the idea of finalizing the
draft resolution for adoption at your first regular meeting in June.
Should you have any questions prior to your Tuesday, May 22nd meeting,
please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office.
,.
\~\ 6~K,(\
~..>v.......^-,[.\-':'::~\
"/ . \T-:f\~('"''''''~('A+
G2-\C:V'\ 'a..-
.
,
.....
~
v
~
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOmIEND!Nl'; CONCF.PTUAT. PUD/SUBDP'ISION APPROIT AL
FOR THE TOP OF MILL, SUm-fIT PLACE AND 70C) SOUTH GALEI~A
CONDOlUNIUN CDr1PONENTS OF THE ASPEN MbtJNTAIN PUD' AND
RECOMMENDING A Rl:ZONING TO R-1S(PUD) (L) POR THAT PORTION OF THE
TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND (~~ED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution No. _,_
(Series of 1984)
tffiEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
. .
Alan R. Novak and Hobert 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 incluoing 8040 Greenline and Mountain Vie\v Plane revie~'
and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site
currently zoned Public and R-lS (POD) (L); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning
to L-2' of that porti?n of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R-
15 (POD)(L); and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission") did consider the Applicants' requests
for conceptual POD/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 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 fOvmal 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
WHERl,AS, pursuant to Section 24-11.3 (f) of the 11unicipal Code,
any project needing POD or subdivision approval \/hich has received
a development allotment may be deemed by the Planning Office to have
satisfied the conceptual presentation requirements of the City'u
"
, J
'-'
~
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 ~lountain PUD, ,as set forth in Resolution No.7, SerieG
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 cd ter ia of the Municipal Code at meetings held on
April 24th, May 1st and May 8, 1984.
NQW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
Section'l
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City .Council grant
conceptuai 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 Eng'ineering 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 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 measurc,d from the lowest floor
elevatIon to the midpoint of the roof.
7.. The Applicants' revision of the Top of Mill sit,e plan [,0
as to incL'ease the distance beblC",n the two sil1g1e-fami.ly
units located at the southern terminus of Mill Street in
order to expand the view through the project from the Street
,. I
'-
~)
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 !!ill 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 I-A Dnd 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-
pr iate by the City. .
10. The Applicants' granting of an. Cl>Cceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site so as to prQvide access, to
the extent feasible, to the base of Little Nell and Lift
I-A.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
'.
The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table inves,tigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and follo~,ing
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.
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.
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 perlod of time than is necessary.
The height of the 700 South Gaiena 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.
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 pdor to preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval.
I
I
I
17 The reconstruction of existing residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
24-ll.2(a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within
five (5) years of the date of c1emoli tion, and being restricted
to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
18. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdidsion and residential Gnp applications not speci.-
fically ~eferred to above being made a condition of this
approval.
.. .
(..,1
Q
Resolution No. 84-____
Page 4
Section 2
That it does hereb:y 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 tha't the parcel (s) be rezoned to R-15 (PUD) (L),
at such time as the parcel(s) may be conveyed to the Applicant~,
for the following reasons:
1. vlhile the proposed development is consistent lvith 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 t-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 PAR provisions
of the Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PUD
regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the e>:tent of
the requested variation is inappropria~e.
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 orn'lliISSION
By
.
Perry Harvey, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
Mr. sunny Vann
Mr. Jim Adamski
April 23, 1984
Page Three
B. so. Galena st. GMP
There has been no change in the south Galena Street GMP applica-
tion or the employee housing commitment per the application which
is outlined below:
Free market units
Employee units
,.....---,
/Q}~rit~: : ~: ~:~~66::
Employees ,Housed
9 units - 2-bedroom units
2.25 emp./2-bedroom unit
~ employees housed
C. Employee Replacement Housing Required by sections 20-22 & 23
of the city Code
Per the COde, employee replacement housing is not considered as
part of the GMP review, but is considered part of the Conceptual
PUD review. Therefore, the employee replacement housing was not
included in the original GMP employee housing calculations but
are included in the overall PUD calculations. The replacement
estimate is preliminary until I submit further documentation to
the Housing Authority and Planning office.
1. Employee Housing Replacement
Melville II cottage
Black Residence
Townplace apts.
1978 Aspen Inn expansion
Hillside-Holiday exchange
Mine Dumps Apts.
10 employees
2 employees
5 employees
13 employees
o no net displacement
o no displacement
30 employees
I again wish to emphasize the above numbers will change as we
proceed with detailed Lodge planning and programming and the
political processing of,the total PUD. I will continue working
with the Housing Authority and the Planning Office to establish a
final set of numbers. If you have any questions, please give me
a call.
Re, SP,ectf'Ull~
\(!M
, )
; \\'rl \ 1
Jim Curtis
JJ;::cck
,.
, ')
,,,......
I,' "')
~ ". ....
ilEAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
.: '1' O~\I ~:~:! C;'J'2,:',:'(:c;~~~\'-1
I .J.l...._'-...,~~._,...-, I \
I' ,,' "
1.1 .:'
It\': 1'7'..'')'' 0 10f14 ,\
\' \/1.1, ~\ U 0... ): \....'
J.~ ._.~I
. . fiS;--EN / 1'1 rh!i'! CO.
~ FU,NN1NG OI'fICE
Incorporntcd
April 30, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Departme'nt
130 South Galena street
Aspen, CO 81611
" ..
Re: Summary of Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Employee Housing
Dear sunny,
I wish to present our--current' 'proposal for fu 1 fill i ng the
'.employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD.
.,Our current estimate for the PUD I S total employee housing
commitment is as follows:
145 emp., to be housed
20 emp. to be housed
30 emp. to be housed
',l~2''1'~mp.:t:pfe'i1ljl~~~\l'.
The above estimate is a preliminary figure and shall be adjusted
prior to the Preliminary PUD application based on the final plan
and program of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD and a final determin-
ation of the employee housing replacement requirement under
Section 20-22 and 23 of the Municipal Code. I will continue
working with the Housing Authority and Planning Office to
establish the applicant's final' housing commitment.
Aspen Mtn. Lodge GNP
SO. Galena St. GMP
Employee Replacement
1-
2.
3.
The Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proposes to meet its employee
housing commitment as follows:
OJ
1-
2.
3.
4.
Alpina Haus
Copper Horse
Ute City place
Airport Business Center
46 employees housed
43 employees housed
37 employees housed
6gel1lpl()yees housed
'1,9,5~~'e'riip;Ioye'e'$'I''''housed
I
I
I
I
.
,
i
!
\,
.'
i\orth orI'\dl Building
P.O. )lox :1159. ^:,pcll,ColoI"3<10 81611
Td(~pJIOIIC: :~O:\) ~)2;;-45:W
~.. . .......... '':'''~ .,,". ;"".:~.'~--,r-'""-"-~"-' .._._....__.__'~.~4..~~<_.
.~ "'.
-/1'\ l'
, '(I'
t. \ "
r f\ tl
\' fl' .j
'l r .~ \
C.\ Ji If'
)" I'
V,r '" "
, :1
0(-
\ \
HEAL ESTATj'; A. 1")1 JATJ<:S
-.--.--....;.---......;.
, . '~"':.' '. .:'..:~.'<'.
JUCOqIOlllh'd
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 3D, 1984
Page Two
1. l\)pil)il..,Jir.lllS,u
.......,,'~o(;!";:.
The Alpina Haus is located at 935 E. Durant and is operated as a
tourist lodge. The building will house 46 employees as follows:
40'looge nTlS. @ 1 emp./nn. '=.40 amp. - private rms. @ 115 sf. \~/bath,
2 studio apts. @ 1 ernp./apt. = 2 emp. - studios @ 300 sf. w/bath,
(!)'1'\dOnn apt. (~ 4 enp./apt. = 4 emp. - apt.@'500 sf. \~/bath,
/' 43 ~nits 46 emp. .. kitchen
/L . .
The building has a heated swimming pool, large ,kitchen and dining
area, reading/fireplace room, manager's office, basement storage
area, and basement laundry. Eleven (11) on-site parking spaces
are provided. On-street parking is allowed along E. Durant St.
in front of t~e lodge.
shower
shower
shower,
The building will be upgraded as necessary. Specific building
improvements will be listed at the Preliminary PUD application
based on more detailed study.
The building shall be deed-restricted rental only. Rents shall
not exceed 25% of employees' average income or not to exceed
$250.00 per person per month whichever is less. Rents shall
include all common utilities.
'The.building shall be deed-restricted at the time of issuing a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first Lodge rooms of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge. The units shall be rented on a priority basis to
employees of the Lodge, but if vacancies occur, rooms may be
rented to other employees, music students, and others in the
community. The Housing Authority shall have the right to revie\~
rents on an annual b~sis.
~!;:;'i":~;C:J:l~f2~b:\::~/~~"-f.;'if,"'):~'H'<\;;:,'6:)~;:,:()ii!"i
2. ., bpplC''t'' brse
The Copper Horse is located at 328W. Main sfreet and is operated
as a tourist dormitory facility. The buxlging is approximately
4,000 sf. with 14 dorm rooms, 7 shared baths and showers, common
kitchen and living room. The existing and proposed room
capacities are given below:
Existing Proposed
1 - 1 person rm. = 1 1 - 1 person rm. = 1 emp.
2 - 8 person rm. .. 16 2 - 4 person rm. = 8
1 - 6 person rm. = 6 1 - 4 person rm. = 4
4 - 3 person rm. = 12 4 '- .,3 person rm. = 12
3 - 4 person rm. = 12 3 - 4 person rm. - 12
3 - 2 person rm. = 6 3 - 2 person rm. = 6
IT 53 IT 43 emp.
",.:.,.;.,~:-:.:,~u_.,., _."
,~,,--,_.,-, .........,........
1
HEAL ESTATb AFFILIATES
, )
,.,.,
----...-----_.
Incorporalcd
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 30, 1984
Page Three
Four (4) parking spaces are provided off of the alley behind the
building. On-street parking is provided along Main street and
No. Third Street.
The building will be upgraded as negefisary; however, it is
generally in good condition and well' maintained. Specific
building improvements will be listed at the Preliminary PUD
application based on more detailed study.
The building shall be deed-restricted rental only. Rents shall
not exceed 25% of employees I average in,come or not exceed $200
per person per ,month which ever is less. Rents shall include all
common utilities. c. Tbe building shall be deed-restricted at the
time of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the first lodge
',rooms of the Aspen Mountain LOdge. Rooms shall be rented on a
. priority basis to employees of the Lodqe, but if vacancies occur,
. rooms may be rented to other employees, musid students, and
others in the community. The Housing Authority shall have the
right to review rents on an annual basis.
3 . ",Ute '. Clty"'PlacE\':
ute City Place is 'a 22 unit project of new construction. The
project is located on 5 city lots at 909-923 East Cooper Street
directly in town. The project was awarded a 1981 GMP allocation
but has not been constructed due to economic reasons. The
original project included 8 free-marke~ units and 14
deed-restricted units. The Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD proposes to
purchase the property and deed-restrict all 22 units as follows:
6 studios @ 475 sf. (approximate) @ 1.25 emp./unit - 7 cmp.
12 l-bedrms @ 700 sr. (approximate) @ 1. 75 emp./unit - 21 emp.
4 2-bedrms @ 1,000 sf. (approximate) @ 2'.. 25 emp./unit - 9 emp.
22 units 37 emp.
To comply with the Housing Authority's affordability guidelines
for unit sizes, the revised 100% deed-restricted project would
reduce the size of the original project by approximately 30% or
from 20,500 sf. to 14,600 sf. This would make the already
approved project even more compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. 'Parking for the revised project would be at 1 car
per bedroom or 26 cars.
The building shall be deed-restricted to allow for rental or
~ale. Under ~ither option, the units shall be price-restricted
to the moderate income price guidelines annually adopted by the
City. Rent and sale prices shall comply with the moderate income
price guidelines in effect at the issuance of a Certificate ot
Occupancy for the units. The Housing Authority shall have the
~right to review rents and sale prices. .
._.~..:. .'.f,'~..w....~..... "'~"'W' ,.~.....
'--'-'-".-
HEAL ESTATL AFFILIATES
--
lncorporulctl
.. ,;~>.,<".::,'i..:.""'"-,,
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 30, 1984
Page Four
4. . Airpot:t'13.usincs:s' Ce11th
~-,".~,4"'''''';~''',,;, ":''';'.:~ ~".....-,
The Aspen Mountain'Lodge PUD proposes to buy and deed-restrict 32
units of the 64 units of the Airport Business Center apartmepts.
The units consist of BuilcHngs E,. F, G, and H located along the
back edge of the pr6perty. .
The units are presently .free-market'. u.d ts \"i th no .deed-restr i c-
tions. Under the proposal, the units would be placed under .-l. 50
year deed-restriction.
The units will house 69 employees as :::ollOl"s:
,
8 1-bedr)11s @ 550 sf. @ 1. 75 em])./unit - 14 emp.
.22 2-bedrms @ 750 sf. @ 2.25 enlp./unit - 49 emp.
2 .3-bedrms @ 1,050 sf. @ 3.00 emp./unit - 6 emp.
-. 32 units 69 emp.
Under the deed~restriction, the rents would be the following:
1. Nine (9) 2-bedroom units would be restricted to the low-
income price guidelines. The proposed 1984 low-income
guideline is 58. sf. These units would fulfill the
low-income commitment made for the South Galena Street GMP.
2.
The balance of the 23 units
moderate-income guidelines.
income g~ideline-is 86r sf.
would be price-restricted to the
The proposed 1984 moderate-
Current and deed-restricted. rents are compared below:
Deed-Restricted Current
Rents Rents
8 1-bedr'ms. @ 550 sf. @ '$473 @ 861 gf. $500 @ .91~ sf.
9 2-bedrms. @ 750 sf. @ 435 @ 580/ s"f. 675 @ .9O'l' sf.
13 2-bedrms. @ 750 sf. @ 647 @ 86 ~~ sf. 675 @ .90t sf.
2 3-bedrms. @ 1,050 sf. @ 903 @ 861: sf. 875 @ .83 . sf.
32 units
Current rents are as of May 1 based on an already announced rent
increase. All rents included COMnon utilities of water, sewer,
electric, gas and cable TV.
Each. building has a downstairs laundry and assigned unit.~toraqe
rooms. Parking is provided at 1 car per bedroom. The applicant
proposes to operate an employee shuttle which will supplement the
County bus service. The employee shuttle would be scheduled to
,,,-.. ~,,-' ,.. ,,-..,.,,~ .....,,,......<>-,,..._...~.~...,, ,-
"__',M"""
"'_~""'_~_"'~"'._""'~"~ "_'.'~_.'M'_""_,,,,.,,,,,__" _.'__""
, .
HEAL ESTk]'J~ AFFJLlATES
..... -"".' >'f~..);'" ~..".,~~
JIICOfJHlmlcd
Mr. Sunny Vann
April. 30, 19!14
Page l'ive
.
provide service during the non-to-low operating times of the
County buses~ It is felt a well-operated e~ployee shuttle plus a
management policy of educating employees not to drive to wort;
will provid2 a high employee transit use.
The buildings s.hall be deed-restricted to allow.for rental m:
sale. Under either ~ption, nine (9) 2-bedroom units ~hall be
price-restricted to the low income pr;.ice guidelines, while the
balance of the 23 units ~hall be pricR-restricted to the moderate
income pric~ guidelines annually adopted by the City. Rents
shall include all common utilities. The units shall be
deed-restricted at the time of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy
for the first lodge rooms of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Rent31
and sale prices shall.be restrictedtd the low and moderate price
guidelines in pffect at the time of recording the
deed~restriction. The Housing Authority shall have the right to
. review rents and sale prices.
. '.
If you have any questions on the above information please give me
a call.
JC/b
Sincerely, +
/ .
tw\ ~ ?
~ m Curtis
.
.
'.
~'Y"~r':"~" ",,,,. .... '~~''';'''''' ,.,..."~..._..-',
'",..~-._~........ ", '..~..T-.'<.. ,_,"R'~_"'_',_ .._.-.__",..,.,_.......,~
,\,.,
HEAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
\
,
/
',,',
lllcoJ'porntcd
April 23, 1984
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen/pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Jim Adamski
Aspen/pitkin Housing AuU10rity
0100 Lone pine Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
. .
. .
Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Employee Housing
'.
\
'.
bear sunny and Jim,
Per your request,J have outlined for the Aspen Mountain Lodge
PUD our current employee housing commi.tment, properties, and
.generation figures. I emphasize the figures will continue to
cl1ange as the Lodge plan and program iH finalized and as our
empioyee housing replacement requirement is also finalized. I
have compared our current program with our original program for
your review.
1. Employee Housing commitment
1-
2.
3.
Aspen Mtn. Lodge GMP
So. Galen~ Street GMP
Employee Replacement
2. Employee Housing properties
1. Alpina Haus
2. Copper Horse
3. Ute City Place
4. Airport Business Center
5.
Benedict property
\\
'\,
"
Current
145 emp.
20 emp.
30 emp.
","'19.?:,~gntpl~:t""
.
.
Current
47 emp.
43 ",mp.
37 emp.
"""''''''9669 i\l:~~BL,,,,
''"-'i1"J.: ',':+. ,entpO::~:':+:".:f
original
180 emp.
20 emp.
o not included
C'2QQi.%!;!J!lP ".>"
original
47 emp.
43 emp.
III emp.
.~;2G];1l!'elTll?,*'
J\'ouh ofI\dl BuilJing
P.O. Box 3159, ASpt'Il.Colorndo mC,]l
Tdl~J'IIOIlC: 30.1) 925.'15:10
"'-.~-"~"
.' -.. ..",~,
,..,.~-~~ ,- """,:,'"
,......'\....-....~' --
.~.......<;,-"..:
.~ ~. "._....:;.~-,..,.i".~"........~:,..._.. ~....t"'" ;," -... ._-....___...._...~ ';r"..
Mr. Sunny Vnnn
Mr. Jim l\d,ull,:;ki
April 23, 1984
Page Two
3. Employee Generation
A. Aspen Mountai.n Looge'GMP
1. . Lodge eperations
Lodge rcx:rns
1 J:x'lrm suites
2 bdrm suites
Lockoffs
Penthouse suites
Living R=ms @ 25% ult.
Existing =llB
Net nEW rooms
Errployees per rcx:m
Net new employees
. '. GMP ernployees housed
Errployees 110used
2. Accessory F\:xX'i./Bev",rage
'rotal food/bev",rage
Existing food/bev",rage'
Net nevi food/beverage
Errployees per 1,,000 sf.
Net nevi employees
G'iP employees housed
Employees housed
3. ACcessory Retail
Total retail
Existing retail
Net new retail
Enployees per 1,000 sf.
Net n0." employees
Gl'P e.mp. housed
Employees housed
subtotal Employees Housed
Current
Original
185
50 w/50 liv.nns.
o ,.
200 ..
12 w/12 liv.rms.
447
15
462
-277
185
.36
67
60%
40
250
75 w/75 liv.nn3.
5Q w/50 liv.nn;.
50
55 w/55 liv.rms.
480
45
525
-277
248
.36
89
60%
53
22,000 sf.
-10,000 sf.
12,000 sf.
12.8
154
60%
92 '
23,500 sf.
-10,000 sf.
13,500 sf.
. 12.8
174
60%
104
.7,000 sf.
-700 sf.
6,300 sf.
3.5
, 22
60%
13
7,500 sf.
-700 sf.
6,800 sf.
3.5
. 24
. 60%
14
.
171*
145
*The original 1/1/83 Lodge GMP application shov/ed a housing
commitment for 180 vs. 171 employees. However, based on
addi tional research by the applicant and Gai 1 Schwartz of the
Housing Authority, the housing commitment wa's rc,duced to 171
employees due to a reduction in lodge operations emp'loyees.
. "....~.. +, '.'~"';".""-:'-^',~~." +.......'"-'''"';.~. ......","~ .
'j,..
Mr. Sunny Valll1
Mr. Jim Adamski
April 23, 1984
Page Three
B . So. Galena St:;GMP
'iI
There has been no change in the South Galena Street GMP applica-
tion or the employee housing commitment per the application which
is outlined below: . .
pr,ee market, ury.~ ts
Erilp'H;yee Units"
Employ(i(isnc:ilE1iid "
.
12 units @ 24 bedrooms
@"1"8"b'e"'d"r"'o'o'm"s' '"',',,,',',,",',", ",',','r'
,91Hiit;s
/,."...........-.
9,;"units ,'2-bedroom""uhi t'g' ",
2 .25,e!llP.j2'-Pedr()om',~'ul'li t'
~,'empldyee's hOused""
C;. Emplo~~~placement Housing Required by Sections 20-22 & 23
of the City Cod~
Per the Code, e,mployee replacement housing is not considered as
part of tl1e G~lP revi~w, but, is considered part of the Conceptual
PUD review. Therefore, the employee replacement housing was not
included in the original GMP employee housing calculations but
are included in the overall PUD calculations. The replacement
es,timate is preliminary until I sul;>mit further documentation to
the Housing Authority and Planning Office.
10 employees
2 employees
5 employees
13 employees
o no net displacement
o no displacement
"3C)"i'emAloye'es"?,'
I again wish to emphasize the above numbers ..~lll change as we
proceed with detailed Lodge planning and programming and the
political processing of the total PUD. I will continue working
with the Housing Authority and the Planning Office to establish a
final set of numuers. If you have any questions, please give me
a "all.
1., ,Employee Hobsing Replacement
)Melville II cottage
f/ BlaCk Residence
i Townplace apts.
'\,'. 1978 Aspen Inn expansion
I H~llside-HoHray exchange
:""M~ne Dumps Apts.
....'.;.
I
'I
I
!
,
T\e,spectf.Ull~ '
\ /):
\ \\,n l'AA; :?
Jim Curtis
'\.
J.e;: cck
_....w':""_.. '.'.'" ."'7'...,..~-:---: 't-- _.....,'-.".~.- --_.'"'...---......-~-_.....r.,... ,
,
f
HEAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporateu
April 19, 1984
:;;.\ C'.' (.:i'~;:;C?\\PCI 'J!-l'l:('~.
I j , : ,." I,,' : '.~ i t, \. / . '~'J" 1 ~
, ,1' . ;.. '" ,:.; _".l.._~_......,-J -", tl
r" ....'"
't"\" I U"
I'.' ,.-
l:: J\pn 1 ~1 n:;} ~ \l
c.)" .-.-....-.j -"<',
ii2;i'EN / !-'ITI<tN co.;, .r
. PLANNING amcs .
Mr. Sunny VRnn .
Aspen/pitkin Planning Department
130 South GalenR street
Aspen, CO 81611
. .
Re: Aspen ~10untain Lodge POD .
Employee Housing & Employee parking for the Hotel.
Dear Sunny,
.
Based on our current employee housing proposal for the Aspen
Mountain Lodge pun, I wish to respond to your question concerning
el<noloyee parking at the Hotel. As you know, our current employee
h?using proposal consist of the following properties:
1. Airport Business Center
2. Ute City Place
3. Alpina Haus
4. Copper Horse
69 employees housed
37
47
~ ",,- ,!,\:":",,,~,P;~~"'''!;;-;;~''~:''''''i'.:;1I1';'~'U_"
19 6 ,'e!llploi}.ee-s,ii;li"QU$'e'~
'..f',~"-""-' ;Z"
I wish to restate our employee parking policies wl1ich were
presented to you during the conceptual parking review of the
Hotel. These policies will be applied equally to all the Hotel
employees including the employees we propose to house. The
policies are outlined below:
1. We will aggressively discourage employees from driving to
work. t.1anagement policies will be aimed to encourage
walking and transit use. Three of the employee housing
properties are in-town within easy walking distance to the
, .
Hotel and directly on the City bus rout~s. The Airport
Business Center property will be served by an employee
shuttle van in addition to the County buses. The van. will
be scheduled to provide service during the non-to-low
operating times of the County buses.
'.
. .~
North ofi\dl BuiJJing
P.O. Box 3159, ASjll'll,Colorndo 81Gll
Trleph(Hlc: 303) 92.')..1.:;3(J
"'.- ......7..~.' ,..." .
'., '";. ," -...;.... ...~,' . '.:"":"7~":<'.~~".'-'~"'''''''''''''''''''''''.''~'''''''''':'~_'"'~'''''''N'''.__
^ ,', -',~","_....,.--.,_.~ "- '/""~'~
)
..J' \
HEAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
Mr. Sunny Vann
April 19, 1984
Page Two
2.
TDA I S analysis has shown that except for the peak occupancy
periods estimated a'tlOI-1S.'/; of the year, the' Hotel will
have unused parking spaces \~hich could be segregated for
'. .
employee parking. TDA I 13 analysis inpicates that except for
the peak occupancy periods, the 280 parking spaces supplied
specifically for the lodge rooms will provde'a 10% to 20%
cushion above average occupancy demand or a cushion of 28 to
56 parking spaces. These spaces in addition to the 10
permanent employee spaces \~ould allow for 38 to 66 spaces
which, could b.e used by employees for up t08S1-901 of the
year. This does not even consider the utilization of .any
unused spaces from the additional 63 spaces being provided
in the total of 3S3 spaces proposed.
,
3. By wOD,ing with the Hotel operator, we will'have the ability
to set up a strict heirarchy of parking priorities under' '
which we could assign the right to park to certain employees
during non-peak occupancy periods. For example, the Airport
,Business Center employees could be given a parking prefer-
ence OVer the ir)-town employees,
4. During the peak occupancy periods, employees will be prohi-
bited from bringing their cars to work and parking at the
Botel. If employees violate this rule, they will be
reprimanqed, ticketed, towed, or even fired.
5. We expect the city to develop a parking policy for the area
together with .t,he Lodge Improvement Disi:rict in which we
will actively ,participate. The parking policy and plan vlill
establish the rights of the public, includin,g our employees,
to park in the Hotel area as well as th~ t,otal Lodge
Improvement District. The parking po]J6y may very well
prevent an employee from parking on the streets without
risking being ticketed or towed.
Because of the above reasons, we simply do not see the need or
logic to provide "extra" employee parJdng on the site,
"
\.
Since:te;~., t
\ ,,/.
11\\"\ '.(:"').// .7.
~ i,m Curtis '
J '
JC/b
j\Orlh orNdl HuilJillg
P.o. Box 3159, A:>pell,Culol'adu 816) 1
Tdcpllone: 3(3) 92;).4.')30
'~""P'-r"""''''''''''''''''': _, ,.,.,..",....,.-~,.""....;. ..~'~~..,.~......~_"
:"'~
-/
u~,":;'-':"':',,~,',":
"tt
~"
/" ,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Richman, Planning Office
Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects - Preliminary
POD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews
March 5, 1985
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
;===========;===========================================================
APPLICANTS' REQUBST
The Applicants request preliminary POD/subdivision approval for the
residential projects included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. Other
associated review procedures to be followed at this time are are follows:
1. Confirmation of prior RBO for Ute City Place;
2. Condominiumization;
3. 8040 Greenline; and
4. Conditional use for short-terming in the R-15(L) PUD zone
district.
This application is being processed subsequent to the completion of
your review of the lodge component of the PUD. Permission to phase
and separately review the lodge and residential components was expressly
granted by Council on August 27, 1984, provided that the approval of
any preliminary stage not become effective until the preliminary
review for the entire PUD has been approved. You granted preliminary
approval to the lodge component of the PUD by your Resol ution 85-1 on
January 22, 1985, including a condition that the approval not be final
until you have also approved the preliminary residential component.
PROJBCT DBSCRIPrION
The residential proj ects incl uded wi thin the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD
are as foIl ows :
1. Internal to Hotel - 14 units (8 via GMP appl ication, 6 via
reconstruction of demolished units within the PUDlo
2. Top of Mill - 33 units (all units are a reconstruction of
demOlished units within the PUDlo
3. Summit Place - 3 units (two units are already under construc-
tion, exempt from GMP as a duplex on a previously subdivided
lot; the third unit is to be a reconstruction of a demolished
unit within the PUDlo
4. 700 South Galena - 4 units (all via GMP application).
5. Ute City Place - 22 units (all units are employee units and
have been granted a GMP'exemption as deed restricted housing).
In summary, there are a total of forty (40) units which the applicant
has verified and wishes to reconstruct within the PUD, and twelve (12)
units for which the applicant has received GMP allotments and proposes
to build within the PUD. The twenty-two (22) employee units at Ute
City Place represent one element of the total employee housing solution
for the project, which also includes the following:
1. Alpina Haus - 43 rooms (change in use from lodge to employee
housing, 46 employees to be housed).
2. Copper Horse - 14 rooms (change in use from lodge to employee
housing, 43 employees to be housed).
3. Airport Business Center Apad.:ilH~hts (32 units (deed-restriction
of units which are presently in the free market, 69 employees
to be housed).
4. Ute City Place - 22 units (construction of new deed restricted
housing, 37 employees to be housed).
The total of 195 employees to be housed within these four (4) projects
is intended to meet the applicant I s commitments with respect to the
lodge, residential and commercial GMP applications submitted during
the last 18 months, plus the replacement of any housing which exists
and is being demolished or was otherwise committed to within the PUD.
While employee housing represents one key issue which will require
review at this stage of the process, there are a variety of other
issues which should receive your attention at this time. The maj or
items which the Planning Office feels require review, based on our
comprehensive review of the conditions of conceptual approval, are:
1. Basic land use and site design issues, particularly in terms
of landscaping, height and compatibili ty wi th surrounding
developments, incorporating the preliminary PUD, 8040
Greenline, and condition use criteria of the Code.
2. Circulation plans for the site, including roads, trails,
parking solutions and overall access for emergency purposes.
3. Plans for mitigation of natural hazards, including pOtential
geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain, stormwater drainage from
the mountain onto the site, contaminated soils on the site,
and potential mine subsidence on the site.
4. Miscellaneous issues such as the Koch Lumber land trade, the
relocation of the Aspen Ski Club's building and condominiumiza-
tion of the free market units.
REVIEW APPROACH
Normally, the Planning Office's approach to a project of this magnitude
would be to initiate our review wi th some of the broad site concerns
(i.e., tl, 2 and 3 above) and then move on to the relatively peripheral
concerns such as employee housing and miscellaneous items. However, the
Planning Office has been severly hampered in its review of this
project by some unusual delays in receipt of referral memos from
several key agencies. Recognizing the very technical nature of of
some of the issues being addressed by these individuals, we have
decided to concentrate this memo on those items where adequate informa-
tion is presently available (principally employee housing and items 1
and 2). We will forward additional memos to you prior to your review
of the other issues when better review data is received.
Following is the schedule which we propose for review of the residential
projects:
Tonight - Employee Housing, Architectural Concerns
March 12 - Site Design and Circulation
March 19 - Hazard Mitigation
March 26 -Miscellaneous Concerns and Wrap Up
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
!
.
'f
I
..L
,;:
April 2 - Resolution
This memo before you tonight should be adequate to take us through the
first two meetings and a follow-up memo for the 3rd and 4th meetings
will be written SUbsequently. This schedule has been reviewed and
approved by both the applicants and the Chairman.
2
\.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The key concerns with respect to employee housing are included in the
attached City Council Resol ution 84-27, endorsing the Aspen Mountain
PUD revised employee housing proposal. The major aspects of that
Resolution were as follows:
1. The applicants should recalculate the employee housing
generation figures, based on revisions to the lodge program,
and further document that existing employee housing units
have been replaced.
2. The applicants should deed-restrict the units in the Alpina
Haus, Copper Horse, Ute City Place and Airport Business
Center Apartments.
3. The applicants should identify needed building improvements
to the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse.
4. The applicants should identify parking and transportation
plans for the employee housing units.
5. The applicants should address eight (8) specific conceptual
conditions for Ute City Place.
In response to requirement 1, the applicants have submitted an update
of their employee housing generation figures, cOntained on pages
139-142 of the submission. Jim Curtis, representing the applicants,
indicates that the new requirement for the hotel and residential
projects, based on GMP commitments, is 195 employees, as compared to
the 201 employees previously to be housed. The recalculation also
includes the employee housing units which must be replaced to mitigate
the displacement pressures of condominiumization.
Looking specifically at the employee generation figures, we find that
the reduced level of accessory retail space in the hotel is the
primary reason for the drop in lodge employees at this time. Given
the fact that the same approach is used by Jim in the original and
updated calculations, Jim Adamski comments that "the Housing Office
concurs with the applicants' methodology and calculations and therefore
endorses this portion of the Preliminary Plat."
As you may recall, the only issue which the Planning Office raised
with respect to the replacement calculation was the applicants' substitu-
tion of a commitment to house all thirteen (3) of the employees
generated by the 36 units of the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP for the prior
Cantrup commitment to house 35 employees in 24 units. This issue was
resolved during the review of the lodge component in favor of the
applicants' proposal.
The second item, with respect to deed-restrictions, has been properly
addressed through the applicants submission of the necessary documents,
to be incorporated in the PUb Agreement.
The third item, wi th respect to Building improvements, has been
addressed by Jim Curtis in a letter contained on Pages 161-162 of the
application. In essence, J.im found that both buildings are well
maintained and therefore have no major mechanical, roof or structural
problems. Therefore, the applicants have committed to various cosmetic
improvements to make the units somewhat more pleasant for occupancy.
The fourth item, with respect to parking and transportation, requires
first, that the the applicants retain all on-site parking at the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse. The applicants have agreed to retain
the 11 on-site spaces at the Alpina Haus and the 4 on-site spaces at
the Copper Horse to comply with this requirement.
The second parking requirements was that the applicants mitigate the
effects of this below Code parking ratio by providing at least one
3
/
c
parking space for every two employe~sat the housing units. Across
the four residential projects, the applicant is providing 100 spaces
for the 195 employees housed (see Table 1, page 163). However, in
town, the applicant is only providing 42 spaces for the 126 employees
housed, a ratio of one (1) space for every three employees housed.
The other half of the parking equation is parking for employees at
their place of work. The applicants' traffic consultant believes that
there will be unused parking spaces in the hotel which could be
segregated for employee parking. !1'he likely cushion available is 28
to 56 spaces, plus, 10 permanent spaces for employees. To address the
parking short-fall which is likely to resul t, the appl icants propose
the following:
1. Employees will be discouraged from driving to work through
management policies such as assigning spaces to specific
employees. Please note that three of the projects are
within walking distance of the hotel and are on bus routes,
while the ABC property will be served by an employee shuttle
- and the RFTA buses. (See page 166-170 of application).
2. Employees will be prohibited from bringing their cars to the
hotel during peak occupancy periods.
In my opinion, the applicants have not adequately addressed the need
for employee parking at the employee's place of residence for the
in-town proj ects. I suggest that the appl icants be asked to provide
documentation that a ratio of one space for every three employees is
adequate, given historical auto ownership patterns. If such documenta-
tion is unavailable, the applicants should be required to provide a
minimum of 21 additional spaces in and around the 3 in-town projects to
bring the ratio up to one space per two employees.
On the other hand, I feel more comfortable with the lack of employee
spaces on the hotel site. My reasons for concurring with the applicants
proposals in this regard are the availability of public and private
transit service, the ability of the hotel operator to control the
employees and my expectation that adequate on-street controls can be
enforced to prevent long-term parking by employees.
The fifth item, with respect to the eight conditions of conceptual
approval of Ute City Place requires the following responses:
1. The water system interconnect originally required of this
project has already been made by the City Water Department.
2.
The applicants have re-eval uated, at the request of Jay
Hammond, the proposed curb cut entryway on Cooper to the
parking area and have found that by moving the cut away from
the West End Street intersection to the vici~ity of Cleveland
Street, the traffic cOnflict problems identified earlier can
be solved. Jay feels that the new location will eliminate
the need to prohibit left turns into the lot from Cooper
Street and will help to provide better access to several
properties which are currently not well served by the alley
behind the Ute City Place Project.
The applicants have agreed to provide a sidewalk along Cooper.
The applicants have provided a landscaping plan which provides
the maj ority of its planting along Cooper Street. The
street trees incl ude cottonwoods, spruce and aspens, with
the. spruce specifically intended to screen the parking lot.
Shrubs and ground cover are used for accent purposes only.
The adequacy of the plan, only requesting that some minor
changes be made to the proposal.
5. The applicants have agreed to eliminate all fireplaces in
the Ute City Place project, going beyond the requirements of
the COde.
3.
I
I
I
.~
!
~
r
4.
t
4
6. The applicants are providing '1.1 spaces for the 37 employees
to be housed, in excess of the one (1) space per two (2)
employees requirements.
7. There is no response to this issue required.
8. The question of rezoning this site to RBO is one to which I
have given a great deal of thought. In effect, this site
is already zoned RBO, although that zoning designation was
given to a particular project. However, the rezoning
ordinance did not indicate that the RBO designation would
expire if the project expired, and so I believe no rezoning
is required.
What I believe is necessary at this time is for us to reconfirm that
this project is in compliance with the RBO which was granted to this
site. On pages 129-133, the applicants make some very convincing
arguments about the appropriateness of this site and proj ect for the
RBO designation, including:
1. It exceeds the 50% deed-restricted housing requirements of
-RBO by having 100% of the units so designated.
.2. It is in a neighborhood which is primarily free market
housing and therefore helps to disperse employee units.
3. Its design and bulk is in keeping with surrounding uses.
4. It is on a bus route and close to shopping and the lodge.
It provides adequate on-site parking.
In my opinion, since we found the prior ute City Place proj ect to be
in conformance wi th RBO cri teria, this proj ect should be found to be
in even greater compliance for the following reasons:
1. The FAR in the proj ect has been reduced from 1. 34: 1 (using
current calculation methods) to 1.1:1.
2. Open space on the site has been inCreased from 18% to 23%.
AI though this amount of open space is below the newly
imposed 35% requirements in the R-MF district, this requirement
can, and we believe should, be waived, as per Section
24-10.5(f) of the Code. Please also note that the project's
height continues to be at 28 feet (not the 25 feet required
by the zone) due to the applicants' having obtained a
variance from that newly imposed provision of the Code.
3. Landscaping on the site exceeds that previously proposed.
Parking has been increased from 26 to 27 spaces and is
accessed in an improved fashion.
4. The proj ect is 100%, rather than approximately 67% employee
housing.
Based on the above considerations, I bel ieve that the proj ect should
be confirmed as meeting the intents and purposes of the existing RBO
zoning designation.
The only remaining issue with respect to employee housing is the
applicants request for condominiumization. The applicants have requested
condominiumization of the ute City Place units for possible sale to
employees. Jim Adamski raises a concern, shared by the Planning
Office, that due to the seasonal nature of many of the lodge employees,
purchase may be an inappropriate option. The Housing Author! ty has
therefore asked for the abil ity to review the mix of rental and sale
units three months prior to their deed-restriction for a determination
as to what percentage of the total project housing mix can be condomini-
umized.
5
------",
With the exception of the above issue, no other concerns relative to
Section 20-22 appear to be relevant at this time, since the one
existing unit on the site has never been rented on a long-term basis.
We will impose the relevant conditions on this proposal (i.e., six
month minimum lease) in our resolution containing conditions.
ARCBITECTORB, $ITE DESIGN AND CIRCULATION
The residential projects have changed as regards basic design, to
varying degrees since conceptual submission. The Top of Mill Project
has remained essentially the same as its original presentation, with
the exception that the project has addressed the conditions and
concerns raised at the conceptual stage. The 700 S. Galena project,
as presented to you in the recent residential competition, has changed
significantly, and, in our opinion, much for the better. Finally, the
Summi t Place and ute City Place proj ects remain essentially as they
were originally preserited at the conceptual stage. FOllowing is a
review of the key architecture, site design and circulation issues for
these four projects.
1. Top of Mill
The major improvement to the Top of Mill project is its compliance
with Condition i7 of Resolution 184-27 which requires that
building height be kept to 33 feet from the. lowest floor level to
the mid-point of the roof. Parking and part of each unit have
been placed underground, to reduce massing, and the illustrative
site plan now shows five (5) single-family and fourteen (14) duplex
structures, as compared to the three (3) single-family and
fifteen (15) duplex structures shown previously. There are no
multi-family units within this project.
The development approach to the si te has been to cl uster the
units into "courtyard-like settings" in two distinct areas of the
property. The lower part of the property, in the vicinity of the
Mountain Queen and Summit Street, contains five (5) duplex
structures in a clustered configuration. The units are accessed
by entering the parking structure on Summit Street, and by taking
an elevator and pedestrian system through the complex. A 25 foot
easement has been created on Summit Street to handle the anticipated
traffic; and to comply with Condition 19 of the Resolution.
The upper part of the property begins in the portion of Mill
Street which is being vacated, where cars and emergency vehicles
enter the si te and can turn around, park in the six (6) guest
parking spaces or enter the upper parking garage. '1'hree (3)
of the single-family houses are clustered in the vicinity of
this entry area, al though retaining a view corridor up Mill
Street to the Mountain. The remaining two (2) single-family
units are located at the very top of the "bowl". The remaining
eight (8) duplexes on the upper portion of the site are principally
arranged to form "courtyards" open to the mountain. Once again,
internal access to all units is through the parking garage,
elevators and a pedestrian system.
The Top of Mill project maintains approximately 70% of the
property in open space, including a major open space easement in
the northwest corner of the property above the Mountain Queen,
and landscaped open space throughout the proj ect. The landscape
plan incl udes formal landscaping with a transition toward more
natural planting as one moves towards the upper 1 imi ts of the
si te. Condition 18 of Resol uti on 84-23 required that existing
mature vegetation be retained to the maximum extent possible and
that landscaping be used to screen view of the proj ect from Mill
Street, Lift lA and the ski area.
It is important for p&Z to recognize that the site will be
extensively disturbed during the construction phase. Drawing 3A
shows the limits of site excavation to encompass about 2/3 of the
entire site. It should be noted, however, that little of this
6
area is in a "natural" condition today, and much of the disturbance
will be to cover materials left on the site, including toxic mine
remains, and to construct a retention pond for storm drainage and
the ski trail. The drawing also shows two groves of aspen trees
which will be disturbed by the project. The applicant intends to
investigate the possibility of replanting trees in the retention
pond since it is intended to hold water during only a portion of
the year. Other areas where trees will be disturbed are in the
lower portions of the site, where both' evergreens and cottonwoods
will be removed, and possibly relocated. Jim Holland's comments
on the appl i cants proposed 1 andscaping are that the "pI anting
replacement program appears quite adequate."
There were a number of important conditions in Resolution 84-23
related to circulation through the Top of Mill site. Condition
14 required "resolution of the Engineering Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of
the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes."
To respond to this issue, the applicants employed Rolf Jensen and
Associates, who prepared the report contained on Pages 95-96 of
the application. The report indicates that the project's design
does not comply with the Uniform Fire Code criteria for access.
The maximum travel distance from an access road to an exterior
wall of a building in the project is 318 feet, well in excess of
the 150 foot standard. Therefore, to mitigate this problem, the
consultant recommends the following:
A. Provide automatic sprinkler protection throughout living
units and parking areas.
B. Provide dry standpipes, located so that exterior walls of
buildings are within 150 feet of an outlet.
C. Provide a turn around space at the dead-end of Mill Street,
and provide Fire Department connections for the dry standpipe
system at this location.
The applicants have committed to the above mitigation measures
and the City Engineer informs me that he is therefore satisfied
with this resolution of the problem.
Condition 15 had to do with the vacation of Mill Street. In
response to this Condition, the applicants have agreed to realign
all utility lines at their own expense, and have therefore been
able to obtain sign-offs from the util ities, concurring that the
loss of right-of-way will not interfere with their current or
future needs. Furthermore, the proposed street vacation ordinance
for all vacations within the PUD, contained in Appendix B,
specifically reserves to the City rights-of-way and easements for
utilities and the right to use the vacated street for emergency
vehicles and the diversion of public traffic during emergency
purposes.
Condition 19 required that an adequate easement on Summit Street
be granted to the City. The applicants have granted the 25 foot
easement desired by the City Engineer and have further moved the
buildings on the lower portion of the site such that the Summit
PI ace and Top of Mill units are 40 feet apart. The appl icants
have also noted that their traffic consultant, TDA, "felt that
the disadvantages of opening Summit Street outweigh the benefits."
In a conversation with the City Engineer, this concl usion was
found to be quite doubtful. While we are willing to accept the
applicants desire to keep Summit Street closed at the beginning
of this project, we question whether ultimately circulation needs
of the area will outweigh the advantages of the ski-in trail
which crosses Summit Street. We expect that parking restrictions
will be needed on the street and that monitoring of traffic
problems in the area will be necessary.
7
\":
Condition 110 required the applicants to provide "a landscaped
sidewalk across the Top of Mill site and within the Summit Street
easement so as to facilitate pedestrian and emergency vehicle
access between Monarch and Mill Streets.. The appli cants have
committed to an eight (8) foot wide paved sidewalk along Summit
Street from the driveway access for the lower parking structure
to the west property line, to be landscaped with grasses.
Condi Hon 112 required that the applicants increase the parking
on the Top of Mill site from eighty (80) to ninety (90) spaces.
The applicants now propose ninety-two (92) spaces in the following
locations:
Upper Structures Spaces
Lower Structure Spaces
On-Grade Guest Spaces
58
28
~
TOTAL
92 spaces
Two other issues which should be discussed wi th respect to the basic
land use and site design of the Top of Mill property are its
compliance with 8040 greenline criteria and the use of the
property for short-term rental purposes, which the applicants
believe is a conditional use in the R-15 (L) PUD zone.
The intention of 8040 Greenline Review is to evaluate all develop-
ment above that line and any development up to 50 y ar ds below
that line for its compatibility with the natural features of
Aspen Mountain. The applicants have specifically address each of
the relevant criteria as follows:
1. Adequacy of water pressure and other utilities: These
issues have been addressed in the conceptual PUD submission.
Booster pumps will be providedt6 insure adequate water
pressure to the upper units.
2. Adequacy of roads for fire protection, snow removal and
maintenance: The issue of fire protection has already been
addressed above. We await the City Engineer I s comments on
the other i terns.
Site suitability including slope, ground instability, mud
flow, rock fall and avalanche danger: These issues have
been extensively discussed in reports prepared by Chen and
Associates and will be reviewed at a subsequent meeting when
referral comments are available.
3.
4.
Effects on run-Off, drainage, erosion and water pollution:
The referral comments on these iterns are also forthcoming.
Effects on air quality: According to the applicants analysis,
the fireplaces and vehicle emissions impacts of the project
will be a minor incI'ease in paI'ticulates, hydI'ocarbons
and caI'bon monoxide, but that there will be a decrease in
all vehicle emissions categories. Confirmation of these
claims has yet to be obtained from the Environmental Health
DepaI'tment.
6. Compatibility of roads and structures with terrain: In our
earlieI' I'eview of the project, we indicated that the units
will comply with the height requiI'ement of the zone and are
compatible with sUI'I'ounding uses. Units have been stepped
up Mill StI'eet, and use the I'elatively invisible location of
the bowl to best advantage. New I'oad constI'uction in the
area has been keep to an absolute minimum.
5.
7. Disturbance to teI'rain, vegetation and land features thI'ough
gI'ading: As noted above, the development will I'esult in
extensive site gI'ading and disturbance of vegetation. Jim
Holland has apPI'oved the applicants' tree I'eplacement
8
,
'1
i
I
program. The site grading which will take place will not I
affect natural terrain but instead will disturb previously .
modified lands. The net impact of all of this disturbance
should be a substantially reclaimed area, although admittedly
the loss of some of the existing trees will result in less
of a "natural" feel to the site.
8. Placement of structures and roads to increase open space,
minimize roads, cutting and grading and preserve the scenic
mountain: As noted above, roads are kept to a minimum within
the site and open space is at approximately 70%. The
retention of the view corridor through Mill Street is a key
to the success of the design, as is the stepping of units up
the hill. There will be significant cutting and grading, as
noted above.
9. Reduction of building height and bulk: Bulk has been reduced
through the use of underground parking and the design of
structures as single-family and duplex units.
In sUllUDary, the applicants appear to have met the intent and
purposes of the 8040 Greenline Review through their proj ect
design. Final 8040 Greenline approval should only be granted
after adequate referral comments addressing criteria 2 through S
have been received.
The other issue with respect to use which should be discussed is
the question of conditional use. Since the property incl udes
land zoned R-lS (L) PUD, the applicants have applied for a
conditional use permit for the rental of the Top of Mill units on
a short-term basis. The R-lS zone use requirements in Section
24-3.2 of the Code state that lodges are a conditional use in the
R-lS zone district where an "L" is shown on the map. In my
opinion, rental of these units on a short-term basis does not
represent a conditional use, rather, it is actually a request to
except condominiumized residential units from the six (6) month
minimum lease restriction. My reason for this determination is
the definition of lodge in Section 24-3.1(0) which includes the
following language:
"A building containing three (3) or more units, none of
which units contain kitchen facilities, intended for temporary
occupancy of guests."
Since none of the buildings On the Top of Mill site contain three
(3) or more units and all contain kitchen facilities, this use
cannot be considered a lodge and is ineligible for a conditional
use permit. Excpetion of these units from the six (6) month
minimum lease provisions will be considered as a miscellaneous
issue during a subsequent meeting when residential condominiumiza-
tion of the free-market units is discussed.
,~
,
~
,
!
2. 700 South Galena
The 700 South Galena project has experienced the most significant
changes since conceptual submission. Rather than developing the
site as a twelve (12) unit condominium complex, the proposal is
instead to building two (2) duplexes in more of a townhouse
configuration, with the remaining eight (8) units having been
transferred to the lodge building. The maj or reasons for these
changes are to accommodate the concerns of neighbors and the City
Council's conditions of approval, and to address the desi re of
the City to realign Galena Street.
The principal features of the project as regards architecture,
site design and circulation are as follows:
A.
The duplexes will conform to the height limitations of the
zone, thereby complying with conceptual Condition 116.
,
I"
9
I'
i
!'
l
1-
;,
B. The proj ect provides fifteen (IS) underground spaces and
four (4) on-grade guest spaces for the twelve (12) bedroom
compl ex. The parking areas are accessed off the northern
edge of the property.
C. A sidewalk is shown for the length of the property and
allows pedestrian access to the units through a courtyard.
D. The applicants have agreed to realign Galena Street, in
keeping with Condition 117 of Resolution 84-23 and much to
the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. The realign-
ment has avoided the issue identified in Condition 114
regarding the identification of any easements which must be
acquired to construct the project. The gas line beneath the
site no longer encroaches onto the site and is instead
within the right-of-way. Furthermore, the existing dead-end
overhead electric line remaining along the rear of the site
will be buried, for which a utility easement has been located.
3. SUlllllit Place Townhouses
There are virtually no design or circulation issues which have
been noted to date with respect to the Summit Place aspect of the
PUD. The architectural style of the project has been established
as a result of the prior work on the exterior of the original
duplex. The third unit will match the other two homes, while the
foundation for the fourth unit will be removed to make room for
the ski-in trail. The three (3) units all meet height and bulk
limits for the zone. No conditions relative to Summit Place were
identified at the conceptual stage, and no additional concerns
have arisen at this time.
4. Ute City Place
Compliance of this project with its conditions of conceptual
approval has been reviewed above. Since this project has already
been taken through the entire subdivision process for a very
similar configuration, it seems redundant to apply these procedures
once again. We believe that a finding as to compliance with the
conditions of conceptual approval should be adequate to deal with
Preliminary PUD issues concerning si'te design and circulation.
I
I
i
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
.
,
!
SOIUlARY
Thi s memo is intended to introduce you to the residential proj ects
contained within the Aspen Mountain Lodge and to address the following
review concerns:
1. Employee Housing7 and
2. Architecture, Site Design and Circulation.
I anticipate developing a second memo for your meeting on March 19,
addressing the following issues:
3. Hazard Mitigation; and
4. Miscellaneous Concerns.
Following the series of meetings at which these topics are reviewed, I
will draft a resolution which comprehensively addresses the points you
have raised regarding these projects.
10
,
MEIIOIWIDOM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoping Commission
Alan Richman, Planning Office
Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects - Preliminary
PUD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews
March 19, 1985
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
========================================================================
INTRODOC'l'ION
In our previous memorandum to you on this subject, dated March 5, we
provided you with a general description of the Top of Mill, Summi t
Place, 700 South Galena and Ute City Place projects. The memo also
reviewed these projects in terms of basic land use and site design
issues, circulation and employee housing. These issues were reviewed
and completed at your meetings on March 5 and March 12.
The purpose of this memo is to address the remaining concerns with
respect to the residential projects for the discussions which are to
take place on March 19 and March 26. As a reminder, the issues to be
discussed are as follows:
1. Plans for mitigation of natural hazards.
2. Miscellaneous outstanding iSE!ues emerging from conceptual
conditions of approval
3. Residential condominiumization.
The meeting on March 19 is intended to addresE! topical area '1, while
that on March 26 should deal with areas 12 and 13 (unlesE! time permits
on March 19 to complete all outstanding issues). Finally, on April 2
we hope to preE!ent you with a resolution for action on theE!e projects.
NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW
I
I
There are four (4) types of natural hazardE! which have been addreE!E!ed
by the applicantE! in reE!ponse to the conditions of conceptual approval.
Taking theE!e iE!sues in rank order, from the leaat complex to the most
complex, the areas addressed are as follows:
1. Potential mine subsidence on the site.
2. Contaminated soils on the site.
3. Stormwater drainage from the mountain onto the site.
4. Geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain.
Potential Mine Subsidence
~
> ~
1.
.~
:~'
The study of mine subsidence potential by Chen and Associates is
contained in Appendix D of the submission. The study was a
literature review, as opposed to an on-site analysis, and made
the following findings:
"The Aspen Mountain Lodge proj ect site is located at
least 200 feet from the area where large concentrations
of mine workings have been mapped. Based on our
experience with similar projects, the geology and type
of mining, a safety zone of 200 feet from mine workings
should be satisfactory. Records of underground mine
workings below the site were not found. There is some
possibility that mine workings (small, shallow pits,
abandoned exploration tunnels or shafts, mine water
J,
drainage or ventilation tunnels) may be present at the
site which were not mapped or recorded through 65 years
of mining. Because the proposed site is located
outside of the main ore bearing zone, the possibility
of major unrecorded mine workings below the site is
very small. In this regard we recommend that field
observation by an experienced geologist be made when
the snow cover is gone." .
I have discussed this study with Jay Hammond and it is our
opinion that the field observation suggestion by Chen should be
implemented. It should be required that the results of these
reports be available to the Building Inspector prior to the
issuance of any building permits on the site.
2. Contaminated Soils
Appendix D also contains the Chen and Associates chemical investi-
gation of near surface soils. The purpose of this study was "to
determine whether the soils might be classified as potentially
hazardous materials, based upon testing procedures recommended by
the U. S. EPA." Twelve test pits were excavated and the samples
were analyzed for total lead content and EP toxicity. The
results of this analysis were that among the three zones sampled,
Zone 1, in the southermost portion of the site and Zone 2, just
above the proposed terminus of Mill Street, failed the toxicity
test, while the sample from zone i3, in the central and lower
portion of the site, was not classified as hazardous.
Based on this analysis, the consultant identified four (4)
mitigation alternatives:
a. Do nothing;
b. Excavate the contaminated soils and ship to a disposal
site;
c. Cover the contaminated soils with soils from off-site;
or
d. Develop a cut-and-fill plan using uncontaminated soils
from the property to cover contaminated soils.
The consul tant chose the fourth option based on its cost effective-
ness. Tom Dunlop comments that contouring the site and covering
the soils is an effective technique for mitigating the health
hazard of contaminated soils. Tom further recommends that
surface water be diverted from the contaminated areas to insure
that no contamination of groundwater takes place. In this
respect, we would note that no testing was done in the area of the
proposed detention pond. Such testing would seem appropriate
before approval is given to place the pond in this location.
Tom further notes that if any excavated material is to be shipped
off-site, it be limited to materials which are not contaminated.
We, therefore, recommend that no material from the Top of Mill
p6rtion of the site be permitted to be moved off the site. This
limitation should effectively deal with all contaminated soils,
since, as one moves further down the site, the hazards become
negligible. Tom also had several other informational requirements
which can be dealt with in your resolution.
I
~
I
!
,
fi
3 & 4.
Stormwater Drainage/Geologic Hazards
The final two hazard issues have been addressed jointly due to
the comment by Jeff Hynes of the Colorado Geologic Survey that:
"Three general hazards are directly associated with
this proposal. They are: unstable and potentially
unstable slopes; debris flows; and flash flooding.
These processes are dynamically interrelated in extremely
2
We believe the potential risks and mitigation measures for
the project should be evaluated by hydrologic and hydraulic
methods. Water flood volumes, however, should be increased
by 50% to account for transport of solids in the flows.
Conceptual mitigation measures would include the construction
of detention/debris basins, diversion structures and channeli-
zation. Provisions for periodic debris removal and cleanup
should be included in the design of mitigation measures.
The moni tor ing program has not indicated any significant
movement of the landslide mass during the period of this
study. The lack of data showing a clearly defined failure
surface has limited our ability to analyze the landslide and
propose corrective measures. However, the preliminary
results indicate a relatively shallow failure surface within
the mine dump material or near the contact of the original
ground surface and the mine dump.
h. Continued monitoring of the inclinometers and piezometers is
recommended through at least the last spring of 1985.
Additional monitoring may be required beyond this time if
the Aspen Skiing Company desires to develop corrective
measures for stablizing the landslide."
g.
complex ways in which each can be the cause or the
result of any of the others. Events can be random,
sequential or episodic in nature with highly variable
time delays between related events."
The applicants had Chen and Associates prepare two studies on
these hazards, one being a study of the 1984 landslide event,
while the other looked at the potential for debris flow originating
on the north face of Aspen Mountain, A study of stormwater
drainage was prepared by Rea Cassens and Associates, to coordinate
the overall site drainage needs with the off-site impacts of mud
flows, debris flows and other materials transported from the
mountain onto the site.
The applicants have summarized the conclusions of the Chen and
Associates report as follows:
a. "pebris flows have occurred in the past with reoccurrence
intervals measured in hundreds of years.
b. Mud-floods have occurred in the past. The mud-flood is
similar to the water flood except for significant volumes of
transported sediment. The mud-flood return period is 25 years.
,
c. The potential for a debris flow from the landsl ide reaching
Aspen Mountian Lodge and the Top of Mill sites as anything
but a fluid "mud flood" appears relatively low. The "mud
flood" hazard can be mitigated in the same manner and using
the same structures as proposed for storm drainage.
Based on the resul ts of our investigation, it appears that
hyper-concentrated mud-floods with solids concentration of
about 40% by vol ume pose the most risk of damage to the
proj ect.
d.
I
I
I
I
,
e.
f.
, ~
~
I
Jeff Hynes, of the Colorado Geologic Survey, ha.s provided us with
a detailed review of these studies, focusing on study methods,
concl usions and recommendations. Jeff's full response is incl uded
in your packet, but can be summarized with the fOllowing highlights:
a. "While Appendices D and E provide a great deal of valuable
information, they are less than what is necessary to understand
and predict the behavior of this slope-failure-prone area.
b. The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of
3
last June is insufficient in both detail and time span to
adequately characterize this slide mass and/or predict its
future behavior.
c. Stabil i ty analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions
rather than actual, measured characteristics of the landslide
due to insufficient data. One of the critical assumptions
made was that the materials were drained. This is most
probably not the critical condition of the landslide deposit
nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with the
movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions,
a safety factor of less than 1.0 was achieved in one of the
two cases. This case was classified as -marginally stable-
in the Chen Report. By definition, the correct classification
for this case is unstable.
d. Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as
a mud-flood, and therefor mitigatable by channelization does
not take into account the episodic nature and potential
interaction between several events. A small landslide or
debris flow which would present only a trivial threat to the
actual structures could effectively block or al ter the
drainage network rendering it all but usel,ess to defend the
development from the flas,h flood which could occur before
the blockage was cleared, or even noticed...
e. In summary, we would like to concur with and reiterate the
recommendations found in the Chen reports calling for more
detailed studies of the mass wasting and slope failure
processes affecting this area. The complexi ty of these
phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood
in order to make any reliable predictions about their
likelihood, recurrence interval, and the risk they pose to
the anticipated development. Additionally, the excess
moisture conditions assOciated with the spring thaw and
runoff period represents the critical phase of the landslide
probl ern. Given the movement and surface disruption last
June, it is highly likely that this slide mass will absorb
more water this spring than last and may move again.
f. Based upon the above considerations we recommend that the
City postpone any decision on this application until detailed
studies have been completed and the hazards are better
understood and realistic risk assessments can be performed.
The timing of the studies should be such that the critical
period (melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field
investigations.-
Given the recommendations made by Mr. Hynes in points e and f
above, I reviewed this issue in a meeting wi th the City Manager,
City Engineer, and Chief Environmental Health Officer. We all
concur wi th the recommendations made by Chen and Associates
and by Jeff Hynes that further study is needed before any decision
On this application can be made. We recommend that Chen and
Associates be requested to set up a study program for monitoring
and analysis of the hazard and that this program be reviewed by
Mr. Hynes for his concurrence. These conclusions have been
discussed with the applicants who concorwith the approach we are
taking, and who have al ready moved forward wi th developing the
necessary study and contacting Mr. Hynes.
Based on these cOnclusions, we further recommend that the applicants
return to City Council for reconsideration of the condition which
limits the lodge portion of the PUD from proceeding to final plat
until the residential projects have received preliminary approval.
In our opinion, the main reason for this condition was to insure
integrated planning of the site from the standpoint of architecture,
site design, circulation and similar issues. Since these issues
have been addressed and resolved to the City's satisfaction at this
time, we see no reason to hold up progress regarding the lodge itself,
.;
.
!
4
j.'
(,
'j
as well as the 700 South Galena, Summit Place and ute City Place
projects. However, this approach does leave the applicants at some
risk since it means that Top of Mill is essentially an unapproved
portion of the PUD at this time. We feel that the City's interests in
the PUD can be preserved since the eventual development of the site
will likely be in the form proposed at this stage or at some lessened
density.
"
~
MISCELLANEOUS CORDI~IORS OF APPROVAL
There were two conditions of conceptual approval which did not fit into
any of the categories previously discussed. These conditions (U and
.2 of Resol uti on 84-23) dealt with the Koch Land Trade and the relocation
of the Ski CI ub' s buH dings.
The condition with respect to the Koch Property reflected the Council's
desire to consullllllate the land exchange in conj unction wi th the final
plat submission. The applicants have contacted the City Attorney and
Planning Office to establish a procedure for dealing wi th the land
exchange. As you are aware, the exchange involves two (2) pieces of
land, one being traded in exchange for the City Lots in the Capitol
Hill Addition and the other being freely given as a gift to the City.
The City Attorney and I concur that the best way to deal with the
subdivision of the land into two parcels for purposes of its conveyance
to the City is as a subdivision exception. This procedure is expected
to be completed simultaneously with the Final Plat action, with the
request having been recently submitted by the applicants.
As one condition of obtaining the Capitol Hill lots, the applicants
agreed to construct for the Aspen Ski Club a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality than that which it now occupies on
the City lots. This commitment also showed up as Condition '2 of
Resolution 84-23.
In response to this condition, the applicants have reiterated their
commitment to construct a new Ski Club building of increased size and
improved quality relative to the Club's present situation. It has also
come to my attention that the Ski Club 1s now actively involved in a
search for a new building site. The attached letter from Larry Yaw to
Alan Novak was written in response to an earlier letter by Dick
Meeker of the Aspen Ski Club. Laryy has evaluated the suitability of
three sites based on eight criteria, all as originally identified by
the Ski CI ub.
The three sites identified for the new building are within or in the
vicinity of Willoughby Park. Larry Yaw finds the parcel currently
used for the volleyball courts to be the most suitable of the locations
and proposes that the volleyball use be relocated to the Koch parcel.
While it is not the p&Z'S (or the applicants') responsibility to
choose the site for the building, it would be helpful at this point to
give the Ski Club some guidance about the proposed locations. Given
the lack of site planning for the Koch parCE!1, I am somewhat doubtful
about displacing this use without a straight-forward replacement
plan. It seems more reasonable to me to consider some form of recon-
struction of, or addition to the ARA building to house the Ski Club.
CORDOMIRIOMIZA~XOR
"
I
,
i
I
I
I
"
.1
On pages 32-38 of the submission, the applicants request subdivisiOn
exception for the purposes of condominumization of the 700 S. Galena,
Summit Place and Top of Mill units. The units within the lodge have
already received your recollllllendation of approval for condominiumization,
while the units at ute City Place were addressed in an earlier memo.
The applicants' responses to the criteria of Section 20-22 are as
follows:
,
"
.'f
.,
;
i:~
;:j'
j'
~,.
a. No existing tenants need be given written notice, as the
condominiums are new construction or the completion of
\
;;,
?;
1':
5
,.,
{,
i.
'k
L';',
~','(
previously unoccupied units.
b. The applicants request exception from the six (6) month
minimum lease provisions. As with the units within the
lOdge, the intent for theses units is to rent them on a short-
term basis to visitors. Given the location of these projects
within the lodge district, where the intent is for short-term
occupancy, we concur with the exception request.
c. The applicants have demonstrated that the supply of affordab1 e
housing will not be reduced by agreeing to replace, as part
of their employee housing calculations, any units which are
eliminated by the construction of the project.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the condominiumization
request, including exception from the six (6) month minimum lease
restriction.
SUMMARY
This memo completes the Planning Office' review of the preliminary
PUD/Subdivision and associated reviews, for the residential projects
included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. When the Planning
Commission has made its comments on each of the issues included within
out report, we will be ab1 e to prepare a reso1 uti on summar1z ing your
action on the projects.
AR:j1 r:apz. amI. 3 .19
I
I
1
J
:;~
6
'i;
l'
./"\
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR THE TOP OF MILL, SUr~IIT PLACE AND 706 SOUTH GALENA
CONDOmNIUM 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 O~TNED 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-IS (PUD) (L); and
ymEREAS, 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 I-larch 20th, March
27th and April 17, 1984, and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted
on April 10, 1984; and
~mEREAS, 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
'~'><
:;~)'1'
G
Resolution No. 84-_;L__
Pi:,ge 2
rmEREAS, 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 Hunicipal Code, to the Top of Nill, Summit Place and
700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Appli cants' 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 Hill 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 rHII 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.
'.'''''''-:C",,''''c..<
':>>>-
o
Resolution No. 84-..L
Page 3
6. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lo\~est 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.
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 I-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 I granting of an acceptab~le 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
I-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
constructio~. 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
proj ects' 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
,h
,J
.r'\
( .
Resalutian No.. 84-_2_
Page 4
24-l1.2(a) af the Municipal Cade, being accamplished within
five (5) years af the date af demalitian, and being restricted
to. the Aspen Mauntain PUD site.
18. All material representatians af the Applicants' canceptual
PUD/subdivisian and residential GMP applicatians nat speci-
fically referred to. abo.ve being made a co.nditio.n o.f this
appro.val.
Section 2
That it daes hereby reco.mmend that the Aspen City Co.uncil deny
the Applicants' request fer a rezo.ning fro.m Public to. L-2 o.f that
partian o.f the Tap af Mill site currently awned by the City and do.es
hereby reco.mmend instead that the parcel(s) be rezo.ned to. R-15 (PUD) (L),
fer the fallowing reaso.ns:
at such time as the parcells) may be co.nveyed to. the APPlicants,
1. While the pro.po.sed develo.pment is co.nsistent I'/i th the intent
o.f the 1-2 zo.ne catego.ry and o.f the Recreatio.n/Accommo.datio.ns
Transitio.n land Use catego.ry applied to. this area in the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to. 1-2 is no.t required
to. achieve the pro.po.sed develo.pment.
2. The primary reasan far the Applicants' request is to. enable
them to. take advantage o.f the mare favo.rable FAR ratio.
available in the 1-2 zo.ne district. Since the FAR pro.visio.ns
o.f the Municipal Cede may be varied pursuant to. the PUD
regulations, a rezo.ning merely to. reduce the extent of
the requested variatio.n is inappro.priate.
3. The 1-2 zo.ne district permits mUlti-family residential
uses in additio.n to. single-family units and duplexes and,
therefo.re, does no.t guarantee that develo.pment will o.CCUr
cansistent with the adapted 1and USe Plan.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zo.ning CammisSio.n of the City of
Aspen, Co.lo.rado, at their regular meeting an May __1L-, 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Z5~/M ~~
Barbara No.rris, Deputy City Clerk
RESOLOTIOR OF THE ASPBll PLAllllIllG AND ZONIllG COMJIISSIOR
GRAllTIRG APPROVAL TO A PORTIOR OF THE PRBLIIIIRARY POD/SOBMvrSIOR
AND RECOMMBllDIllG ASSOClATBD APPROVALS FOR 'l'BE RBSIDBllTIAL PROJBe'l'S
INCLUDED WI'l'BIR THE ASPBll MOUN'l'AIR POD
Resolution Ro. 85-6
WHEREAS, by their Resolution No. 84-23, the Aspen City Council
(hereinafter, "Council.) did grant Conceptual POD/Subdivision approval
to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena Condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain POD; and
WHEREAS, by their Resolution No. 84-27, Council did endorse the
revised anployee housing proposal of the Aspen Mountain POD and did
grant conceptual subdivision approval and exemption from the City's
growth management allotment procedures f or the proj ect' s Ute City
Place component; and
WHEREAs, on August 27, 1984, Council did agree that the lodge and
residential components of the project could continue to be reviewed
separately, provided that the approval of any preliminary stage not
become effective until the preliminary approval for the entire POD has
been granted; and
WHEREAs, by their Resolution 85-1, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission (hereinafter, "Commission") did grant preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval for the lodge component of the Aspen Mountain POD; and
WHEREAs, John H. ROberts, Jr., Alan R. Novak and Robert Calloway
(hereinafter' "Applicants.) have submitted an application for Preliminary
PUD/Subdivision approval for the residential component of the Aspen
Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAs, the Commission did hold a public hearing on the Applicants
submission on March 5, 1985, which hearing was continued to March 12,
March 19 and April 2, 1985, to consider the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision
application and associated review procedures for the residential
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby recommend that approval of the Preliminary POD/Subdivision and
8040 Viewplane applications concerning the Top of Mill component of
the PUD be delayed until such time as the fOllowing conditions have
been met:
1. The Applicants shall continue their evaluation of the
geologic hazards from Aspen Mountain which may affect this
site by monitoring and reporting on the data gathered during
the critical melt/runoff time period. Based on this infor-
mation the Applicants shall provide responses to the concerns
expressed by Jeffrey C. Hynes, Senior Engineering Geologist
of the Colorado Geologic Survey, in his letter dated March 8,
1985. The Applicants shall submit their program for on-
going monitoring to Mr. Hynes for his review and approval
prior to the critical period.
2. The Applicants shall expand the scope of their soil contam-
ination sampling program to determine whether any toxic
materials are located within the area proposed to be used
for storm water detention on the site. If such materials
are found in this area, the Applicants shall develop a plan
to insure that toxic substances do not leak into the ground-
,. """''"C''.'''''''''''.''~
,....,
<>:0,:',,,"
ResolutiCll No. 85-~
Page 2
water below the site, to the satisfaction of the City's
Ehgineer and Chief Environmental Health Officer.
3. The Applicants shall develop a soil monitoring program and
detailed grading plans for the entire Top of Mill site to
satisfy the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer
that no toxic material be moved off the site or be excessively
disturbed and that the toxic soils on the site will be
properly covered and controlled.
4. The Applicants shall insure that all exposed mine dumps and
tailings on or around the perimeter of the PUD site are
isolated from hwnan exposure to inhalation or ingestion by
the placement of fill material over toxic soils and by
diverting all surface water from such soils.
5. The Applicants shall demonstrate that they have taken into
account and worked cooperatively with the Aspen Skiing
Company on their plans to change the finish area for the
World Cup and to address plans to mitigate site drainage
impacts from Aspen Mountain.
6. The Applicants shall commit to having the booster pump
system proposed for the Top of Mill project reviewed by the
City Engineer and Director of the Water Dept. prior to its
installation to determine its reliability and adequacy of
fire flows.
7. The landscaping plan for the Top of Mill site shall be
revised to move trees and shrubs further from the curb than
the two foot distance presently shown to avoid conflicts
with cars and snow removal. The landscaping plan shall be
supported with an irrigation plan.
8. A construction phasing program for the Top of Mill site
shall be submitted which meets the requirements of Section
24-8.9 (b) of the Municipal Code.
9. The Applicants shall commit to providing the Building
Inspector prior to building permit review wi th field data
demonstrating that units on the Top of Mill site are not
likely to be subject to subsidence from underground mines.
10. Adequate air handling facilities, satisfying the Environmental
Health Officer, shall be designed into the underground
parking structures to eliminate any buildup of air con tam-
inan ts.
11. The Applicants shall place a note en the plat for the Top of
Mill project advising potential buyers of the hazards
affecting the property if the continuing studies demonstrate
the existence of such problems.
12. The Applicants shall submit documentation of their compliance
with the above conditions to the Planning Office which shall
present the submission to the Commission at a duly noticed
pUblic hearing fOllowing its review by the appropriate
ref erral agencies.
BE IT FOR'l'BER RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby
grant to the residential projects within the Aspen Mountain PUD
(other than the Top of Mill) Preliminary POD/Subdivision approval,
does recommend subdivision exception for the purposes of cendominium-
batien and does confirm the compliance of the Ute City Place project
;,.....,."......,
Resoluticn No. 85-~
Page 3
with the provisions of the Residential Bonus Overlay which was previously
applied to the site, subject to the fOllOWing conditions:
1. The Applicants shall designate 30 of the already proposed
parking spaces on the PUD site to long-term storage of cars
of specific employees housed at the Alpina Haus and Copper
Horse and shall continue to search for added parking at
sites near these two housing projects.
2. As per Section 24-10.5 (F), the p&Z waives compliance of the
Ute City Place project with the 35 percent open space
requirement in the RMF zone district. The Applicants shall
provide that at least 23% of the site remains as open space.
3. The Applicants shall rectify, prior to the OCCupancy of the
west wing lodge units, the life, health and safety code
deficiencies in the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus identified
by John OstWald and Tom Voorhies of the BUilding Department
in their memos dated March 20 and March 21, 1985.
4. The Applicants shall comply with the landscaping comments
provided by Jim Holland in his memo dated February 26, 1985.
5. The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the
employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and
occupancy to the rental or sale gUidelines established and
indexed at the time or prior to issuance of the building
permit by the City Council's designee for moderate income
employee housing units. Verification of employment and
income of those persons living in the moderate income
employee units shall be completed and filed with the City
Council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date
of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property
records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be
deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the
benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City
or its designee by any appropriate legal action incl uding
inj un ctien, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy,
durin g the period of 1 ife of the last surv ivin g member of
the presen tly existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of
fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the
Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall
be greater.
6. Condominium maps for each project shall be submitted to the
City Ehgineer fOllowing substantial completion of their
construction for review and recommendatien prior to the sale
of any uni t.
7. The plat shall be revised to indicate the curb designs
which have been recommended by the City Ehgineer.
8. The final plat shall identify all slopes in excess of 30%.
9. The Engineering Department shall be copied en the Applicants
CDOH driveway permit for the Ute City Place project.
10. The Ute City Place final plat submissien shall comply with
the standard size requirement for such documents.
11. All drainage needs for the Ute City Place project shall be
handled en site. An irrigatien system shall be installed to
serve the landscaping <Xl this site.
12. The Applicants will initiate any or all customary air pollutien
control measures recommended by the Environmental Health
Officer to minimize wind blown fugitive dust leaving the
ResolllUQl No. 85-~
Page 4
site during the demolitioo and constructioo stages of the
project. Con tact shall be made by the applicant wi th the
Air Pollution Control Division District Engineer of the
Colorado Heal th Department to determine if an emission
permit and/or fugitive dust control plan is required at
these stages.
13. The six mooth minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 (bJ
is recommended to be waived for the residential projects
within the PUD.
14. The details of the Q'l-site drainage plan for the PUD site
shall be made available for review by the City Engineer
during the final plat review process.
15. All written and verbal representations of the Applicants
wi th respect to the residen tial projects wi thin the PUD are
hereby made conditions of this action.
BE 1'1' ALSO RESOLVED by the CommissiQ'l that it does hereby recommend
that Council delete the trail easement along the Top of Mill site and
pursue alternative alignments due to the topographic impracticality of
connecting this segment to other trails across the mountain and based
on the Commissioo's finding that the adopted Trail s PI an con tains no
segmen ts to which this easement could be lin ked.
BE 1'1' FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby
recommend that Council proceed with the processing of the final plat
for the remainder of the PUD, in spite of the delay associated with
the Top of Mill project. The Commission refers the Council to its
ResolutiQ'l 85-7 to identify its reasoning on this recommendation.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting Q'l April 2, 1985.
ASPER PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMI SSl: OR
A'l'TES'1' :
By, ? c/?
Perry H
~~Wfud-
Kim WilhOit, Deputy City Clerk
';"i,;';.~:;".~;,;;~;~ ,..;',' ~~, ...,.;:....''',,'~.
.
1:... J
,...,.,
f\
r,
.J
RESOLUTION NO. 23
(Series of 1984)
A RESOLUTION' GRANTING' CONCEPTUlU. PUD/SUBDIVIS ION APPROVAL
TO TltE '1'OP OFMJ:LL~StfMMfT"'PLACE1\N'J)70QS(jgiJ.iII!lJ\i.~A ......
CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTs OF TH'g JlSPEN MOUNTA!& PUI>'
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 th.e Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requf;!sts 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 si te currently zoned
Public and R-15 (PUD) (L); and b) an exemption from the City I 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
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
':+rf,:;,,,~,j,: "'~~';;2Z;{;,".
~_&'tf:ii>,,;'i)';
r"
I
o
Resolution No. 84-~
page 2
Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain
PUD at regul ar meetings held on May 14 th, May 29 th, June 11 th, June
25th, July 9th, and July 23,1984; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of !1ill and 700
south Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in
response to various concerns identified by the planning office, the
Plan~ing 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 ~Iountain PUD, as revised, subj ect to the
following conditions:
1. In accordance vlith the Applicants' proposal, their consulumation
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 compri sed of the entire Colorado
rHdland 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. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth
therein. Such acquisition shall be completed prior to, or
concurrent with, final PUD/subdivision approval, and shall
be contingent upon approval by the City Council, in its sole
discretion, of an application to subdivide the "Koch Lumber"
property so that the exchange can be completed.
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
wi th the City vii th 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 th e Top of Mill si te whi ch are identif ied as a resul t
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 Applican.s' 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
.
r-,
",
.
Resolution No. 84-~
Page 3
retention of all circulation and utility rights, the provision
oJ; 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 e.ach utility's current ot" 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 constr.uct 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 J;easible, 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 I-A and
the adj acent 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, said ea13ement; t() be depicted in the
Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivi.st()n submission and
dedicated concurrent with final PUD/subdivision approval.
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, said
easement to be depicted in the Applicants' preliminary
PUD/subdivision submi ssi on and dedi cated concur rent with
final PUD/subdivision approval.
12. The . Applicants ' provision of ninety (90) on-site parking
spaces for the resi dents of the Top of Mill proj ect, 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 conj unction wi th 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.
(--\
r\
"
Resolution No. 84-~
page 4
16. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being
reduced so as to comply wi. th the twenty-eight (28) foot
height limitation of the underlyi.ng 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
inunediate site area, said realignment to be depicted in the
Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission.
18. To the extent applicable, the above conditions being met
prior to preliminary PUD/subdivision approval.
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 expi ration of Council's conceptual PUD/subdivision
approval, pursu~nt 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: September 5, 1984
,
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 July 23, 1984.
('"">,
n
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
John Krueger, Trails Supervisor
DATE: February 27,1996
RE: Aspen Mountain SubdivisionIPUD (Lots 3&5) Conceptual Submission,
Rezoning & Text Amendment
We have reviewed the application fOI the Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD (Lots 3&5)
Conceptual Submission, Rezoning & Text Amendment and have several concerns. Of
primary concern to us is the neglect of the existing trail easements that were dedicated as
part of the original subdivision approval process. On both Lots 3 & 5, the application
shows buildings drawn on top of the trail easements. This is unacceptable because these
easements are vital east/west trail linkages that must not be vacated to the development of
these lots. They are important trail linkages for both summer and winter uses, including,
hiking, mountain biking, nordic skiing, alpine skiing and pedestrian access. It is also
important to keep these easements as functional trail easements and not negate them by
either placing landscaping within the easements or by inappropriate grading around them
to be unusable. It is therefore recommended that if this conceptual development is
approved, a condition of approval should require the applicant to construct the Top of
Mill Trail and the Alpine Trail between Mill St. and Galena St., in conjunction with their
development of the lots. This should avoid the conflicting impacts to the trail easements.
These trails are of considerable benefit to the entire neighborhood, including the residents
of the new development, the surrounding condominiums and the general public because
they provide east/west access in places where streets are lacking, allowing safe travel to
either the Gondola area or Lift IA.
The general landscaping proposed by the plan is somewhat premature to evaluate in much
detail due to this being a conceptual submission. However, the proposed landscaping
plan for Lot 5 shows a considerable number of trees planted in the utility and trail
easement between Mill St. and Galena St.(southern edge of Lot 5). Trees must not be
planted too close to the trail, approximately five (5) feet away from the trail edge.
Additionally, trees should generally not be planted on top of utility easements due to the
fact that if the utility needs to be dug up in the future, the trees will likely be damaged or
destroyed. The utility company may not be responsible for the replacement of the trees
but the property owner may be required to do so. This is not to say that utility easements
need to be devoid of vegetation, just that they should not be over-landscaped with too
many trees or other significant landscaping.
r'\
,
tj
The only other general comment on the application is in regards to the dedicated Open
Space on Lot 3. The proposed plan shows a reduction of the open space for the
development of Parcel #7. It appears from the topographic lines on the Master Site Plan
for Lots 3& 5, that the original boundaries for"'6;Jfn- space parcel were defined by the
existing topography. While the open space was dedicated as part ofthe original
approvals, the area is zoned as Conservation with a PUD overlay. To reduce and rezone
even a portion of dedicated open space sets a bad precedence for future development
applications. The application vaguely implicates the so called cul-de-sac as open space.
A cul-de-sac does not represent valuable open space and does not necessarily meet the
zoning criteria for a conservation zone. The open space should be kept whole and
contiguous and not diminished for development purposes.
In response to the specifics of the application, we offer the following responses.
Page 16 - The seventh amended plat shows all the important trail easements and the open
space easement. These dedications should remain the same in development plans for
Lots 3& 5.
Page 19 - The eight (8) foot trail easement was required per the Amended PUD
agreement and must still be constructed. Staff did not hold up the Certificate of
Occupancy on Lot I, however, this does not mean that the trail does not still need to be
constructed. The trail must be constructed with the development of Lot 5 and trail design
must be approved by the Parks Department prior to final PUD approval. Currently, the
conceptual application shows a building constructed on top of the easement. The
buildings must be at least 10 feet from the trail edge.
Page 20 - Tree removal permits will be required for all trees removed that meet code.
However, a more detailed landscape plan will be required for final submission and must
indicate all trees proposed for removal and mitigation proposed for removed trees.
Page 22 - The application states that the Top of Mill Trail does not become effective until
public easements are obtained through adjacent lands. However, the trail easement
dedicated by Roberts should be amended as part of the development approval to require
the applicant to construct the trail in conjunction with their development of Lot 3. A trail
in this area would benefit both the applicant and the surrounding neighbors to access the
gondola area and Lift lA. The Aspen Ski Company is the adjoining property owner on
both sides (east and west). The trail easement should also be amended to extend on the
east side through the finger extension .tha'rto be workable with the existing topography.
Page 29 - The trail easement does not appear on the Site Development Plan for Lot 5 and
shows the townhomes encroaching upon the easement. .
Page 44 - The trail easement does not appear on the Site Development Plan for Lot 3.
There are townhomes, driveways and parking areas shown on top of the easement.
Additionally, access to the triplexes on Parcel #1 is shown off of Summit St. The entry to
~
~
t]
the triplexes cuts across the western cottler of the tJpeti space easement at Summit St.
which again reduces the dedicated open space. The increased traffic on Summit St. also
creates problems for the ski trail that crosses Summit St. by creating more potential for
skier/vehicle conflicts. Since Summit St. is fairly narrow, it may make sense to have the
access for the triplexes off of Mill St.
Page 45 - In Iegards to the Top of Mill Trail being vacated by Savannah, that is totally
unacceptable. If the property can be developed for townhomes it makes sense to have the
applicant construct the trail in conjunction with their construction. The trail has not been
relocated as indicated. The trail shown on the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan is
not a legal map and refers to the generalized area. The trail easement had already been
dedicated when these plans were done and the Base of Aspen Mountain Trail is still an
important link in the overall trails plans and must not be vacated.
.,__.....~-""-O.._.......'".."..".~."
n
n
~
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION/PLTJ) (LOTS 3 & 5) CONCEPTUAL
SUBMISSION, AMENDlYfENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, AND AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 19, 1996 at
a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
Savanah Limited Partnership, requesting conceptual PUD and Subdivision approval to develop 47
residential dwelling units. The applicant is also requesting to rezone a portion of Lot 3 to l/TR
(LodgelTourist Residential) and to amend Section 26.40.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The
property is legally described as Lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD; and is referred
to as the Grand Aspen Hotel site and the Top of Mill site. For further information, contact Dave
Michaelson at the AspenlPitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,
CO (970) 920-5100.
s/Sara Garton. Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 2, 1996
City of Aspen Account
~ k ~Va.N\
Z/21/q~
Tele. (970) 925-3601
:7IsJ:;z Gonso//daled c5an;lalion 0islricl
565 North MiJ!;;s"~i:~q;
.. r. ~ '>.:...
Aspen, Colo~9 '"81611 ($ .t1
I ' F'"~~(970) 925-2537
t MAR 0 . 11996 )t,~
,~ .. ;' .... ,","f
\ " " '.jY
'", HO
\",,'. ",";";~'
',~'," ' '_.~<~'~~:>~;'f.-u:rs~;;~:f
Micha~l Kelly
Frank LOushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
Sy Kelly. Ch.,jrman
Albert Bishop . Treas.
Louis Popish. Secy.
~~bruary 29, 1996
, ,.. ,
Dave Michaelson, Deputy :Di!:,ector
IIspen!Pitkin Comml.\nity Development Dept.
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO S16n
'RE: Aspen Moun'taili subd.ivisi~n/'PUD Lots & 5 CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
ReZoning and Text Amendment '
Dear ,Dave,
,The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently
sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve th,is project.
applicant ,will' berecruiiedto fu,nd a proportionate share
downstream constraints in the cOllection system.
',service is c()ntingent upon compliance with the District Rul es,
Regulations and Specifications, which are on file at the District
offiCe, , ,"" ". ",
The applicant wi 11 be required to deposit fundi in escroww~ th
the District for the cost of a flow study on the Mill st. and
Galena st. trunk lines, the cost to tel evise the sewer lines ,that
are impacted, and the estim"ted cost for the District's Engineer to
review the, sewer utility plans and the construction observation
fees" Ol;1ce the flow study an,dtelevision work is completed, the
District can determine the extent of the rehabilitation of the main
sewer lines in Mill st. and Galena St. that the a.pplicantwill be
required to fund, t,o, .' fjerve the de)Telopment., SigIlificant
rehabilitation may be rE!quired for the 8" line in Mill st. and both
the 12" and,20" linE! in Galena St" At the applicant's expense, the
main' sewe-r line that .,as abimdonedin Mill SL may need to be
reinstated to serve Lot 3.
The applicant will be r€iquired to <::ornpl ete a Line Extension
Request and execute a Collection System A.greement. Each item will
be reviewed by our Board' of Directors at their, regular meetings;
The cost' of the line extensions required to adequately serVe, these/
parcels will become part, of the 'developer's project, costs.
EaSements w,ill need to be granted according to standard District
form. ,', " , ""(,, , ,
Detailedplan and profile drawi,ngs should be made ,avai) able to
the District as soon as they are availablE! for us to be ,able to
cOlnment specifically, On the apPlication:', It appears from the
limited information contained in the application that in addition
to, the main line, extension into Lot 3, tha,t another main sewer line
extension will be required to serve Parcel 2 of Lot 3, as well as a
main sewer line extension to serve Lot 5.
.",:;.... : "', ," ......, .. '.' .. .,.
has
The
of
EPA Award;ofExc~ll~nce '
1976.1986.1990
Regi()naJ and National
. "'o--,.'c-
n
" J..
..."" ,',
The storm seWer system will have 0 be reviewed by the
Distdcftb ass11re 11S thatno 9le.ar water connections have made to
the sanitary system and that all historical storm ,water connections
from all parcels of t.he development have been el'iminated from the
sani tarysewer. .. ..
If s~ni tary sewerservJceline st11bo11tsar.e be~ng proposed in
the application, the District regulations require that 40% of the
estimated total cQnnecifion. charges are paid to the District prior
. ~~Z2r _i. lin. ..'.n:'o.. .,
ThClmasR, Bracewell
Coll.ection Systems Sl1perintendent
h
("'\
~
~
'I. .}
MEMORANDUM
To:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From:
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
Date:
February 29,1996
Re:
Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD (Lots 3 & 5), Conceptual Submission,
Rezoning & Text Amendment
The information provided to us to date is insufficient to make a full review of the proposed project
therefore this response is a preliminary draft, subject to amendment, based upon the information
available.
Our comments, questions and concerns about various aspects of the pIoposed project follow:
Water Department
· 15 service connections to neighbors plus one hydrant to be moved from 8" and reconnected
to existing 12" line through Galena and Summit streets
· One 4" line cross-connect between 12" and 8" lines to be replaced at the intersection of
Durant A venue and Galena Street
· Need easements for water lines
· The Water Dept. knows there is sufficient capacity in the distribution system to service this
new development
· Service to the proposed units above the 8040 line will probably require an auxiliary pumping
system to provide adequate volume and pressure for domestic and fire flows as stated in the
application
· The Water Dept. is very concerned about the apparent conflict of interest created by Leonard
Rice, Water Engineers, (Mr. AJ. Zabbia) working for the developer when this consultant has
been retained by the City as its consulting engineer for the Water Dept.
Streets Department
· Street: Roto-mill full width of asphalt and install leveling course plus 2" overlay
· Trench: Straight, saw-cut asphalt beyond trench width to establish a straight neat line,
apply 4" asphalt patch prior to street overlay. Maintain 1/2' asphalt lip at concrete gutters.
DRCM0396.DOC
3/1/96
MEMO - ASPEN MT. SUBDIVIMuD
t'"\
· Leonard Rice (A.J. Zabbia) conflict with Developer's and City's interests
· On-site drainage? Drywells or otheI on-site drainage system will be needed, no on-street
drainage of storm waters or snow melt
· Pre and post development drainage leaving site must be the same, i.e. they must retain water.
~
· Open space and trail alignments are not shown and they are required
· Bike path has moved from existing easement
· Lot lines on PUD conflict with dedicated easements, Lot 3
· PIoposed open space is a "private" park
· Landscaping needs reviews during design process
Engineering
· Lot 3: Utility easement fOI all utilities (page 43)
· Drainage, Aspen Mountain and area drainage plan. Although this may have been oveIlooked
in previous reviews, the Pioneer/Vallejo Gulches Detention/Debris Basin appears to lie in the
center of Lot 3. This basin is intended to capture the snow melt run-off from the mountain
immediately to the south. (Urban Runoff Management Plan, August, 1973)
· Private Road: Indemnity clause from developer to the City for the publicly accessible but
privately maintained loop into Lot 3
If the homeowner's assoc. is dissolved, will this become a public obligation to maintain?
· Flood control easements for snow/storm drainage are needed around and through projects
· Need geotechnical and environmental reports to make further evaluations, e.g. landslide
hazard, site drainage, erosion control, sediment transport control, etc.
· Need flood control report
· All the plan (application) sheets need to be submitted on 24" x 36" size sheets
· The application does not include neither a property survey nor a topographic map; submitted
"maps" are uncertified, unstamped drawings
· Storm run-off needs to be addressed in the feasibility phase of this project given the location
at the base of the mountain in a natural drainage basin. This needs to be studied and reported
on by a licensed engineer.
· We need to consider what responsibility and role SkiCo may have in mitigating run-off due
to snow melt and erosion through the site and on to public streets.
I
Electric
· Need street lights in new streets and possibly on existing streets, particularly upper Galena
St. and Summit St.
DRCM0396.DOC
2
3/1/96
!
ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANNING, P.C. .605 E. MAIN. ASPEN, CO 81611. TEL.: 970 925 4755 . FAX: 970 920 2950
DATE . January 18, 1996
PROJECT . Aspen Mountain P.U.D.
TO . Planning Office
FROM . Andy Wisnoski
NO. OF PAGES .
9503
Hand-Delivered
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES. CALL IMMEDIATELY.
DESCRIPTION
.
Conceptual P.U.D. Development Plan/Subdivision Application
'W ~~ ~ Pttlfl~. -b erIJP~ ~<7'
(01/15/96)
COMMENTS
.
For your use
I
.'
.
r
o ASPEN/PITKIN n
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090 FAX# (970) 920-5439
February 9, 1996
Sunny Vann
230 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain SubdivisionJPUD (Lots 3 & 5) Conceptual Submission, Rezoning
& Text Amendment
Case A6-96
Dear Sunny,
The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned
application. We have determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a
Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, March 19, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should
this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter.
After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the
application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is
available at the Community Development Department.
. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post
the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a
photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the
public hearing.
If you have any questions, please call Dave Michaelson, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-
5100.
Sincerely,
~~
Suzanne L. Wolff
CAr"PAD SlJMMARY SHEET - CITY F"tSPEN
1/18/96 CASE # A6-96
STAFF: Dave Michaelson
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID #
2737-182-85-003 & 2737-182-85-005
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Mountain Conceptual POOfText AmendmentsIRezoning
Project Address: Lots 3 & 5 Aspen Mountain POO
APPUCANT: Savanah Ltd. Partnership
Address/Phone: 444 Washington Blvd. Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann
Address/Phone: 925-6958
FEES:
PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV HEALTH
TOTAL
$2100
$260
$160
$160
$2680
# APPS RECEIVED 20
# PLATS RECEIVED 20
TYPE OF APPUCATION:
Two Step
lp&z
i CC
I CC (2nd readin )
REFERRALS:
J8l City Attorney
ft City Engineer
o Zoning
o Housing
)2s[ Environmental Health
~arks '
DATE REFERRED: Eli-
o Aspen Fire Marshal
1sr City Water '
~ity Electric'
o Clean Air Board
o Open Space Board
o Other:
INITIALS:
qw
o CDOT
~ACSD .
/D1foly Cross Electric
o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
o Aspen School District
o Other:
:) I
DATE DUE: .JU-
APPROVAL:
OrdinanceIResolution #
Staff AppIoval
Plat Recorded:
Date:
Date:
Book
, Page
CLOSED/FILED
ROUTE TO:
DATE:
INITIALS:
/
!
L
r
~:
/
I
~
~~
,
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 8161 I
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX: (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water
Environmental Health
Electric
Parks
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
FROM:
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
RE:
Aspen Mountain SubdivisionJPUD (Lots 3 & 5) Conceptual Submission,
Rezoning & Text Amendment
Parcel ill No. 2737-182-85-003&005
DATE:
February 9, 1996
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Savanah Limited
Partnership.
Please return your comments to me no later than March I.
Thank you.
I
I
I
,
,
., \ ~"
'. ","
,..\,
',',0" ":F."
"'. ,'.."';:':-.":,.,, ;,.I,~ ,,~'-"'j",; ";,:,'Y',:><~.,,,,:., ,.",_,.",;,':,,:~:..,:,,':~i\i:'~"" ":,:;-,':""",.." . ^..'. . "
., /, " ',' ',,:Additions to;' IriOdiffc~iidnscif, , or 'deletioris' from this: Professiomil Services
""',,' '.- ., ,'.... '- ~ ," '.ii'-".~"~-'"'4' ''', .,,0. ,'0..,..,..... "',;'",'~''.f'"}'\'<''';'!"''~''''..,.' _. ','
. " Agreement shall only b~ maaeinwritmgahd upon agr~emeiIt 'Of the. City and the
" Con~ultani; ;'. ',,~ ; : ,0"" ,c;;\!S.;,~~~, ;'~~:.:,:.,~:,~:;:,~,.;}r:~,);~,,: ,\ '.,'" '.
' , ,;' It is understood 'and agreed that no 'claim for 'eXtra\\io'rk done 'Of materials
",' furriisheaby iheConsuIt:iIlt will be alIo~ed oy Hie City'except asproVidedhereiIi, nor shall'
the. Con,sultant db any work '9r tuini~h' afifmaterialsriot covered by this AgieeIlient unless'
such work is first authorized in writing by a change order or S4Pplemenialagieement. .
, ' ", :~'>.,'>,,':,,;./',1{":";'~"",.",.": '" ," """,",,:;' .-,
, .," " The CitY'resetyesthe right, at its discretion, to tenninate the'services provided
' <', Pbis;oant"io' this Agreement for misfeasance, maJfeasanCl~ Of nob~performance' of the
" ,,' contractbYthe Consultant. TheCoIisUftantrese,rves the'rignt to terminate this Agreement:,
':, cIue to non-petfoimanC~oftheAgreemen{b~'the'(:{ty. ' ''''~'>~'"
:; ~.' ,;..^''-' ,:'j.;-:;,:),,<,:' ,-\:}"'\:.~';,;~/.::> ;:';~:> "~--;",,>"\'/,< ~<, :'\,::'f;';.:r'~^>,'.. , , /{:.:-;.p~':-:":::'" ~:\,. --, "d ~>::::.L\,,:' ..~~;"', ~":''',.' '~";: '" .';
, . ~"".'-:~;,' lp ihe everlrthe CitY shall t~rminate 'th~seiVices or'anY'part Of the serVices',
ofihe Agreement herein provided, the CItY shall notify tne,ConsiiIiaritip wri!ing,' and th~
Consuitant shall discontinue advanCing the work"urider this Agreement immeaiatelyafter
"!~":''''';'''''''''c'i';;'''''';'''''~'''Y'h_"'' ",,"''"'''',''',#.;:. ' """":"'''''''''. . "'''0_',,"/_\' ",..., ",.'.
receipf of such notice, unles~ the, City instructs the Consl,lltant' to, finish work on ,a particular
" ' '. ' ,prqduct or t1:lsk, in whiC~ ,case the Consultant sh<iIl finish 'and deliver ~uch product
or the work on such task ' ,', "," ", , . .' " ",
~ ~~,~!.
, \.'
';,~ f ,."
::;.',;
1"'......>,
"',.,"..
"~; ,,' .
. '., _,~<,.: "'~.' ' . ~,(:~?~~i~;i~~~l~?!~/:!:c~t";; . .
.' ',. .... -...f. 'Upo~ 'tcir~inati9n, . ilie" Cans~lti{nt:sjj'a:I1 d-eliv~; ~a the. City ail dra~ngs,
illustratians, text, da~a an:dothei dacli1l1e,nts, ~ritireiyor partlalIycoinpleted, tagether With. '.'
" .,:.,a:)tateine.ntoft)iewar~~91)1pIlited. Th~ Cpn}mltant ~haIl receivecompensatipnin fuUfar'
servicesperfarmed to. the' dMe of timninatiah and far ariy other wark which the CIty has
'/'!" ~,>.:" ~.. "" ~,'" '/^ :,.;,." . ",'," .'. ~'.,<..,..~. "".~,'.: " ',,"",."^"., ,,-' '. ",,'
;', . directi?1 . !lJ.e. C(Jn~?ltant. to. camplete. . P!lyment sh~I1 !eflect. wo.rk . co'inplett?d by the " .'
Cansultan't. The City shaIl make this final payment within sixty (60) days after' the
. CaIlsl.lIti).p;thilsct'elIv~red the last pfihe partIally campleteddacurrients, tagether with any
. records that may be required to. determine the amauIlt due," " . '.
- "" '.. ~,,' ..",':">",' '. ,.;,,..,', .. ',;;,,:::A:,~>;,'..~;:."~\<.'''' ','.:... ':.,: t_,.-:,,::'>\~",;.,
'CBoiCEoF'aw'A~b'CII6ibt6FF()RUM .
"', 'J';"
.,
";~..... .., ;I';:'~';r':: i',:" ..' . .>{ \~.">\ ;'::-"i< '. .
'. ". .. ( If any disputes arise aut 'af the perfonUiince or this 'Agriiemeht, 'bath parties .
I.agree tha(the 'dispute will be res,olvedby amedia~ar acceptable to. bath parties. .
. ..',' ....<,',>, <::\"::~">";i:.;'i;' <':>, '( j:",' <".,. 'i
. ",,'.'. ..,InJheev~rii'ihis,Agreement is the subjectaflitigatian betweehth{l Cansultailt
and the City, the' parties hereto. agree this AgreemeriCshaIl be constfU'ed'accatding'tO'the
, . jaws af the State of Colpraga and jurisdictian arid venue' of such Iitigatian shall be in the
. . . District CQurt far the GountJ' of Pitkin. " '. ..... .;, . . ",
,~ ""'. ., '~"~": ;':^", <. ',' ;'~,.':~:':;,:~',:-;~,:,':::<~~, '; ,'<< ~:,,';,~,,:.::, >~~"1'~~': l:, ;~::,~<~, . ,"-~,.~,: t" / "" .:" {''y ,,' ;~/~~,>~"','.:
.. 'iNDEMNiFICATION AJ'-iDLlMITATIbN OYLIAB.rLITY ,
,;;'" ,::::;: ;,'.{.:'t:~;<,);~H:'~~:::~ ;.} \;::~,. ......:, '" ..' .i. :
, . . The 'Cansultant ooes pereby agree to. indemnify and hald harmless the City,
its' afficers and einplayees, againstaJfClaiIp.s of ~my nature whatsaever aI:ising from acts ar . .'
. omissions. af tl).e Consultam in~he peifamiatic~ 'af,thi~ contract.; The Con~uitapt ,": '
~c~n.6wl~dges a~d assum~s ~Ilrisfs)? the aperationof his, businesspiiisti~nt ta.this cantr:act., . " .. '.
and. slJ~1I be. salely respaIfsIljle and ,answerable far. any ana an injuries arising aut af hj~
pert'anTIance:I",~:,.' . ;~:<:>'~":"::"';;~"~~:>";;':i:" "",' '" . ..'
. " /, ' Subject to. Its fimnli!!iiiesal)d rights as pravided by the Colorado. Goverhniental
Immunity Act (C.R.s. 24~10-iOl,et seq.), the City daes agree to. indenmifyind sl;ive
. harii;iless th.e Cal)siilt~i,a~ permitfeli by iaw,fWln any c1ilims; suits,' demimds, casts and
Habilitles,ihcludingattdi:r!e},'S fees;arlsingfrom an'egligent att Or6mis#on'by the CitY ar
. any'of lts emplayees cainmltte'dpursuant to. the perf6rinifnte ~t' this'doiItract.' '.' .
.. :. . ;.;'.'i..;.....:-.',... ."-".,. .',; ";".: .::. '::.'. "::'.',::,:,,:';:.:-' <,.....-.,. :.: ....:.:.,..;;....'. .\';..:'
. '. ....;, . ....,..: ,. The' Co~sultarit shiilibere'spohsible for the" camplet~ness aitd agcura~y of his
"',',' ',,' '/"j,,,,,^~.:, ",1 ~~..'., "'.""(~j.,,. "'" "'''. '/. 'f'\'
wark, sup]Jartin'g data and ather d()cuinents prepared ar campiled under hi~ abligatian far
. t~isproject and shallcari'ect, citbis eJ!:pehse, all signifiCant 'errors ar omissions therein which '. . ,>
, may be disClased. . Thiifact tliai the CitY has accepted 'or'iipprovediIie ConslJltanes W?rk ".o
',' . . sp,a11 in no. way relieve the CansultaI).t o.f any af his responsibilities. This provisian shall nat
apply to any I11aps;'officiiifrecorqs; c6ilti'ac~sorQther cjata snppile'd to' ihS ~ansultant by the
CitywhiCfit~e.consuHa,nt}~auld, reasa.qabiy exPe~t t6 be~cc~~atea~~ ~hich tIi.e~?n~uJtaIl\,
" cauldnatr:easanably be expected to.knaw to. be mi).ccurate... '" ' .,' '..' ....o '.o'
'. .,. '." ";::::"'-::;"!"::'.::">::"~.'..,>:'),;. ,:;,.~:, " "'" . . .
agrees to. limit theCarisultant's liability to. the
, '__', .., "..~,,;, ',~:. h;:'. ^, "; ".' ,,' ", <~,!~:~:.?;' ;,', " . _
I." .
'<'.'.',..
~ < ,.,..
,
"
.' ,../-'
,
"'" , "'~.', ",>':..1.: ">"",,,~::',,,~,,'>{;~~:':;..,;;:~:':,,.. ,;\._.,. ,. ; ":;";, . .
"All documents 'which are obta{ried or prepatedin'the perfotirianceof this
. . cohtiact are ill be, anc!"shafIremain; \he property 'of the City ,md shall be deHvered to'the .
City before the final paymeJl(ismade"io the Consultant. .' ',' . '. ..' .~. :,' ~ '. ' . ,."
j,' .; . "'" .'~ - "; - "\. ", ". ,." ',j' ~ . ..' C',~", '. "-. ^;, 'j.. ,.,' _
. ::~:~\:/ :.:;X",-i~; ,,' .
'.' RECOm>S '.'
";.~~-:'\.:,>h~'i}':.''''-'::'' ,-~,,,,;~ ',-. ,,': \", ,;,",: Ji:~>..<.,/ "~,'. ,. '.~ "'.\"\"" .,>'. .,. .,,'. '=/"'" _;." .;.',
. . . The Cciniuit<in't;ji~llin;i~t~)t'cccicipr~herisi~e,cOIripletea~d ac~ti:rate recortlk" .
, ,an~.~cc,ou!1tsof his performance relating tothis.A.gtee~tlnt f<,>ra period 'of three~35 years.
roHowirig final payment hereunder. . The City shall have the, righ~ withiri such period to
. Inspect such books, records aJ;ld docillnenis upon demabd, with reasonable notice, aI1<I,ata """
,,' .- (',-",,,., ....\"... - ',-.- ,.<" . ',", .. ", -, " -' ',,, ','" ;'C. '''' '.
reasbriable time, for the purpose of deteqnirring compliance \\lith tl)e' requirements of this
ccintractarid tlie iaw, in accordririce'.wHh'acceptable accounting and auditing standards. .
, '. ,;;:,:~;;:,.~.:<.~,/c:;~:;,:\.'~L...< ,;::'" . ""..,>,'
UNLAWFtJL DISCRIMINATION
, o:-:,,.'~ ^~.,.. - 'c' , , ~
. .", ' ... ;;;' '''::j,;;;',..>;:.i}:::>'::;~'';;';,'';' :.I.e:;:::;,., <.{v";';, .c: N;:';...
" .:. "TpeC,?nslllt~Ilt~ha1l n'!t discrilllmateagainst arty elIlployee or appliCimffor
employment t() b~empioyed in the' pefformanceof this Agreement on the basis of race,' .
color, religion, 'national' origin, sex; ancestry,' physiCal haridic~p,sexUal ori~Ilfation, age,'
; politic<\l affiliation or family responsibility. ' , ',';.i: .
"..
,,;.
. ",".':; ."
k"-,:\,,
"""i;,";'
" ~,
':;<,:,
c:"
SENT BY:SAVANAH LTD PARTNER ; 3-16-96 ; 4:46PM
3039254367"
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
515 South Galena
Aspen, Co 81611
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: Two
(INCLUDING THIS PAGEl
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
March 18, 1996
Andy
John Serpa
Model Contract
=====~====~=========;====~:=
M E S SAG E:
Andy.
Attached Is the contract for the model. Please let me know
If you need the Qriginal.
ThO"~. I
.'
.'
If there Is Bny ~roblem with this fsoslmllB, ploasa contect us by j_l_phon.:
970-925-4212 or by fax: 970-925-4387. Thsnk you.
9200439:1/ 1
i
I
i
.
,
I
SENT BY:SAVANAH LTD PARTNER ; 3-18-96 ; 4:49PM; S0392543B7" 9205439:# 2
SENT BY1SAVANAH LTC PARTNeR ; 2-21-98 :12:39PM ; 3039254387" 31022929281; i
. ~W.~ .'" "",,'"'' "..... ...........Il\l_IHI~~ 1'-'".1S 1- I",.Z.... -1
F."", I UIStl;J,ll C~'I' IlIoiOh! No. : :llIl3 '945 'M1a ....._ l! ~'n" '..
'...ON '
...... ......
11m Plitt w. DrtYa
Olin,,"" SprlllII, 00
11Gel
c~/:s ../~'
PIDIOSAI.
~.gLi$
8~aJ&Ct, A.p'. Houftl.4n POD MOO.~
vpon 'PP~OY'~ h.:eo( ~y D'ln pu~on...~aftd ..11.~. . vsl1d ,.ad
~~~d4ft. coa,raot o. ..1. GOCwooa tho a.l1'~ and pu~oba..r .~..1
...1.1I'1:., t.h. t.r.. ft' w'ft!oll ~11 IMl U llaUew..
,.. to!:.l PIlI....... ,de. wUl l!>6 t3150.00, JNl:t>.:Oh II f..U'OW'I
'3750.00 uPftft d'1iv.rv
,~. followin, oond1tl~. ar. to .ppl~l
1. I.'~.I 1" · SO'
2. ~rn. .1.., 3_" N fA"
!\. 1'0.. aut. ooal:olll" .t 3' I..ntuvI:LI
f. Ail ~~ldlft'o to ao.lg, la.u.a b~ildlnl' lro~ old ~d'l
and. aanllbo'&lI:' ftII'II .~ O\'lall'" )al.l.i ldUl,..)
5. All ~O.,.. ....., ..t.il' a. loa11 ,...i;..
5. Kat: nari. woo_, 11M plUlliO au fo... oono1::tUOt:l.oll
7. rJ.~~ ato", ~..
.tlD ~_~~ ~ 1D~
.~h n D. lliihrn
"''lID 'lHza t~ . I.'~
~~
!
^'V:~f
CIT1H
,',.,.,.,..'o,;,."V>".0..."......'1<.Y
;~~~t~
">'.\c;,-;,;/,;",-
\"S;:,"
B 2ltj/)
f~I.Cj"'it'ji;:;lJ':'.i 'J !~';JL{2\j\i
;::>,f): BOX3(~::;:i.:5
'_..h.....
"" \~
''','~ -<".
~..,p."'.~.''^l -...~\, \'f
fl... ,1 :'< f ~~ ~
PO APPROVAL
DATE
4~a-9
PURCHA~RDER #
PLEASE IIIl. JICE:
':::; :~:'T' \((J F '{.\~3P EN
(:; C CDLif;,j ~r '::) . !::;.,t'!'y' (~E:L. t:::
.L :::~;o ,','beL (i}Pd....El\iPr,g'7f.;
PHONE #
':?'?()/(~:'~;'. :)~~:5~}(70
U:i.6:i; J,
SHIP TO:
C I 'T'\( CJF:::,:{:':lf:3PE::N
;~;U>.ttil..ji\i T 'T'-'(L)E\/[::L.UPjvi~::N:r \1"".,::..: t.. i
..,....,.,....
b E;{:iL.i;~,(,lPI t::i t
co
dJ.(:;:L :L
SHIP DATE: "'0/20/96
REQUESTED BY:
:50::::\:,/
REQUISITION #: .",(', , ,',''''',;
REPRESENtATIVE'S NAME AND PHONE #
VE OR HONE #
VENDOR TAX ID #
QUANTITY I UNIT
I DESCRIPTION
,',
Ff;~DF'i:::E)b
F~I:~V IE~~i,;OF
;V!OtJNT:~)IJ\~
PLJD
I UNIT PRICE
I tOTAL
:]1:.:";00"
500".00
I
J
I
j
t
REMARKS:
:::: ::: ";"_\( .C=:UF~F:Et):r PL.P,Ni\iINi3
;::>;::~Df;i::::E;~:;.I Dt'J.{~L F'[.j::~;:3
PLEASE REFERENCE PO#, ," ','"
,':::".Ji.,) ,.J.~',..;,
I TOTAL PRICE $
..;.' ,l.../",;'\ .",,",
..... ~ .;.~',..,.,..'." ,....,-...
ON ALL SHIf>MENTS, INVOICES, AND CORRESf>ONDENCE.
THE CITY OF ASPEN SALES tAX EXEMPT NUMBER IS 98-04557
NOT A VALID PURCHASE ORDER UNLESS SIGNED Fdf1Af>pl'fdVACAElbVE:
VENDOR COPY -- WHITE
DEPT COPY -- YELLOW
FINANCE COpy :- PINK
.;:l
SENT BY:SAVANAH LTD PARTNER ; 3-16-96 ; 4:53PM
~
3039254367"
n
..
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
'.,',-,,,,,,.-,,-,, , , ";""-'k-',,"
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
51 5 South Galena
Aspen, Co 81611
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOl-LOW: Three
(INCLUDING THIS PAGEl
DATE:
March 1 a, 1996
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Dave Michaelson
John Sarpa
====~~====a====~=====~===~==
M c SAG E:
Dave,
Attached is the signed contract for Alan Richmond's
services.
Please let me know if you need the original.
Thanks and see you tomorrow.
If there is any problem w~h this facsimile, pleas. conteCI us by telephone:
9700$25-4272 or by fax: 970-925-4387, Thank you,
9205439;# 1
SENT BY:SAVANAH LTD PARTNER ; 3-18-96 ; 4:54PM;
..,,, ... ......nl'lnr. _''''' 'I"IHln.11 '''-I''-i:ll1I I "hl7n"i'I .
,-.,
3039254337"
~~U~~~~~'I"
f'
r..".:1
9205439;# 2
3102252828:# 2
HIIlKIlIlll I'Cl& UZIIIUJlIlIIDT 01' 1'1'1'
Db a,Z'e....t., entered into a. ot tbb day ot JalluRy, lift,
~ &ftd ~llt~en the Ci~Yor Aapen, Colorado (hereinafter r.fe~red
to alii "the City"), aI'Ili Savannah L1mitlilll Partnership (hereinatter
reterred to a. Nth. Applicant").
IIBDU.', tb City require. certain Pl:'of..e!ol'la 1. service. to be
pro....ided l)y an O\Itside COnsultant: in ten. Cl~ the hi.torte.1
~Cit9'rolmt\ to previO\ls approvals of the Aapen Mountain PUD, and
....1&8, the city and thll ilppliclUlt: have Jlrevio\tsly agreed that the
necea..Z'Y .ervic.. ahal1 :be paid tly the City, and. that the
applicant shall reimbur.e the City tor such review; and
WBlIallU, The city has reedn.d. the a..istanQe of Alan JUahaIan. Alan
Richman Planning service. (hllreinattlllr referred. to a. lithe
C:oftl;u.ltant), to ...i.t .tba city at a ratll af Ninety Dollara
e$ID.DO) pe:l:' how:', ,lUB fUCpen.... u evidenced. by an exaeuted.
aqreu.ent datect thIil _ <<..y of Pebruuy, 19516; and
Wllazat, The City aftd Con.ultant have .Bti~at8c1 that tbe required
work "'111 require ."roxilllately 25 ~Url, !)ut lIIay Illxc..d thi.
U1Cunt Hllad, on 'th. level ot -...l:'c:b. n.o..aa~ t.c provide the City
with adequate intoraation tor the rav!a", prOCesa.
KOW, TRIaI.OlI, the City and. the applioant, in cona14eration ot
~tual afJ:allllllll\te herain eontdnaa, l:9%'ee .a fo11o..,.;
So. 'eoi'll 01' conO!.'. Web
The COMlultant .hall as.ilt; the City of Atlpan Cc:mmunity
DllYalgpment tlepartlUl\'t 1n the review of the pri vately-e\l1m\it:.t.ed
land. 1.1.. .ppl1oation for the proparttea known all "Th. Top of Mill"
lInd the. "GreDel Aspen" site, a180 known a. Lob 3 1I1'1Cl 5 of thll A.sPlQ\
Mountain Planned Unit D'~lopment. The Coneultant sball provide
,uch aerv1ce... art 3llutually atn.ed. to ~ the Conaultant and the
City ot Aspan ~lty Cevelopllant Director. Th..e lUlrviee. Ilhal1
be lilllite" to proViding .all.iatmee fl:'OIll a hilllltOrlcal conto:t or tll..
A.pan Kountain Pl.m a~rovela, ancl .hall nQt be re.ponlllible for
".lll..ing the project'. eOlllplianca with the review O1'ite:r1a
cantaine. in the Aa>>en MUnicipal Code.
.. ~IIUC
This agr..lllent -hall ClOllllllClfla. on February :Lat, 11116, ~
terminato when the project ha. compl.ted the nec....ry ~roval
proce..ea.
O. Rlnmua......, 1'01. 'lB. COlt 01' 'Il.V:Z:Cl~'
FOl' the nquired ..rviQas, the Applic:ant ag'ree. to c;ompen....te
ill. ;;L1;y frlT nl1 vnrlt perf:o_.. IIlr' w;l!..!. lU.....lI.B"L, ...... "ne l:'a1:8 0:
Ninety Dellar. ($tO,GOl 118I'hO\l1'. 'the Applicant a180 &9'1"". t.o
SENT BY:SAVANAH LTD PARTNER ; 3-18-96 ; 4:54PM i
""'_I~1 iIIll."",....""P'\Il ..." "1"lr\r~''I;1\ .r,-I'Io-Ig. O..JGt"t11 ~
r""\
8039254387"
~u~m""
920m9;# 3
31022Um;# 3
r61Uur.. the City tor any out-or-pocket expenses re..onab1y
incurred in ccmneatlon with the work, i:r.II:11Jd1n; but not limited to
printing', po.tage, aileage and 10119' di.tance t.Illephona/fac.im.U...
'%'he Applicant lIhe11 mak. pay:numt to the City on a lI:Ionthly
kd. for .en1c.. rende:-u,. PaYllent 1Ib.11 be lil....a upon the hou:-.
ot prote..ional .ervice. randered, p1u& axpanse., which &hall ba
1;I111ed a. coat.
Th.e City .~11 pne-antan invcice to the Applicant at. tbe
l:leqinninq of ellClh menU tor the p.pent ot the currant 4ue.
Hontbly invoicaa &ball detail the number at hours worked, hourly
rat.. and expen... lncu:t:'rad, evlcSllnced. l:Iy the inVoice ,ubmitted to
the City l1y the COMultll2l.t.
PaYllent .nan ba .111&4_ within thirty (3D) days after the
invoice ha. b.en receive4 by the Appl1oant.
D. X=:rI'lc.l'l'r01l' &I'D ""'%&"1011
Additions to, modifications of, ot deletions from this
.,regent shall only be lilacS. in writinq llnCi upon Ilgr88lllent ot th_
City and the Applicant. .
:Dr WITH.. tnlBlBOJ', tJss puthR b_rato lI.av. ..scrate" thb ...sat
oa tile dah litRt ftitt.. '""..
Citt.o.J.,.} p.
(~....
Byl
PRtfal'sllip
~. au.o ,AICP
COII'IlII'W'Iity Deve1cpmant Director
COIIIIIIuni'ty nevaloPllllmt Depart1llllnt
j
,
_ .,..."_....~__~_.__._.._ :.. _=,:c...._..;._..;.....--'-_....._.._"".
. ,
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR
PI-85-0003
,.
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING -1313 SHERMAN STREE
DENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611
March 8, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE RESIDENTIAL GMP
~
Dear Mr. Richman:
We have reviewed the PUD and Subdivision Submission and Appendices D&E as well
as the general and engineering geology of the area.
Based upon this review, our historical involvement in the area, and. the events
of last June we would like to make the following comments regarding this
proposal and the geologic hazards and constraints associated with it.
- The entire north face of Aspen Mountain is adversely affected by one
or more geologic hazards or constraints, (Bryant, 1972).
- All other factors held equal, the degree of risk associated with
slope-related hazards increases with the slope and proximity to the
source a rea.
- Three general hazards are directly associated with this proposal.
They are: unstable and potentially unstable slopes; debris flows, and
flash flooding. These processes are dynamically interrelated in
extremely complex ways in which each can be the cause or the result of
any of the others. Events can be random, sequential or episodic in
nature with highly variable time delays between related events.
Slope failure processes appear to cause minimal impacts in their natural
setting because they are an integral part of the "dynamic equilibrium" of
the site. This equilibrium can be significantly altered by construction
disturbance, seriously affecting the behavior of the process with respect
to "thi ngs-put-i n-the-way" .
- While Appendices 0 and E provide a great deal of valuable information,
they are less than what is necessary to understand and predict the
behavior of this slope-failure-prone area.
N
~,
t--
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE
, .. ---,,-:,--~,,-,- ~,~"._, ,..."',..,:.".--...."',.. -,->-........- '''-''--''---->',,'..~... ," ,'.
. -
/,.'.......
f
l~
Mr. Alan Richman
March 8, 1985
Page 2
- The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of last June
is insufficient in both detail and time span to adequately characterize
this slide mass and/or predict its future behavior.
- Stability analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions rather than
actual, measured characteristics of the landslide due to insufficient
data. One of the critical assumptions made was that the materials were
drained. This is most probably not the critical condition of the
landslide deposit nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with
the movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions, a
safety factor of less than 1.0 was achieved in one of the two cases.
This case was classified as "marginally stable" in the Chen R~port. By
definition, the correct classification for this case is unstable.
- Test pit investigations yielded a debris flow sequence and a carbon-14
date of about 5000 B.P. Statigraphic relationships for this locality
indicated a crude recurrance interval of one event per thousand years.
Due to the nature of debris flow phenomena, this value should be taken as
a maximum recurrance interval since generally only a portion of the total
number of events occupy any given location on the overall fan complex.
.
I
- Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as a
mud-flood, and therefor mitigatable by channelization does not take into
account the episodic nature and potential interaction between several
events. A small landslide or debris flow which would present only a
trivial threat to the actual structures could effectively block or alter
the drainage network rendering it all but useless to defend the
development from the flash flood which could occur before the blockage
was cleared, or even noticed. Conversely, presuming that any major mass
wasting event would move slowly enough to permit mitigation is begging
the point. In many cases the only appropriate mitigation is to abandon
areas adversely affected by landslides and debris flows.
In summary we would like to concur with and reiterate the recommendations
found in the Chen Reports calling for more detailed studies of the mass
wasting and slope failure processes affecting this area. The complexity of
these phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood in order
to make any reliable predictions about their likelihood, recurrance interval,
and the risk they pose to the anticipated development. Additionally, the
excess moisture conditions associated with the spring thaw and runoff period
represents the critical phase of the landslide problem. Given the movement
and surface disruption last June, it is highly likely that this slide mass
will absorb more water this spring than last and may move again.
Based upon the above considerations we recommend that the City postpone any
decision on this application until detailed studies have been completed and
the hazards are better understood and realistic risk assessments can be
performed. The timing of the studies should be such that the critical period
(melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field investigations.
I
I
I
,
,
"
!
i
I
,
t
.~
i
i
i
"
K
,
-~
,
!
r
f'
"
.. ~,
i
i
fi
m_~._____.__~__ ...... ._...".....-_~_,.^'. ~.._"_~"'"___.,..__._..~_'.____.,'_,.;....:~...'"-.,~...-~,:'".-.:'.':..;.,. ..,_ "--~:-,'",";;;'~~~_:";";.l;..;:,,,,;.;;.:.;;;..:..;.:;,.. .~.'. "'-:C'.':' ,.'-.''i;;,. ',_"'~"'f.-.,~_,,,.
.
r
(~
Mr. Alan Richman
March 8, 1985
Page 3
Last summer, as a result of the reactivation of the landslide in Pioneer
Gulch, the City of Aspen indicated a strong interest in having a detailed
geologic hazards and constraints evaluation made for the Aspen Mountain Area.
We strongly encourage the City to proceed with such a study so that future
development decisions can be based upon a proper understanding of the hazards
and potential consequences of imprudent development in this complex, dynamic
environment.
We will be pleased to provide additional information, consultation or
assistance as deemed necessary by the City.
/~
Jeffrey L. H n s
Sr. Engineering Geologist
bj/JLH-85-0l8
Doc. O1l5K
Disk 0060K
-r.
-
r
(j
"
MEMORANDUM
RE:
==============================================================
Glenn Horn
Jay Hammond *
February 22, 1985
Geologic Hazard On Aspen Mountain
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
This memo is intended to serve as an supplement to Chuck Roth's
memo to you of February 11, 1985, regarding the proposed Aspen
Mountain Ski Area Master Plan. Pursuant to our discussi.;:,- c.i.d
in consideration of the recently released Chen report on the
geologic stability of the Strawpile area, the Engineering Department
would offer some additional comment on the application.
The recent application by the Aspen Hountain Lodge project for
preliminary approvals relating to the residential Top of Mill
speaks to on-site mitigation of potential "mud flood" hazard from
the pioneer Gulch area above the project site. The application
notes, however, that some two-thirds of the pioneer Gulch do ~
flow into the Top of Mill. This flow is intercepted by roads and
existing drainage routing on the ski area. Top of Mill, therefore,
only offers mitigation of the debris flow hazard in the form of
on-site channelization and detention/debris basins for a portion
of the flows. Several measures contained in the Chen report are
not addressed by Top of Mill and, in view of their location on
Ski Company property, would seem appropriate for their considera-
tion.
Based on the Chen report, we would recommend conditioning any
approval of the ski area master plan expansion on a commitment by
the Ski Company to undertake the following:
1. Continued monitoring of the inclinometers, piezometers and
topographic location of the inclinometer casings to evaluate
potential mitigation measures.
2. Construction of further mitigation measures as may be deemed
appropriate by Chen and Associates including, but not necessarily
limited to the following:
a. On-site grading to improve drainage and remove water
from slide area.
b. Installation of on-site structures, channels, membranes,
surface and subsurface drainage facilities as may be recomm-
ended.
c. Construction of appropriate on-site detention/debris
basins with provision for periodic debris removal.
... -.-..... ----~
-
-
/
('
("';
',-
Page Two
Geologic
February
Hazard on Aspen ~lountain
22, 1985
I
,
I
Some of the above items, particularly on-going monitoring may be
undertaken by the developers of the lodge project, however, in
the absence of a clear indication of those portions of the Chen
recommendations the lodge developers intend to pursue, we would
assign the responsibility to the Ski Company. Let me know if you
require further clarification.
~,~t,
l~'.
w
~.:,i(
:,'1
~
.../;';:t'
JH/co/GeologicAspenMt
:'~
/r
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
JU/lJ
June 10, 1996
---
,."-----
----
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Lots 3 and 5, Aspen Mountain PUD, Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering
Review
Dear Dave:
Enclosed for the City's review and comment is a copy of the geologic and geotechni-
cal engineering report prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., for Lots 3
and 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
Hepworth-Pawlak has reviewed the numerous engineering reports which have been
previously prepared for the PUD and summarized the key geologic and geotechnical
issues which must be addressed with respect to the development of Lots 3 and 5.
While their review addresses both lots, the majority of their recommendations pertain
to the development of Lot 3, the so-called "Top of Mill" property. In general, their
recommendations could form the basis for various conditions of conceptual PUD/su-
bdivision approval which must be addressed in connection with the preparation of
Savanah's final PUD/subdivision application.
While Hepworth-Pawlak's report addresses all of the various engineering studies
which have been undertaken to date, the report does not address the 1988 First
Amended and restated Planned Unit Development/SubdivisionAgreement and its various
provisions with respect to the Top of Mill site. As discussed in our conceptual
application, Section H.1O. of the amended PUD agreement required that Savanah
contribute the sum of $250,000.00 toward the preparation and implementation of a
comprehensive drainage plan for Aspen Mountain. This requirement was met in
1989, and relieved Savanah of John Robert's prior commitment in the original PUD
agreement to provide a retention facility on Lot 3 to accommodate off-site drainage
from Aspen Mountain as well as drainage easements. The $250,000.00 is presently
held in escrow by the City.
230 East Hopkins Avenue. Aspen, Colorado 81611 .970/925-6958. Fax 970/920-9310
Mr. Dave Michaelson
June 10, 1996
Page 2
As a result of Savanah's monetary contribution, its drainage mitigation requirements
with respect both Lots 3 and 5 are limited solely to the maintenance of historic
drainage flows as provided for in Section 26.88.040.C.4.f. of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations. Savanah is not responsible for the retention of off-site drainage which
flows from Aspen Mountain to the PUD.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
cc: John G. Sarpa
Robert W. Hughes, Esq.
c:\bus\city.ltrUtr28095.dm2
i;
i:
!^