Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Lift One Lodge.0066.2006.ASLU710 GILBERT ST 273513121001 CONCEPT PUD/TIMESRL- 0066.2006.ASLU 1 a •• e�• kk 0 c D Z N m m --I LIFT ONE LODGE SITE PLAN LEGEND CONCRETE PAVING SPECIALTY PAVING ❑ SPECIALTY STONE PAVING CRUSHER FINES PAVING LIFT ONE LODGE ROOF GARDENS nI III nl 1%1 + n171 l IAI O NORTH 0 20' 40' 80' NORTH TRELLIS ,PRES SKI ,ECK 0 20. 40, 80' LIFT ONE LODGE Aspen, Colorado POSS ARCHFIEC-11J RE : Pf_.AN IIIG I �ES��N CONCEPTUAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 16 605 E A S T MAIN STREET ASPEN, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 (T) 970 / 925 475E (c) 970 / 920 2950 © 2007 BILLFOSS AND AND CIPIANNING, P.C. 6.14.O 7 .4.4.W.y.W.WGreen (fiat. .y. .-yW.WW + y .y.WWWWRgof+yyW.y.4. Property Line �-- _ — — — —— — — — I Key 60 Key 61 Lodge Suite #17 Key 58 Key 59 Lodge Suite #16 W W � Lift --I Park- — m . i rJ V i� Key 56� Existing Tree to be SOUTH ASPEN STREET Townhouse #2 Upper Level Key 57 Townhouse #3 Upper Level Key 64 Key 67 Key 71 Key 62 Lodge Suite #18 La Business Key63 Center Ski Open to V, Concierge Below �W FW_ Key 65 ® Member's Locker oom Women' ITT1�—�—�I�i�ii / / A Changing Effl—_—U_J—LJ Lobby Key 66 Changing FFTEETT-FT �] 1111 111111 1�_ Lodge Suite #19 H7n'�R FEF,�.tPublic 1 ® Wo We Rm. Valet / Kitchen _� t Front Admin. ® SKICO Public docker Rm. Upper Level Ticket/Sales P / Entry Key68 Vestibule Key 69 ® ,/ Key 70 ! ° 0 j 0 ° Lodge Suite � ----- --------------- ---- �`�, � �� �// #20 ° o Restaurant - Main Level � picas 0 0 0 SKICO Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado POSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 O 0 8' 16' 32' (T) 970 / 925 4755 (F) 970 / 920 2950 NORTH 6th LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 22 © ZOO7AIRCHIITTECTUREEANDPLANNING,P.C. 06.14.07 Property Line CXIJLIIIV, I ICt LU Ut Preserved SOUTH ASPEN STREET Property Line Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado POSS ARCM-IITEGTURE-FRANNING O 7+1�_7 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 / 111 LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2'3 (T) 970 / 925 4755 (F) 970 / 920 2950 NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' © 2007 ARLHIOTECTAND ASSOCIATES ND PLANNING, P.C. 06.14.07 1— W W ry F— LL}- m J At u Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado POSS ARcCHVILCTURE 1=1I_ANNING 0 8th LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 24 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 0 8' 16, 32' D 2007 ARCHIITTECTUREE AND PLANNING, P.C. 06.14, 07 ( T ) 970 / 925 4755 ( F ) 970 1 920 2950 NORTH Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado POSS ARCH ITECTME + M-ANNING , , ROOF PLAN O � r-� (T) EAST M A[ N STREET F) ASPEN, COL 5 0 8 16 11 0 8' 16' 32' 0 2007gRCNITECTUREANDDPLANNING, P.C. 06,14.07 2 5 (T) 970 / 925 4755 (F) 970 1920 2950 NORTH MEASURED HEIGHTS POINTS EAVEHEIGHT RIDGEHEIGHT FLAT CODEHEIGHT 1 20 0" 2 26'--3112" 3 38' 7112" 31 ' 2 112" 4 33' 3" 5 1 27'-0" 6 45'-5" 37V" 7 29' 1 1" 8 36'--8" 9 41' 3" 33'--9 112" 10 35'--0" if 44'--5" 32'--8" 12 26' 3" 13 39'--8" 35' 4" 14 1 23' 6" 15 26'--6" 16 20' 0" 17 U 5 112" 18 37'-10" 19 42'10" 37'10" 20 22' 11 20' 9" 21 44'-10" 44'-10" 22 48' 6" 48' 6" 23 43' 10" 43'-10" 24 48'--6" 48'-6" 25 37'--0" 37--0" 26 424" 424" 27 3 1' 0" 29' 0" 28 40--0" 37'--0" 29 42' I" 38' 6" 30 33' I" 3 1 26' 0" 32 1 36'- 1" 32'--3" 33 34 L I" 34 30' 0" 35 33'9" 33L9" = HEIGHT GREATER THAN 42 FEET F ABO VE GRADE B Y CODE Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado POSS AI?CI--II'IEC'IIUIk'E+PLANNING BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN 3� 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 8' 16' 32'©2007ARCNRECTUREANDPLANNING,P.C. 06.14.07 ( T ) 970 / 925 4755 ( F 1 970 / 920 2950 BEES TO REMAIN EVERGREEN TREES DECIDUOUS EET TREES SHRUBS PERENNIALS /E GRASS MIX OOF :D MIX INE LODGE Aspen, Colorado CAPE PLANSOC Q VD PIANNIN6, P.C. 6 .1 " . 0 7 V 0 c D Z N -i 70 m m LIFT ONE LODGE SITE PLAN NOTES: 1) SEE FINAL PUD P-ANS FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ROW, GRADING & DRAINAGE, AND UTILITIES. 2) SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR PLANT LIST. 3) SITE AND EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING TO BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 4) EXTERIOR BUILDING FIXTURE TYPE TBD. 5)NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTICAL CODES SHALL GOVERN THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF WORK. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE DRAWINGS AND APPLICABLE CODE, THE CODE SHALL PREVAIL AND INSTALLAION SHALL BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDTIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF LIGHTING EQUIPMENT. 6)LOCATION OF FIXTURES AS SHOWN IS SCHEMATIC. LOCATIONS OF EXTERIOR AND SITE FIXTURES TO BE VERIFIED PER FINAL ARCHITECTURE AND SITE PLANS. 7) ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ASPEN LIGHTING ORDINANCE. 8) TYPE, LOCATION, AND NUMBER OF LOW-LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES AT OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES TBD. 9) EXTERIOR DOOR LOCATIONS ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. LEGEND: -T- Exterior fixture + Pedestrian fixture LIFT ONE LODGE ROOF GARDENS O0 20' 40' 80' NORTH O0 20' 40' 80' NORTH LIFT ONE LODGE POSS lil41TCf1�'I_d1{.'1,11���: 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ( T ) 970 / 925 4755 ( F ) 970 / 920 2950 O NORTH Aspen, Colorado CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN 3(� © 2007 ARCHITECTURE ANSI PIANNINQ P.C. 6.14. 7 J External Media Located Here M-022667 RMMI MEMORANDUM ,V111 b TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Stm FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare Review — Public Hearing MEETING DATE: February 25, 2008 SUMMARY: The Lift One Lodge application received Conceptual PUD and Timeshare approval, with conditions, by the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 7, 2007, via Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2007. After the approval (step one in a four step review process) by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant was scheduled for Conceptual PUD and Timeshare review before the City Council (step two). Prior to the scheduled review and public hearing, the applicant along with certain neighborhood property owners has come forward to participate in a master planning process for the subject area. On Council's agenda is a resolution to approve the master planning process for the area to be conducted under the COWOP (Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) process. Staff sees three potential outcomes as a result of Council's consideration of the resolution to conduct a master planning process of the S. Aspen Street/base area: 1) Council may approve the COWOP, 2) Council may not resolve the COWOP request and continue the hearing, or 3) Council may deny the request. Depending on the result of the COWOP discussion, Staff is providing the following recommendations with regard to the Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare application. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Council approves the COWOP request. If Council approves the COWOP request, staff can consider the Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare application on hold for a period of time defined in the COWOP resolution (one year applies otherwise). If no action is taken by the applicant to advance the application after the stated period, the application will be considered abandoned. 2) Council does not resolve the COWOP request and continues the hearing to a date certain. If the COWOP discussion is not resolved and the hearing is continued, Staff recommends that this agenda item be continued to the same date certain. 3) Council denies the COWOP request. If Council denies the COWOP application, staff would suggest continuing this agenda item to a future date certain. Considering the merits of the application in the future will provide an opportunity to separate the denial of the COWOP process with the merits of the Lift One Lodge application. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): If the COWOP application is continued or denied, Staff recommends a continuance of the hearing on the Lift One Lodge application "I move to continue the public hearing on the Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare application to , 2008." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: �' �` < <� ; j , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: %'� /,' / . 'i: . �� �, (� �� �ti 200 C STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The fo a oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this day of , 200t, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL • . . ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LIFT CAE LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, February 25, 2008, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Clty Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge n Aspen, LLC, PO Box 6237, Snowmass Village, CO 81615, which is the owner of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to develop 32 lodge units with 256 member Interests, 11 affordable housing units, commercial space, a skiers muse um, and a sub -grade parking garage. The appli cant is requesting the following development ap provals: Conceptual Planned Unit Development and Conceptual Timeshare Develonment annrnval Block 7, Lots 1 though 14, Block 8, Lots 1 through 14; Block 9, Lots 1 through 14; Block 10, Lots 1 through 14 and is commonly known as the area along S. Aspen Street between Dean Street and Summit Street. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of Aspen Community Development De partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2759 or at jenniferp®ci.aspen.co.us. S/Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on February 10, 2008.(1144842) s KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN hsk@kcelaw.net 201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203 LANCE R. COT$, PC- Irc(a)kcelaw.net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III, PC jee@kcelaw.ne t TELEPHONE: (970) 925-8700 EBEN P. CLARK cDc(&kcelaw.net FACSIMILE: (970) 925-3977 COREY T. ZURBUCH ctz@kcelaw.net MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI m4k@1ccelaw.net DAVID C. UHLIG dcuakcelaw.net MATTHEW M. LOWRY minN& celaw.net • also admitted in California January 23, 2008 VIA EMAIL TO: iennifern(d.ci.asnen.co.us Jennifer Phelan City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lift One Lodge Development Dear Jennifer: Our firm represents the Silver Shadow Condominium Association with regard to the development proposed as the Lift One Lodge on South Aspen Street. Our clients have several concerns regarding the development. Principally, these concerns are the building height and set back off of the eastern boundary of the Lift One Lodge site. Specifically, our clients are concerned about how the proposed heights and the lack of set back will affect the light on and views from their property. Furthermore, my clients are concerned that the proposed development will negatively affect the existing ski access along the western boundary of the Silver Shadow Condominium property. A representative of our firm will attend the City Council hearings regarding the Lift One Lodge PUD application that are currently set for February 11, February 25 and March 10, 2008. If necessary, we will elaborate on our clients' objections at that time. In the meantime, can you please keep me apprised of the progress on the application, any change in the hearing dates and the dates on which Council will receive public comment on the application. Please also send a copy of any pertinent notices to me at our address above. RECE /ED j �k ,.:i . CITY r *\SPEN COMMUNII EI.OPMENT Jennifer Phelan City of Aspen Community Development Department January 23, 2008 Page 2 If you have questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for you assistance with this matter. Sincerely, KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC By: Eben P. Clark cc: Silver Shadow Condominium Association c/o Jerry Elder EPC:NK \silver shadow\ltr to Jennifer Phelan 73E A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Interim Community Development Deputy Director RE: Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare Review — Public Hearing Continued from 7/24/07 DATE: August 7, 2007 SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new and addresses the issues raised since the last public hearing on this application. It contains the following: • A summary of the issues from the last meeting; • newly submitted documents from the Applicant; • Staff recommendation & motion; and • a resolution. Also attached is a portion of the staff report of July 24, 2007. This is attached primarily to provide background on the development proposal so that you have this information at hand. SUMMARY: During the Conceptual Review Phase, it is important that the Commission find comfort with the project meeting the basic intent of the PUD and Timeshare Development requirements and criteria. The past public hearings on this application have provided the Commission the opportunity to learn more about the project and to identify areas that you would like to have the applicants address further, either at this stage of review (conceptual) or provide at a later, more specific stage of review (final). Below, the concerns voiced by the Planning and Zoning Commission are itemized by general issues. The Applicant has reviewed these issues and will provide additional information and consideration of these issues at final PUD application. 1) Overall Site Plan. Reevaluate the location of the lodge in relation to the Caribou Condominiums for skier access to the condominiums - potentially allow for a zero lot line along the park accommodating Lift 1 to provide a greater setback adjacent to the Caribou Condominiums. Consider additional ways to incorporate the history and significance of Lift 1 into the site. 2) Lodge/Timeshare Function. A detailed operational plan is required as part of the Final PUD application. 3) Architecture and Neighborhood Compatibility. Sketch -up modeling is required of the entire site to provide additional perspectives of the project. Specifically, the Commission Page 1 of 4 is interested in seeing the relationship of the lodge component and its neighbors at the east and the relationship of the site to the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the Commission would like to see the following perspectives: looking up towards the lodge from Lift 1 and looking down to Lift 1. 4) Park Sites. The museum location should be evaluated to consider a transit drop-off/group gathering area near the museum. It is important to promote Willoughby Park as an active rather than passive park. Advantageous uses associated with the museum to energize the park should be evaluated: a restaurant or cafd at the museum may be an opportunity for added vitality. The Applicant will need to successfully address how the existing volleyball courts will be accommodated either on -site (to retain some active use of the park) or off -site with concurrence from the Parks Department. 5) Pedestrian/Public Use, Connections/Experience. Include additional information on the ski area base/lodge/public interface area. Elevations showing the relationship of the base of the lift to the proposed lodge are to be provided. 6) Parking. By final PUD application the Applicant shall provide a detailed operational plan for the parking garage including ownership of the facility, parking hours and fees. The rubber tire shuttle proposed should be electric/ hybrid type vehicle. 7) Deep Powder Cabins. Evaluate additional affordable housing opportunities on -site (in excess of what is already provided and code compliant) by potentially using the Deep Powder cabins. REFERRAL AGENCY ISSUES: The proposed application was referred to the City Engineering Department, Parks Department, Public Works Department, Environmental Health Department, Building Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Transportation Department, and Aspen Fire Protection District for comments on technical issues. Initial general comments from the referral agencies have been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval as appropriate and detailed requirements will be part of any final ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends approving the conceptual application with conditions, so that the Applicant may proceed to Council review. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2006, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare land use application." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: DRC minutes, April 11, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Exhibit B: Revised roof plan sheet # 25, east elevation sheet #27, section sheet #29, building height plan sheet #3 INFORMATION FROM THE JULY 24, 2007 STAFF REPORT PROJECT OVERVIEW: The proposed development includes eight (8) parcels that will be combined to create four (4) parcels. The four (4) proposed parcels are indicated in the Application on a foldout map, located just after page 23 of the Application. The development program below is divided based on these four (4) proposed parcels. Parcel 1 — Timeshare Lodge • 32 timeshare units divided into 1/80' interests (a total of 256 member interests) and 97 keys o 3 four -bedroom multi level units with a total of 12 keys. o 12 one -bedroom units with a total of 24 keys o 11 two -bedroom units with a total of 33 keys o 3 three -bedroom units with a total of 12 keys o 2 four -bedroom units with a total of 10 keys o 1 five -bedroom unit with a total of 6 keys • 5 Affordable Housing units • Sub -grade parking garage consisting of 216 parking spaces (note: all 11 Affordable Housing units are proposed to have assigned parking in this garage) • Public Apres Ski area • Restaurant, kitchen, and bar • Guest Services (business center, ski concierge, ski tuning/storage) • Spa and Fitness facilities • SKICO facilities Parcel 2 — Skiers Chalet Steakhouse • 6 Affordable Housing units Parcel 3 — Lift One Park • Historic Lift One Parcel 4 — Willoughby Park • Historical Society Sky Museum (the Skiers Chalet Lodge will be relocated for this purpose; the Holland House will be demolished; see Exhibit 1 Appendix C for the HPC resolution approving demolition and relocation) • Deep Powder Cabins • Refurbished Historic Lift One and Original Ticket Office • Sub -grade parking garage consisting of 119 parking spaces (to replace lost parking on South Aspen Street and current Willoughby Park surface parking) • Park Facilities and Green Space • Shuttle Stop Page 3 of 4 • Conservation to Lodge • Park to Public (Willoughby and Lift One Parks) with Historic Overlay • PUD Overlay PUD PURPOSE STATEMENT TO USE IN CONCEPTUAL REVIEW The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development, and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural, or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. _, (SERIES OF 2007) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE FOR THE LIFT ONE LODGE, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 233 GILBERT STREET, EAMES ADDITION; 710 ASPEN STREET, EAMES ADDITION; 720 S. ASPEN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-131-168-51, 2735-131-210-01, 2735-131-210-02, 2735-131-198-51, 2735-131-190-01, 2735-131-260-01 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC(Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Conceptual Timeshare for the Lift One Lodge; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department , Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department and Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.590 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual Timeshare approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at multiple public hearings where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 19, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to July 10, 2007 for further discussion. At the July 10, 2007 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the hearing until July 17, 2007 for further discussion. At the July 17, 2007 public Page 1 of 6 hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the project to July 24, 2007 for further discussion. At the July 24, 2007 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the project to August 7, 2007 for further discussion. At the August 7, 2007, public hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development and Conceptual Timehare application by a to vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare approval shall only grant the ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD and Timeshare application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review, Conditional Use, Special Review, GMQS Allotment, Mountain View Plane Review, Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption, Rezoning, Timeshare and a right-of-way vacation approval pursuant to the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, an application was submitted for the Lift One Lodge, which proposed on parcel 1 multi -story structure consisting of 32 timeshare units divided into eighth interests (a total of 256 member interests) and ninety-seven (97) keys, 5 affordable housing units, a sub - grade parking garage consisting of 216 spaces, a public apres ski area, a restaurant, spa and fitness facilities, and SKICO facilities, and Guest Services. On parcel 2, six (6) affordable housing units are proposed within the historic Skiers Chalet Steakhouse. Parcel 3 is proposed to contain Historic Lift One. While Parcel 3 (Willoughby Park) is proposed to be developed with the Historical Society Ski Museum (the Skiers Chalet Lodge will be relocated for this purpose; the Holland House will be demolished), the Deep Powder cabins will be retained on -site, the historic Lift 1 and original ticket office will be refurbished, a shuttle stop will be developed and sub -grade parking for 115 spaces will be developed to replace lost parking on South Aspen Street and the current Willoughby Park surface parking. WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standards for a Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development, and Conceptual Timeshare, for the Lift One Lodge, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1 The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the Commission, as described above. 2. The Final PUD application shall include: a. An application for Final PUD and Timeshare application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review, Conditional Use, Special Review, GMQS Allotment, Mountain View Plane Review, Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption, Rezoning, Timeshare and a right-of-way vacation approval pursuant to Page 2 of 6 the Municipal Code. A pre -application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application. b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. c. A proposed subdivision plat and PUD plans 3. Prior to submitting an application for a Final PUD, the applicant shall make the following revisions to the development proposal as identified by the Planning and Zoning Commission: a. Overall Site plan. Reevaluate the location of the lodge in relation to the Caribou Condominiums for skier access to the condominiums - potentially allow for a zero lot line along the park accommodating Lift 1 to provide a greater setback adjacent to the Caribou Condominiums. Consider additional ways to incorporate the history and significance of Lift 1 into the site. b. Lodge/Timeshare Function. A detailed operational plan is required as- part of the Final PUD application. c. Architecture and Neighborhood Compatibility. Sketch -up modeling is required of the entire site to provide additional perspectives of the project. Specifically, the Commission is interested in seeing the relationship of the lodge component and its neighbors at the east and the relationship of the site to the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the Commission would like to see the following perspectives: looking up towards the lodge from Lift 1 and looking down to Lift 1. d. Park Sites. The museum location should be evaluated to consider a transit drop- off/group gathering area near the museum. It is important to promote Willoughby Park as an active rather than passive park. Advantageous uses associated with the museum to energize the park should be evaluated: a restaurant or cafe at the museum may be an opportunity for added vitality. The Applicant will need to successfully address how the existing volleyball courts will be accommodated either on -site (to retain some active use of the park) or off -site with concurrence from the Parks Department. e. Pedestrian/Public Use, Connections/Experience. Include additional information on the ski area base/lodge/public interface area. Elevations showing the relationship of the base of the lift to the proposed lodge are to be provided. f. Parking. By final PUD application the Applicant shall provide a detailed operational plan for the parking garage including ownership of the facility, parking hours and fees. The rubber tire shuttle proposed should be electric/ hybrid type vehicle. g. Deep Powder Cabins. Evaluate additional affordable housing opportunities on -site (in excess of what is already provided and code compliant) by potentially using the Deep Powder cabins. Section 2: Building The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Page 3 of 6 Section 3: Engineering Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Section 4: Affordable Housing Conceptual Design unit count appears correct based on proposed uses. A recommendation from the Housing Board is required prior to final review. Housing staff recommends that the affordable units at the lodge have assigned parking. Section 5: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 6: Transportation A detailed operation plan of the rubber tire shuttle shall be submitted as part of the final PUD application. The operation plan should include the information listed in the Development Review Committee minutes of April 11, 2007. Section 7: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Special consideration for utilities in relation to snowmelt shall be considered prior to final approval as indicated in the Development Review Committee minutes of April 11, 2007. Additional specificity is necessary to evaluate the snowmelt proposal for Aspen Street in relation to the City's Canary Initiative. Additional information is necessary to evaluate the proposed Special Improvement District. A system development fee for stormwater may be required. Additional attention should be paid to the design of surface drainage from the snowmelt system where it transitions to Durant Avenue to avoid any water runoff to non -snow melted surfaces at the intersection of Durant and Aspen Streets. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. An upgraded main sanitary sewer line is necessary to serve the proposed development, therefore a "Collection System Agreement" is required. Section 9: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. Additional detail is provided in the Development Review Committee minutes of April 11, 2007. Page 4 of 6 Section 10: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 11: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 12: Parks A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. A detailed excavation plan may be required for work in the vicinity of certain large trees. Further review and detail of excavation distances is necessary. All right -of way improvements shall meet city codes. Final layout of the plantings and park designs require Park Department approval. Additional detailed comments are included in the Development Review Committee minutes of April 11, 2007. Parks staff requests that the Applicant consider the feasibility of a maintenance/storage facility for the use of the department in the Willoughby parking garage design. Section 13: Community Development Engineer An inclinometer is required to be installed with a minimum of bi-monthly readings for a minimum of one seasonal cycle prior to issuance of a building permit to analyze any slope movement. Additional information and evaluation on uphill condition including: off -site drainage, geo hazards, stability issues and groundwater mitigation is required. Additional detailed comments are included in the Development Review Committee minutes of April 11, 2007. Section 14: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on August 7, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim `Crue, City Attorney Dylan Johns, Chair Page 5 of 6 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 6 of 6 MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer Date: April 11, 2007 Re: Lift One Lodge Meeting One The Development Review Committee (DRC) has been asked to review the proposed development of the, property east of S. Aspen Street as The Lift One Lodge at the April 11, 2007 DRC meeting and has compiled the following comments. Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Joyce Allgaier, Planning; Trisha Coyle, Adam Trzcinski, Aaron Reed, City Engineering; Denis Murray, Building; Amy Guthrie, HPC; Blake Fitch, Parking; Brian Flynn, Parks; Cindy Christensen, Housing; Todd Grange, City Zoning; Tom Bracewell, ACSD; Steve Hunter, Public Works; John Krueger, Transportation; Sunny Vann, Vann Assoc.; Bob Daniel and Joe Enzer, Owners Reps.; Stephen Holly and Marina Skiles, Poss Architecture; Dave Carpenter, DHM Design; Jay Hammond, SGM Engineering. Building Department - Denis Murray; • Could not make comments because of the scale of the drawings that were submitted as part of this DRC package. Fire Protection District - Ed VanWalraven; • This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2003 Edition Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be installed (IFC as amended Section 903 and 907 Engineering Department -Trisha Coyle, Adam Trzcinski, Aaron Reed; (separate meeting maybe scheduled) • Final design shall be compliant to all sections of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21, and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Parks - Brian Flynn; • Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the Page 2 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge tree protection will be required for the bldq permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. • Additional Tree Protection Measures: • Roots: The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Roots 2" or greater shall be professionally pruned with the on call tree service. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. • Excavation: All excavations adjacent to the drip zones will be required to be vertical excavation only, with no over digging. Excavations will be soil stabilized in a manner that prevents over excavation of the site. This will require a one sided pour for all foundation walls located within these protection zones. • Mulching: Six inches of mulch is required to be placed within the zone of vegetation protection. The mulch shall be maintained at a level of 6 inches during the entire project. • Irrigation: Irrigation of trees is required throughout the entire length of the project. The Contractor will supply water to the trees at a rate which is appropriate for proper health. Additional watering will take place along the edge of the roots cutting. The contractor will be required to place a burlap protection cover over the cut roots. The contractor will irrigate the burlap with an appropriate amount of water in order to keep the burlap moist. • Access: Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times. • Parks will need detailed plans for the proposed excavation around the large Blue Spruce located on the corner of Gilbert and South Aspen. This vertical excavation will require soil nails or soil grouting only, helical piers are not permitted due to the extent of the surface impact. The applicant will also be required to provide a $100,000 bond, for a period of three years after excavation, in the event the tree fails the bond will be released to the City of Aspen. In addition the applicant will be required to replace the tree with a tree of significant value and size. • Applicant should be aware that the Parks Department is not approving the proposed excavation distance shown in the conceptual plans. Further review and details will be required for review and approval. • Landscaping and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. Parks will need to meet with the landscape architects and planners for a final review of the planting plan, specifically the spacing of the street trees and species. Page 3 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge • ROW requirements require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, if a system is not in place one will need to be added. • An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. • The applicant shall consult with the Director of the Parks and Open Space Department in order to discuss how mitigation will be completed depending on the partnership with the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. • Parks Department will require the applicant work directly with the Parks Department planners on the final park layout, plantings, amenities and public benefits for both Lift 1 and Willoughby Parks. (For example Lift 1 Park should be served with a sidewalk on the south side of Gilbert Street.) • The Parks Department is requesting the applicant provide the City with a 1000 sq foot staging/storage area in the public garage located below Willoughby park. • The replacement sites and the costs associated with replacement of the volleyball courts will be the responsibility of the developer. The applicant should work closely with the Parks department in site location and planning of new courts. • Applicant shall provide a public easement across Ski Co property in order to protect the public access to and from Lift 1 Park. This would allow for perpetual use of the property as access during both summer and winter. • The City Attorney and City Council will approve final plans for Willoughby Park's lease agreement between the applicant, the Historical Society and the City. • Placement of the utilities underneath the sidewalk zone is a major concern for future impacts and repairs to the services. Any repairs would require disruption of the sidewalk zone, loss of pedestrian access and conflicts with ROW landscaping. Parks does not recommend placing the utilities underneath the ROW. A new plan for utility placement should be discussed and presented. If am alternative solution can not be reached, the developer should draft an agreement and language that outlines the responsibilities of the metro district to repair, replace and pace for all associated costs related to all utility repairs within the City ROW. Zoning Officer - Todd Grange; • A fee matrix for School Land dedication to include the Current Market Value TDM and park dedication fees. These fees are based on bedrooms and a net leasable number. The net leasable number should be verifiable per plan set. • A Roof Plan over a survey with grades to verify building heights. Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz; • Inclinometer installation and bi-monthly monitoring a minimum of one seasonal cycle before the issuance of a building permit. Number and Page 4 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge location of installations must be submitted and approved by the City. Pieziometers to evaluate groundwater conditions should also part of the pre -construction data gathering. • If any slope movement is identified that historic rate will not be exceeded during or after construction. • A soils boring grid / matrix must be no greater then 100' by 100' between test locations in the area under the building footprint. In areas outside of the building foot print the distance between holes be increased to 500' by 500' . • Depth of the soils borings must extend to a depth 20-feet greater then the maximum designed bottom footer. • Determination of global stability if historic movement is documented must meet the requirements of AASHTO for "Critical Structure" which implies a factor of safety 1.5 minimums. • The majority of what is being shown in the DRC package is site improvements with only a brief reference to project impacts. Site improvements need to include a full analysis of uphill condition including but not limited to offsite drainage, geo hazards, stability issues, groundwater mitigation (const. and post const). • To determine project impacts, analysis of existing infrastructure needs to be conducted. Cash in lieu is acceptable but the appropriate amount must be determined. Analysis of risk by not having infrastructure improvements completed downstream at the time of construction needs to be determined. Primarily the runoff from the area above the project and the addition of thousands of square feet of impermeable area being added. • The rational method of determining storm runoff is not appropriate for basins of this size and complexity. It is strongly recommended that the storm water management model (SWMM) be developed for this analysis. In conjunction with this effort a significant hydraulic modeling effort of the existing hydraulic capacities of the current system needs to be provided. Including the expected consequences of combined flows piped and street flows for the 100-year event. • Specific details are not part of the "conceptual" agreement. Adequate design detail is being required for final PUD approval. • A performance bond, letter of credit or the like for an amount determined by the City Engineer to insure the competition of the infrastructure improvement proposed with this project. The amount will be provided under a separate cover. • Mud Flow as identified in the 2001 City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan should be addressed in the architectural design. This should be considered for any at grade, uphill (south elevation) side structural openings. Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Tom Bracewell; • Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a "Collection System Agreement" is required, which is an Page 5 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge ACSD Board of Director's action item. Once detailed utility plans are made available to the district, we can initiate CSA. Two CSA's may need to be executed between the developer and the City of Aspen. • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. • Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. • A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. • All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. • On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. • On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. • Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the o/s interceptor. • Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. • Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. • Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. • When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (6) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities. • Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system. • Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. • Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. • All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. • Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be Page 6 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). • The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. • ACSD will administer and construct the proposed new main sanitary sewer line in Aspen and Gilbert Streets at the developer's expense. • The proposed main sanitary sewer line in Aspen Street will have to be extended south to accommodate the Ski Co. on mountain sewer line. • If the main sanitary sewer line is built underneath the landscaping, curb, gutter and sidewalk areas, the developer will have to set up a means for their future replacement of the same at no expense to the taxpayer, such as a metropolitan district, homeowners association or similar. Housing Office - Cindy Christensen; • Unit count appears correct based on uses shown. • Must have assigned parking for the units at the Lodge. • November 15 presentation to the Board for approval. • Units that are being proposed for the Smuggler Racquet Club also require Housing Board approval. Parking - Tim Ware, Blake Fitch; • We would like to know the garage operational plan. • Ownership of the facility needs to be determined. • A determination of restrictions must address parking hours and fees. Environmental Health - Jannette Murison; I recommend the following for performance targets be set as conditions of approval: • AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the cam..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". • The land use code states that the density of a PUD may be reduced if the proposed development will have a pernicious [negative] effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. • In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the following condition is recommended: • Pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee. Other recommended measures include: Page 7 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge • Units are sold with only one parking space. Additional spaces are provided at additional cost to homeowner. If a homeowner needs only one space, purchase price will be reduced so that the program is revenue -neutral. • Hotel and businesses join the Transportation Options Program (TOP). • A vehicle should be purchased to be part of the Roaring Fork Vehicle program, to be used by the residents and guests for car -sharing. • Provide covered and secure bike storage. • REMINDERS FOR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS: • The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments and reminders: • ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. • ENGINE IDLING: The applicant is reminded for the construction phase of the project that per municipal code section 13.08.1 10 it is unlawful for any person to idle or permit the idling of the motor of any stationary motor vehicle for a prolonged or unreasonable period of time determined herein to be five (5) minutes or more within any one (1) hour period of time. • FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. • FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures. • A fugitive dust control plan is required as part of the applicants erosion control plan. A fugitive dust control plan may include, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project will last greater than 6 months. • NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18-04-01 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well Page 8 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. " • During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. • It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. • A construction noise suppression plan must be submitted to the City of Aspen Construction Mitigation Officer if the construction of this project will create noise greater than 80 decibels. • TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recycling containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance, Chapter 12.06. • The applicant is advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for recycling during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include the following recyclable material: Cardboard, Co -mingled (plastic bottles, aluminum, steel cans and glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper. • A total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utility/trash service area is recommended for recycling facilities. • One 90-gallon toter = 2"x2.5" (5sq. ft.). Need one for each: co -mingled, office paper, newspaper = 15sq. ft. Cardboard - At minimum could use a toter = 5sq. ft and at most need a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (Yx4"). Can have required space reduced in a review if can prove use of a cardboard shelf = Osq.ft • FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES: Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado requires a review of plans and specifications by this Department. The Department shall be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the grease trap. Restaurant grills are regulated by the City of Aspen and the applicant should contact this Department to be it is in compliance with City code. • The applicant should be aware that approval of both plans and specifications is required before the building permit is approved. A minimum of two weeks is necessary for the Environmental Health Department to review and approve plans. Also, final approval from this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance of a Colorado Food Service License. Page 9 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge POOLS AND SPAS • All design, installation and maintenance must comply with "Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, adopted August 15, 1993." A copy can be obtained from our office. • A snowmelt system "commissioning plan" should be developed and be a requirement of the PUD approval. • All buildings will perform at least 50% better than the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code. On or off -site renewable energy may be used to meet this target, provided the location of any renewable energy system is approved by CORE and located within Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary. • All CO2 emissions from snowmelt system(s) located in the public right of way shall be offset by on or off -site renewable energy provided the location of any renewable energy system is approved by CORE and located within Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary. Any fee -in -lieu for offsetting the CO2 emissions shall be no less than the cost of a renewable energy system described above. Such a system shall be operational before the snowmelt system is activated. Quantification of CO2 emissions from the snowmelt systems) shall be verified by the City of Aspen. • CORE funding can only be used for a renewable energy(s) system or an energy efficiency upgrade(s) that exceeds the above stated performance targets. Public Works - Steve Hunter; • The SGM engineering report from Jay Hammond states that the 12" and 8" water lines will be relocated so as to minimize the potential for disturbing the proposed snowmelt surface. Minimization of conflicts is not sufficient. The utilities must be placed in a right of way or easement area of sufficient width to be clear of the snowmelt surface when maintenance or replacement activities are necessary. Also it will require that all existing lateral water service lines to adjoining properties along the entire length of the snowmelt system be replace d according to existing City of Aspen standards. At a minimum, this replacement is required to the curb box for each adjoining property served. Finally, an advice to property owners adjoining the snowmelt surface will be recorded advising each property owner that there is a snowmelt system installed that covers the water service lines and that any and all additional replacement or repair costs imposed as a result of the presence of this system is the sole responsibility of the improvement district that operates the snowmelt system. • City of Aspen review of and approval of final utility design drawings will be required prior to initiating modifications to the water system. A preconstruction conference is required to review the approved design with the contractor in advance of construction of modifications to the water system. The applicant will be responsible for all City of Aspen costs involved in modification of the water system including engineering review and construction observation. Page 10 of 12 • April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge • 12" Waterline Re -Alignment Alternative C is the preferred alternative of the City of Aspen Water Department (we will still need to review and sign off on construction level drawings) • The fire hydrant fed by the existing 12" to the east of the proposed lodge will need to be relocated and fed from the new 12" ( this must be approved by AFPD) • The Water department will need to see plans showing the waterlines in Monarch and Summit Streets and how connections will be made and service will be maintained • All standards apply (water, electric, stormwater) Snowmelt System & Energy: • The preliminary PUD approval did not make provision for the proposal for snow melting three blocks of South Aspen Street right of way. There is not an existing precedent establishing the conditions under which the public right of way can b used for this purpose. In particular the proposal may be at odds with the Canary Initiative and the action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is currently under development. The proposal to mitigate energy impacts (page 47 of the application) is not sufficiently specific in order to provide a basis for determining if a plan sufficiently mitigates new CO2 emissions associated with the snowmelt system. In particular, the proposal to use natural gas boilers to fuel the system seems problematic. It is suggested that a ground source heat pump using energy provided by the Aspen electric system be considered to reduce carbon emissions be considered. Aspen's current carbon emission factor of 0.6 Ibs CO2 per kwh is together with this type of system would be substantially below equivalent emissions from burning natural gas. The Holy Cross Franchise agreement provides for use of Aspen electric energy on public works types of projects, which this activity would satisfy because it is in a public street. More specifically, if a snowmelt system is to be approved for the public right of way in Aspen St., the project should be conditioned to meet the following standard for mitigation of impacts to CO2 emissions: the net emissions for the proposed buildings and facilities on the project site (including the snowmelt system) can not exceed the existing CO2 emissions from existing buildings and uses. Special Improvement District: • The application does not provide sufficient details regarding the functions and responsibilities of the proposed improvement district. Will the district be responsible for street maintenance, stormwater system maintenance, street light maintenance and surface restoration and improvements resulting from future ground disturbances? Are specially selected materials to be used for sidewalk materials and other similar improvements and will these materials be consistent with those in use in other locations in the City? Storage and re -stocking such specialized items is a concern due to a proliferation of these types of districts. The City has no capacity to store pre -stocked materials for eventual replacement of limited stock items Page 1 1 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge (pavers, non-standard street light fixtures and accessories, etc.). Any City approval of such an improvement district should be subject to negotiation of a final agreement defining the relative roles and responsibilities of the parties with respect to the above issues. Stormwater: • The City of Aspen is in the process of finalizing a Stormwater Utility Business Plan. The applicant should be advised that if this project moves forward as proposed, a system development fee on the gross impervious surface area will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. This fee is distinguished from an impact fee because, rather than applying to the net increase in stormwater runoff, new development would be responsible for paying the pro -rated up -front cost of the stormwater collection and treatment system proposed in the plan. Snowmelt Transition to Surface Streets: • Attention should be paid to the design of surface drainage from the snowmelt system where it transitions to Durant Avenue to avoid any water runoff to non -snow melted surfaces at the intersection of Durant and Aspen St. Transportation - John Krueger; • The Lift One Lodge should include a detailed operation plan for its proposed shuttle service as part of the Transportation Plan. I think it should ultimately become a condition of approval for the project. • The Detailed Operation Plan should include at least the following information: • A description of the Service proposed including; o Dates of service o Hours of operation o Headways o Number of vehicles and spares o Description of the route o Organizational chart showing manager and personnel providing service o Monitoring and reporting of the service including -ridership statistics, accidents o Type and size of vehicles to be operated o Number and location of stops o Shelters o Marketing and promotion of the service o Estimated Costs of service • The plan should clearly define the financial responsibilities including purchase and replacement of vehicles, operating costs, vehicle maintenance, purchase, and maintenance of shelters, etc. • If the service is to be contracted out, then details of that should be provided • The applicant should join the TOP (Transportation Options Program) Page 12 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge • Contribute financially toward the Car Share Program by purchasing one hybrid vehicle ■i i 07 07 08:33a Mizen & nssociates, Inc. 708-366-2069 Tue, Ab g 7, 2007 8:14 AM Subject: Aug 7 P&Z Hearing -Lift One Lodge -Comments Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 8:14 AM From: Michael R. Mizen <m.mizen@mizen.com> To: Planning and Zoning-Aspen-Aug07 Cc: City Council-Aspen-Aug07 I am writing as President of the Shadow Mountain Town Homes Board There are four points I wish to bring to the discussion on August 7th. Shadow Mountain Town Homes has filed with Planning and Zoning several critical objections to the current proposals being discussed. These are copied in the attached PDF document sent via email and delivered in person prior to the June 19th presentations. This point of view has been expressed to LOL developers as early as 2006 and our concerns remain without adequate understanding of why these issues are not critical. 2- No approvals from SMTH for any aspect of this project have been granted because we have no impression what is being proposed. The only documents regarding LOL development adjacent to SMTH does not clearly indicate skiing adjacent to our complex. In a recent email(8/3/07) Robert Schultz, representing LOL, writes to me ...snip "the survey crew has completed its work and we will dig into info after our next P & Z hearing on August 7." 3- We seek a position on public record from the LOL Developers and P&Z regarding the proposed manipulation of conservation zones within the current design. Specifically, what provisions, authorities, or permissions are being invoked to complete the project as currently proposed? 4- The LOL proposal under discussion is not a situation where a development is impacting a small segment of adjacent residents. The LOL development is peculiar in that the residents of the City of Aspen are significant "stakeholders" in public property which modifications are being requested for the purpose of development on privately owned property. Michael R. Mizen JV__,� ��809S.Aspen#15 �4- �JbkvVIX-A Aug 07 07 08:34a Mizen & Associates, Inc. 708-366-2069 p.2 SHADOW MOUNTAIN TOWN HOMES ASPEN COLORADO Michael R. Wizen cn=Michael R. Mizen, c=US. email--m.mizen@�mizcn.com .DUNE 1 8, 2007 I am the author of this document 2007.06.16 13:06: 1 -05'00' TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners City of Aspen ` p�(13, ,� 9* RE: Lift One Lodge SUBJECT: Point of View regarding proposed Lift One Lodge Development Background I am writing as President of the Shadow Mountain Town Home Association (SMTH). Mr. Robert. Schultz, representing Lift One Lodge, has brought the proposed development to our attention. Our Board reviewed the initial plans in April 2006 with subsequent discussions in January 2007 involving our Board and members of our Association. Out: current remarks are based on these direct discussions, an electronic PDF file provided by Mr. Schultz, and a printed brochure that was distributed to owners of record in SMTH and other affected residents on South Aspen Street. Lift One Lodge (aka LOL) A-N a believe the size, height and mass of the proposed project in conceptual drawings is inappropriate to lire area This is especially trine if the Lodge at Aspen Mountain project gains approval. It will essentially mean that South Aspen Street will become a tunnel through two massive, large-scale hotel -like projects. Moreover with the provided documents the proposed views looking up and down South Aspen Street need careful scrutiny. B-FFe do not believe that moving Lit IA up Aspen Mountain makes the skiing experience better. Tf a think it spill make it horse. As we understand the current plans the top station of Lift I will not change. So the net effect will be more effort required to get to the loading station and a slightly shorter run. downhill. If the lower lift station is to be moved at all, we think it would make far more sense to move it further downhill to facilitate access by all Aspen residents and guests. The project's size is in part due to providing public access buildings and facilities. However. if the lift is shorter and does not provide any incremental skiing experiences the attractiveness of such facilities to Aspen residents and guests is significantly diminished. Aug 07 07 08:34a Mizen & Associates, Inc. 708-3G`2069 p.3 I SHADOW MOUNTAIN TOWN HOMES ASPEN COL.ORADO JUKE 18, 2007 Discussions about this relocation cite the new position is due to "physics" of high- speed lift operation. We believe that the SkiCo may have a. vested economic interest unrelated to skiing in moving the lower lift terminal We are not experts in lift design but strongly suggest P&Z insist on a second disinterested opinion regarding lift positioning. C-W We remain concerned about elimination of on street parking on South Aspen Street as envisioned in theirproposal. The LOL developers are proposing a shuttle service similar to what is available in town to move skiers to the new lift location. We are not certain their estimate of the traffic pattern up and down South Aspen Street is accurate. Again a second opinion to verify the traffic impact assumptions is indicated. In addition. the proposed project will make it impossible for people to park on the street while taking a few nuns; it will also mean that guests and service people visiting adjacent complexes such as ours will not have the ability of short tern, close parking. SMTH does not believe the residents of Aspen recognize the impact of this change but nevertheless it is now time in the P&Z phase to inform the community what convenience will no longer be available from Lift 1A D-FfWle there are hotel rooms being made available for nightly rental the complex is more focused to being a private club. We do not believe that more exclusivity is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan nor a benefit to the community. We look forward to a critical review of the transcripts for this phase of the proposal in order to appreciate what the finished LOL project offers to the City of Aspen and residents of South Aspen Street. E-We are concerned Wilt possible soil destabilization by excavation and construction of the areas /it the vicinity of 11re proposed LOL site. The lower slopes of Aspen Mountain have a recent history of being unstable. We believe that extra caution is indicated with any type of excavation in this regard and LOL is placing its neighbors at risks equal to those that we face with The Lodge at Aspen Mountain (LAM). Residents of SMTH require assistance from P&Z and City Council to insure LOL developers provide SMTH with agreements regarding preventive measures and advance agreement to post facto remediation should we incur engineering or structural damage during these project developments. SMTH is in active discussion with LAM regarding this issue. LAM and SMTH mutually recognize these issues and we stand ready to begin similar discussions with LOL when appropriate. Auq 07 07 08:34a Mizen & Associates, Inc. 708-36Q-2069 p.4 SHADOW MOUNTAIN TOWN HOMES ASPEN COLORADO JUNE 18, 2007 F-If this project is allowed to proceed, ang assuming that LAM wins final approval, it means that South Aspen street spill be subjected to all the unpleasantness connected with a heavy construction site for 7-8 years. This means excessive noise, traffic inconveniences, dust, plus the hazards of soil destabilization for an unreasonably extended period of time. At this stage of the LOL proposal we seek better understanding on how the work will be accomplished. Can there be any plan to reduce the construction time on South Aspen Street? In addition what will be proposed to mitigate the expected disruption? Next Steps These remarks are based on several conversations from LOL developers about the merits of the project. Importantly, given the above, the SMITH Board does not see these merits but remain willing to keep listening as to why this is such an attractive opportunity for South Aspen Sheet. We have serious legitimate concerns and questions. We look forward to a full and open discussion through (lie P&Z process and later with City Council. While I am not always in Aspen I can be contacted via m.inizen&nizen.co ni. Alternatively please know SMTH is represented by Mr. Fred Peirce of Austin. Peace & Smith, P.C. Michael R. Mizen President -Shadow Mountain Town Homes (SMTH) 809 S. Aspeu Street Unit 15 Exhibit D Proposed Additions and Edits to the Resolution for Lift 1 Staff recommends that the following two "Whereas" clauses be added to the resolution. The two clauses note that Conceptual approval for the design of Willoughby has been granted by the Historic Preservation Commission and that the Applicant's proposal has been reviewed by the Housing Authority. The two proposed additions as are as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D., Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, of the Land Use Code, Conceptual approval may be granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at a duly noticed public hearing and was granted for the review of Willoughby Park and Lift 1 Park by the HPC on August 9, 2006, via Resolution No. 21, Series of 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7., Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation by the board was provided at their June 20, 2007, regular meeting; and, Also, staff recommends that subsection 3.a., Overall Site Plan, of Section 1 be amended to provide additional specificity on the setback discussion at the July 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed amendment is as follows: a. Overall Site Pplan.-R-eeEvaluate the feasibility of increasing the setback of the lodge's east wing location of the -lodge -in relation to the eastern property line and the Caribou Condominiums for skier access to the condominiums by- potentially allowing €ef a zero lot line along tle�Lift 1 Ppark ,,,.,,,..,. med t'n- 4 ' to provide a greater setback adjacent to the property line shared with the Caribou Condominiums. Consider additional ways to incorporate the history and significance of Lift 1 into the site. sz - �� -b , - yv"-A LZ faj I I I I I I I I I I Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado PR SS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING East. Elevation 2 7 As [AST rel■ STREET ASPEN cAFAusA enn A e• Fc a IT) !)ASTMS .MTT 111 9)A/TMA MTTA 08.02.07 Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado P SS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING Section 29 cos usi rue sn[[r unit coioeeoo •ran o r m a ©�oo�,k 1'Swn'^"'.,.�.rc 08.02.07 m no nzs 4755 rn no n:o »so MEASURED HEIGHTS narvMs mwhm w ROt9EFA:IGM FIAT CDD£HE]GHT 1 20' 0" 2 26' 3 1/2" 3 38'--71/2" 31' 2 1/2" 4 3XX 5 27'--0" 6 45'--5" 37'--7" 7 29'-11" 8 36' 8" 9 41'--3" 33' 9 1/2" 10 35'0" 11 44'5" 32'-8" 12 26'--3" 13 39 8" 35'1" 14 23'--6" 15 26'-6" 16 20=0" 17 13' 5112" 18 3T 10" 19 42'- f0" 37'--10" 20 1241 " 21 44' f0" 4440" 22 48=6" 48=6" 23 43'-10" 4340" 24 48'-6" 48'-6" 25 37'--0" 37-0" 26 424" 424" 27 31' 0" 29' 0" 28 40'-0" 37-0" 29 40.1" 38'-6" 30 33' 1 " 31 26'-0" 32 25'--2" 33 30W 34 2240" 35 33'--9" 33'--9" ® = HEIGHT GREA TER THAN 42 FEET ABOVE GRADEBY CODE Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado poss RCI-IIrECTURE PL;-' � NING BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN SOS EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORSOO 8I511 p O I6 ]Y 3� ITI 9 7 0/925 475S IT) 9201920 2550 p © idi].ic'°`EcnnS°nvFir�i"�L < 08.02.07 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 24, 2007 John Rowland opened the special Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present included: David Guthrie, LJ Erspamer, Brian Speck and John Rowland. Dylan Johns was excused. Staff in attendance: Joyce Allgaier, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jim True, Special Counsel; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS LJ Erspamer suggested following Ruth Kruger's suggestion of taping these meetings and placing them on the website. Brian Speck said that it was easy to do with MP3s and play them back on the computer. Erspamer said it would be good to record the P&Z meetings digitally with a camera and put them onto the web. The commissioners supported researching this idea. MINUTES MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve the minutes from the July I LY meeting with a correction of to for; seconded by David Guthrie. John Rowland abstained. APPROVED 3-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (6/19; 7/10; 7/19) LIFT ONE CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE/PUD John Rowland opened the continued public hearing for Lift One Conceptual Timeshare/PUD. Joyce Allgaier distributed a letter from Austin, Pierce & Smith, PC signed by Thomas Smith representing the Caribou Condominium owners. Allgaier noted they were taking this significant project step by step with applicants presenting a great deal of information about their project. Bob Daniel walked through the handout that he distributed regarding the right-of- way of South Aspen Street; the existing improvements were on Exhibit #1. Daniel said Exhibit #3 hopefully answers LJ's question about the amount of space at the pinch points. Daniel utilized a Google Earth map, Exhibit #4, showing the distances in width at the pinch points that were the narrowest at 75' where access to the lift from Norway would run up the hill and under the chairs; 245' just before the lift between the trees and the Mountain Queen Condominiums and 275' at the first constriction point for the majority of runs. Joyce Allgaier utilized the applicant's power point slide of the site plan and the applicant's conceptual diagrams of 07/17/07 page 4 (color rendering of the site plan). Allgaier explained the conceptual process with P&Z and Council; it was important the commission find comfort with the project during the conceptual review phase meeting the basic intent of the PUD and Timeshare Development Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 24, 2007 requirements (page 3 of the staff memo). Allgaier said the property began at Dean Street with the opportunity for a historic museum and open space, that will be embellished by the fact that a museum would be an attraction; to the linear historic strand that slices through the property, which was the beginning of Aspen's skiing history; to old lodges; to a new lodge that reinforces goals for lodging units; to the ski through and the ski slope. Along with this was an enhanced and improved South Aspen Street with sidewalks, trees, snowmelt with much safer conditions. Staff said there was a lot of opportunity on this site, which would enforce the best place it could be for the city of Aspen. Allgaier noted that there was a project overview in a nutshell on page 1 and 2 of the staff memo. Overall staff was in favor this application moving forward with conditions that will address concerns of staff and the commission. The PUD purpose statement (page 3 of staff memo) addresses the Aspen Area Community Plan; achieving a desirable development pattern that was compatible with the existing and future surrounding land uses; preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value; the PUD promotes more efficient uses of land, public facilities and governmental services; incorporates an appropriate level of public input into the planning process. Allgaier's memo dated 07/24/07 pages 3-4 discussed the overall site plan with the attraction (the museum) on Dean Street at the bottom of the parcel. Staff felt the space should be anchored by the museum and park next to the building; people would move in and around the green space and the lift, where skiing began in Aspen. Staff finds the new lodge takes advantage of the ski slope and should be as public as possible. Allgaier asked the applicant to look at the private aspects and possibly make them more public. Allgaier said the overall positioning of the buildings was so that the historic ski way was improved by increased widths. Allgaier stated the architecture was left to the architects and developers. The development should celebrate the environment by embracing the old lift into the new structure in some way. Whether through large glazed areas in the new lodge (above the ski through) or an adjustment to the building alignment so the viewer from the bottom or within the space should feel the integrity of the old lift alignment. Staff said they were concerned about the new lodge structure relationship to the existing residential uses/buildings to the east in terms of height. Allgaier said the applicants should look at the possibility of greater inflection. Allgaier said that overall lodges and timeshares can increase vitality and provide new hotbeds, access to visitors and increase new visitors that raise occupancy levels. The second characteristic was to preserve and enhance the lodging inventory with physical and operational features of a traditional lodge, non- 2 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 24, 2007 exclusive and access to visitors. Another goal was to update the quality of accommodations by maintaining high quality and staying competitive in resort economy. Maintaining community character by maintaining a high quality resort and preserving neighborhoods was the last goal. Allgaier said the applicants' proposal for time share aligns with the purpose of the city's time share development regulations. At final review minimum provisions for guaranteeing short term rentals, the use of ownership units by non -owner visitors, rental pool usage at competitive rates, walk-in rentals, calendar/timing of reservations by owners , lodge service operations such as concierge and front desk commercial food service were addressed. Allgaier said the rezoning was not uncommon for the conservation area to be ski slopes and above the 8040 Greenline. Allgaier stated rezonings were confirmed at final; staff felt these were appropriate designations. The volleyball courts need to be planned with the Parks Department for relocation; these were a public resource that share concern with the community, which needed to be addressed as a condition of approval. Allgaier stated that Lift One should be a showpiece and stand out and take advantage of that linear park and the hard edges of the building. Allgaier said they wanted the area to be people orientated instead of crowded with trees; people enhancements of picnic tables, seating, walk -out doors from those units to use this space. Allgaier said the parking and affordable housing meets the requirements for the program elements proposed. South Aspen Street streetscape was a major component of this development as well as the one across the street. Allgaier noted that when the Lodge at Aspen Mountain first came in South Aspen was a very dangerous street; the applicants will pay for the maintenance of South Aspen Street; the applicants will pay the City of Aspen for additional maintenance during the winter months; snowmelt was the only way to handle the capacity and trips with the new activity that was being contemplated. U Erspamer asked if creating a club had the same vitality as a timeshare. Allgaier responded that it was critical as to how the club operates; if it operates like a fractional unit it should act like a lodge unit then there shouldn't be a problem. Daniel said they were required to operate under the timeshare requirements. Erspamer asked if the Deep Powder Cabins were forced on the applicant. Daniel replied they were forced on Willoughby Park; there was a recommendation with HPC review of Limelight HPC that Deep Powder Cabins be preserved. 3 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting,_ Minutes — July 24, 2007 John Rowland asked the alignment of the old lift and what was in the building that you look down on from the old tramway. Daniel replied lodging; the depths of the parcels were limited to where they could build a lodge or hotel with corridor with rooms on both sides. Daniel said the Holland House parcel was limited. Rowland asked who accessed the pool. Daniel replied guests of the lodge. Erspamer said that the staff wanted more museum than a park. Allgaier responded that in terms of reuse of the historic building anchoring this end of Dean Street and staff felt the museum was an attraction. Erspamer asked how they plan to increase the lift usage more than the current 3%. Vann replied there were public spaces next to the hotel. Daniel said that was a good question and they hoped that these amenities would reinvigorate interest in this side of the mountain greater than 3%. Daniel said that currently the closest restroom was at Bonnie's. Vann said that the higher speed lift, accommodations and enhanced facilities at the base of the mountain with the ability to return ski would attract more people to Lift One. Public Comments: 1. Tom Smith, lawyer for the Caribou Condominiums, distributed diagrams to explain what their concerns were with the proximity of the east wing of the building to the Caribou. Smith provided his letter of concern for the Caribou owners. There was skier access for the 7 Caribou owners that was part of the historic skier access; the 12 foot access wasn't adequate for skier access. Smith said that if they can reach accommodations by shifting the plan over 5 feet. Brian Speck asked about a prescriptive easement for the Caribou. Jim True replied that a prescriptive easement could be seasonal. 2. Leon Fell appreciates staff recommendation to relocate the sand volleyball courts; he said that there was a place in the city limits to relocate these courts. Fell requested a stipulation that the applicant relocate the courts in a timely manner. 3. David Myler, attorney for the applicant, addressed the issue of ski in and ski out access for the Caribou owners and they don't agree that the Caribou could obtain a prescriptive easement. 4. Vince Galluccio said that he has been playing on the those volleyball courts for 30 years and the courts do get regular usage by 10 to 20 people 3 times a week 3 hours a night. Galluccio said that many other people do use the courts and there was the MotherLode Tournament. Galluccio stated this park was very active and Aspen doesn't need another passive park. E Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 24, 2007 LJ Erspamer voiced concern for the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Erspamer was concerned about changing the conservation zoning to lodge; there should be a trade-off for up zoning. Erspamer asked for a composite sketch from the bottom of the lift 1 looking up the mountain. Erspamer said they have done a good job. Erspamer asked the elevation of the round about and the pool. Daniel replied 8024 was the elevation of the cul-de-sac. Erspamer asked if there was another solution rather than another rubber fire parking in the middle of streets. Daniel replied that they have explored cog rail, trolley, something like the ski cab; every time you go above ground the tramway board gets involved. Erspamer asked how could this area be more inviting to go up. David Guthrie asked where all the people were going to park; the rubber tire shuttle was the most flexible. Guthrie said that he wanted to see more affordable housing on site, the museum has to have a coffee shop, how can the City discourage car traffic, a "sketch up" model would be great to see looking to the east and up the mountain, the old lift will get diminished by the buildings, the volleyball courts have to be relocated, keep the park enhancements out of the middle of the runs, setback to the east widened, push the Skiers Chalet back 5 to 10 feet, this was a good place for the museum, is the west end of the round about at zero property line, the shuttle needs to an open hybrid. Brian Speck commended the applicants for working with the neighbors and making it a good project. Speck agreed with David on a vital park and it was important to have respect for the volleyball courts and they need to be taken care of somewhere; he liked the idea of environmentally friendly rubber tire transportation. Speck said it was important to work with the Caribou. Speck wanted to see a perspective from the historical lift up so that it wasn't getting dwarfed; he recommended that wall on the museum being glass so that people could see out at the lift. Speck said that if the museum would be set back a little it would be a better people place. Speck encouraged a public area. Rowland stated this project hit a lot of great things; he appreciated the different locations of the museum and at final the placement would be accomplished. Rowland hoped the placement of the museum wouldn't create more shading. Rowland asked about the placement of the elevator lift right next to the museum and it was separated from the building; does HPC require this separation. Holly replied initially HPC asked to have the lift combine with the building and it was decided that it was better separated, which caused access problems; attached to the building made it too close to the street. Rowland asked what their thoughts about using the Deep Powder Cabins were. Daniel replied that there were 2 schools of thought; the historical society wanted to use the cabins as employee housing for intern programs; this became a challenge for the placement of the cabins. Rowland 5 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 24, 2007 asked how volleyball courts could be retained on the site, maybe only one court to remain on site. Rowland said that visual of the old lift line held something to be said. Rowland said the park needed to be studied; he requested sections for the setbacks on the Caribou side to understand the value. Rowland was comfortable with the timeshare and the rezoning would work out in the public's interest to revitalize this side of town. Rowland said that there was access through by the Caribou and would love to see that used; he asked how the snowy slope would work at night. Rowland wanted the volleyball courts in the final resolution. The more flexible rubber tire shuttle that did not pollute the environment with easy getting on and off would be preferable. Rowland asked about a physical model. Daniel replied that they were waiting until final for a model. Daniel said that they would provide graphic or otherwise of the special relationship of the site as it goes up to the lift from Willoughby Park and Gilbert showing the relationship of the upper lift tower to the building; information on the people movers; move the volleyball court around on the spaces; Caribou setbacks in the current stage and look at being on the property line. Daniel stated that they have Dave Hauton with Resource Engineering scheduled on August 7`h to talk about to ground source systems. Guthrie said that he encouraged the conversion of the Deep Powder Cabins to deed restricted affordable housing. Erspamer suggested changing the placement of the Deep Powder Cabins and moving the museum back, which helps egress off the mountain. Guthrie said that the museum would be a great place right there with a deck and opening up the back. Daniel said that HPC asked them to maintain the exact integrity of the exterior of the Skier Chalet Lodge. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to continue the public hearing for the Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare to August 71h; seconded by David Guthrie. All in favor, APPROVED. I IC #Ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ,:i Roarinf Fork Lodging Company July 24, 2007 Joyce Allgaier Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3Td floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lift One Lodge — Conceptual PUD Application July 24, 2007 Meeting Dear Joyce: [� C T J 2A /3T The attached information is written to provide answers to some specific questions that were asked at the July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Review Process for the subject project. 1. Exhibits 1 and 2 show both existing and proposed improvements within the right-of-way at the southern end of S. Aspen Street. 2. Exhibits 3 and 4 schematically show the width of the trails on Fanny Hill in Snowmass and the base of Lift IA. Exhibit 4 also shows the Lift I proposed location relative to the general finish area of the Winternational race course 3. Exhibit 5 shows the proposed garage entrances and their relationships to the Lift One Lodge and the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. 4. Additionally in answer to the question regarding skier distribution between the Gondola and Lift 1 A, the Aspen Skiing Company has reported to us that for the 2006-2007 ski season 97% of the initial skier mountain access scans occurred at the Gondola, with 3% at Lift IA. 5. Relative to the location of a volleyball court at the base of Lift 1 A, we have done some preliminary layouts, but not had a conclusive discussion with either the City of Aspen Parks Department nor the Aspen Skiing Company as to whether this is an appropriate or compatible use for the summer. 6. At this point in the Conceptual Review process it is too soon for the Applicant to specifically define windows and dates for Lodge Members to reserve their seasonal plan time. We will propose more specific information on the Use Plan as a part of our Final application. Sincerely, V !r Robert E. Daniel, Jr. Roaring Fork Lodging Company 24398 State Highway 82 • P.O. Box 4560 • Basalt, Colorado 81621 • 970/927.9000 pAom • 970/927.2834 r6 e 9 ae-D "Wo 4} tI £8£19 3snOH 4'D8IS -F 187DVJ sr.azyg 5817D t jTJ Q a6po7 �a1�l7 sta?xS �, r w 0 0.1 u _ I i } 3 `D T C� R ^o bio 'm O fa' � V] 1.1 �• I V!'I x�K nooei _sr,ot, a• � u U� .•r f � 6L2: DdjJ iU S7S:�j or 75'-3" SOUTH ASPEN STREET ROW ft%'/!YS f'bs r90Y! J MyIld . W C9 lil i. i MOUMS, Shado ountain C atfdeminiums/ SOUTH END OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET ROW Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado FOSS ARCHITECTURE ; PLANNING O 0 20' 4W-w 801-0" (1) 67D-23 4753 (n 910r220 293U Nam C ON C E P T U A L D I A G R A M S: City Right -of -Way - Existing Conditions 1 2DO� ARCHrrECTURE AND PUNNING. P.C. 07.24.07 0.� .00 08 .Y ..6h, 09.111, A ' SBJOO tiZi o .4 •bs fw'S "MOH :YvalS .F Ta?d+G7 �a?�YS �t Lot 13 f0'09 dk sa��o bZZ'a e wbs gSL'6 aG,vo7 " �elvrl.7 s.�az3S w 1 e w to C A Q M� h h n t\ h � y ,sons s • W s r h ViY• i �ii � y buu�aP Jc si ryF 75'-3' SOUTH ASPEN STREET ROW 4% h80'll o- ecz- C 1 -? L� II a I 4 m b 0 ,t�vrdiv .�t'�rs .�'.gtf�r .;Ae� `sift a.rdsr I l 1 � , — t• Ile cc, 09 SOUTH END OF I F' SOUTH ASPEN STREET ROW 11-iiiPul NIY.LN 70IY :bOOVIIS Shado ountain C miniumsi Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado pOSS ^SRCHI IL11URE } PLANNh. O C ON C E P T U A L D I A G R A M S: City Right -of -Way - Proposed Improvements 0 20� (r 40'-0" SOAr 2007ARCHIT CTURE ASSOCIATES ND PLANNING, P.C. 07.24.07 ni atDluzs 4135 (r)vo/4So 2950 NORTH � 75 .v �`� ,1�.t�. (<� �t'� • l;t�� f . ��A/ f j '� Jr rr !'G._-- 'x '� � _ � � �� 4 ysl.,u•r �. f� �� /�. r ' rc rid f Nb T �•.,.,,�• r `,_wrµ �� '�" �i •��'f _ .�'' r� �Y �. 1... •s r ,a-ar•.nxue r,! r� r,� i � (r;� h' *67 IVY INIF f �, ( — f L f. -ana VxTmay_E x f- f ♦' \ ,1-k� 160 IrIT l PV it It AIF t^f ?91 P'Ile I %rat +t le ti. W R `I ►L I •r �i+t {' a.i rtC�l. PT) •41*40 wall va :1P ;a -AAA E Vv-,, ' < , I f �,+Ft`I / .p -f'r •(' , , i - f - �/ r• [ • oClea _,vl_vE pD � __ _:=.•w'J�►.}.L' - � f Ala ��� � r � .� .'4sy � . f •� � 1 ,,tom �, � r. F ` �� _ f. ) �Y���', WOEEIU.7 U7A QYi i � � • � _ •"."�� . • . �IMA,.WS C�.gRIC1tffiZ23lTESRI•. --- - ilk LE.F.waWj _ •'*� ., fig) Fanny Hill: The narrowest point (A) is 70' where the new skittle comes in and the spot *' j (B) where people click off at Timbermill is 130' �� POSS ARCHITECTURE ; PLANNING 006 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COL0R0RS 41011 (T) 0T0/RS! 4735 IF) 07 0/020 5000 .0 '. Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado C ON C E P T U A L D I A G R A M S: Ski Run Constriction Point Analysis - Fanny Hill 2OO7ARCHIITTECTUREANDPIANSNING,P.C. 07.24.07 _ .� ^•..; r � ....�� ~ � �a '�� � �� � ♦ 1: ' � r � rlx r h ' ; " :. ' � r 1 % . • e ,, l I �.,a;�s_D� s/ - ►*�.." .b �"*` •e.et '-�,.�_ ^ �• (�_ fJti.1 _� -s f r •� •f r / ~tea t t A- ..• � ,• . •�A �-''� t'r• c � f �• I ra�f. F r�°.:;.- F- 1+ /l . ' . ,i� 1_ F e. �r� ,X • / � E i. (J ^ _ _ ! U- - t R`+� :jam I ,.�"U• '1�, + ,` - '� e' .. .1�.r .L�SIP•e� � : �- .,,/ t J —v0• ,���, � _--S*�yV ' ; • � .,1� if$ f 'it?'s. Oar ` � R i 1 _ 1, +r t`e�s i Y � � � ��• ,. alp 146 ea Q l 10 ♦ s 04 VIA 4, C. j- „:.'.... � �• �' � r :f a �, Mswllee,e+t�vals Dopl+gltcl �a�o�csate,< .. ►.� ' ' ,�,: .FI - h L .�.St _ _ ...i Aspen Mountain - Lift 1 Side: The narrowest point (A) is approximately 75' where access to the lift from Norway would run up hill from the lift and under the chairs. Spot (B) just before the lift between the trees and the Mountain Queen Condominiums is approximately 245' and the first constriction point for the majority of runs (C) is approximately 275' P°SEsT ■ete STeEET esru, co'Loeeoo nett IT) e10/e2s 4755 LEI e)e/B]e 1ee0 Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS: Ski Run Constriction Point Analysis- Lift 1 �. 2007 ARCH�ECTU RE AND PLANNING. P.C. 07. Z4.O7 11", INS NIMME, - � 0 -L - _ 3 n N3AV N` 30 AJjUg -IWdI _ t\ i3iid1s Ndnr ssaooy npieE) - z w a. z CIO — Q Q QCD o�- CD o A b o ' L ^ J U O E o J 0 N CD W ao i , 0 � V) ani d U U Q q ui _ J a) s ao � @ �z CD °< o v) du Q c O Q 0 J Q w U Z O U R � O V Z RoarinfFork Lodging Cpany June 29, 2007 Joyce Allgaier Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3`d floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lift One Lodge — Conceptual PUD Application Dear Joyce: This attached information is written to provide background on the specific meeting topics for the scheduled July 10, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Review Process for the subject project. Per the meeting schedule that was provided, the discussion topics for the July 1 Od' meeting are: • Site and Infrastructure Constraints/Opportunities • Public Experience Throughout the Site • Site Plan, Uses, Massing and Zoning • Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Review for Willoughby and Lift One Parks Many of these items warrant an interactive discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission that will occur at the July 10d' meeting. We will have additional graphic presentation material to review with you and the Commission at that meeting. We look forward to the discussion and are available to meet with you in advance of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting if you have any further questions. SiPert , Ro Daniel, Jr. Roaring Fork Lodging Company 24398 State Highway 82 • P.O. Box 4560 • Basalt, Colorado 81621 • 970/927.9000p4cm • 970/927.2834�6 Lift One Lodge Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 Site and Infrastructure Constraints/Opportunities In the overall design of the master plan for the properties included within the PUD application for the Lift One Lodge there were several constraints and opportunities. Our project team tried to address each constraint and opportunity with an intention to further our master plan goals related to History, Accessibility, and Vitality. As presented during our initial meeting, those goals are: History Changes will honor the ski heritage and reinforce the role of skiing in the future Accessibility Changes will lead to increased safety, better connectivity, and more mobility Vitality Changes will increase the activities and use of the area for more residents and visitors. Changes will lead to more hot beds at base of ski area. l . Lift 1 — As discussed in the master plan presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 19, 2007, the presence of the original Lift 1 ski lift is a primary design consideration for Willoughby Park and Lift One Park. These structures are listed on the Local and National Historic Registries. At Willoughby Park in particular, enhancing the opportunity for the general public to view and access this piece of Aspen's skiing history is a major design consideration. The master plan is designed to increase activity and vitality at Willoughy Park so that residents and guests will interact with the historical assets rather than merely seeing them as artifacts. The view corridor, ski access, and pedestrian trails from the Lift 1 bottom terminal at Willoughby Park up to the towers above Gilbert Street in Lift One Park are currently obstructed by the existing parking, the `Soccer Club' building, the Deep Powder Cabins and the non -historic addition to the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse. The master plan moves parking underground, removes the non -historic portions of the Soccer Club building and Steakhouse, and relocates the Deep Powder cabins. The improvements open up views into and through the park, improve ski access, create a more park -like setting, and improve access to historic assets. 2. Parks — Prior to the development of a master plan for this area, the Applicant met with the City of Aspen Parks Department staff to understand their priorities for Willoughby and Lift One Parks. During those discussions, we learned that the Parks Department envisioned Willoughby Park becoming more of a destination within the overall system of parks throughout the City. Additionally, there was an expressed desire to maintain Lift One Park much as it is today, passive green space that could possibly be used in the winter for skiing. Currently there is little or no `community' usage of the Lift One Park parcel in the summer. Page 2 of 7 The history of Lift One Park goes back to the relocation of Lift 1 to the current location of Lift 1 A. The land for the park was donated to the City of Aspen in 1971 by the Aspen Skiing Company with the encumbrance of a skiing easement to the benefit of Aspen Skiing Company. It is our understanding that after the donation, the City of Aspen established the 51 foot by 130 foot parcel (6,630 square feet) as a part of the City park system. 3. Lift 1 A Relocation — As a part of the master plan, the Applicant worked with the Aspen Skiing Company on the relocation of the new Lift IA. As you are aware, a new lift was originally proposed during the review of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. In addition, there has been a long-standing need for a cul-de-sac at the top of Aspen Street. A cul-de-sac would improve emergency access, bring order to the current traffic mayhem at the base of the lift caused by a lack of an appropriate drop-off/pick-up area, and create the opportunity for a more enticing access to the mountain. Various scenarios were explored relative to lift location. Everything from bringing a new lift down to Willoughby Park, running a fixed guideway system in Aspen Street from Durant to a new lift location, and moving the lift slightly uphill were examined. The Aspen Skiing Company is finalizing a letter that outlines the technical and regulatory restrictions that go into the design of lift and ski corridors. In short, the constraints of the corridor and the existence of the Historic Lift 1 prohibit the creation of a terminal with appropriate skier access for a lift system in Willoughby Park. A diagram is included as Exhibit 1 to provide a graphic representation of these constraints on the property. After review of the constraints and opportunities for maintaining ski -in access, providing a cul-de-sac and meeting current ski industry safety and design standards, the master plan has evolved into relocating the lift, improving ski -in access, dedicating project land for a cul-de- sac, and providing pedestrian and transit improvements. Public Experience Throughout the Site As presented at the June 19t` Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, two of the primary objectives of the master plan are to increase accessibility and vitality in this part of Aspen. This will be accomplished through several components of the plan. 1. Willoughby Park — The existing surface parking lot along Dean Street creates a barrier to public access to the historic structures that are a part of this property. Our observation, after working in the neighborhood over the last two years, is that few people are aware of or drawn to the assets. Many people only know the site as a parking lot. The master plan offers new pedestrian connections to the Dean and Aspen Street corridors and brings park amenities to the streets. Additionally, the plan improves views into the park, provides a destination in order to draw people to the park, and removes surface parking. We believe that these improvements will increase the opportunities for the public to engage in the historic resources, including Lift 1, the relocated Deep Powder Cabins, Lift Ticket Building, Boat Tow and Outhouse. This is further explained in the section regarding the Historic Preservation Commission approval of the Conceptual Application. Page 3 of 7 2. Skiers Chalet Steakhouse — The removal of the non -historic addition to the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse opens up the corridor for skiers and provides a greater visual connection to the to the historic aspects of the building and lift towers adjacent to the Steakhouse. The adaptive reuse of the Steakhouse for employee housing offers additional vitality in the area and provides for rehabilitation of the asset. Lift One Park — Currently there is no real connection from Willoughby Park to Lift One Park due to the interruption of the non -historic addition to the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse. The removal of this structure creates a greater visual connection to Lift One Park from Willoughby Park. In response to comments from Community Development Staff regarding an alternative plan for Lift One Park, the Applicant has developed an alternative plan to leaving Lift One Park unimproved. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this memorandum are two potential improvement plans for Lift One Park that the Applicant will review and discuss with the Planning Commission at the July 10'' meeting. 4. South Aspen Street — A major focus of the master plan has been the experience along South Aspen Street from the Durant Avenue intersection to the top of the street in front of the Shadow Mountain Town Homes. At the July 10t' meeting, the Applicant will present information delineating the existing conditions and the proposed relationship between the street and lodge from a pedestrian perspective at several critical points along South Aspen Street. 5. Slopeside/Apres Ski — As a part of increasing both the accessibility and vitality of the neighborhood, the master plan provides improvements to increase the general public's use of the Lift 1 A side of Aspen Mountain. At the July I & meeting, the Applicant will provide specific information relative to the public experience and utilization in and adjacent to the ski area. 6. Lift One Lodge — As a part of the presentation on July 10'', the Applicant will provide diagrammatic information representing the portions of the facility that are open to the general public and those that are open to guests and members of the lodge. Page 4 of 7 Site Plan, Uses, Massing and Zoning Many of the components of this topic are best presented and discussed during the meeting using graphics at a large scale. Below is a description of the existing zoning and the zoning proposed in the master plan. 1. Existing/Proposed Zoning — Parcels A, B and C, which are presently owned by the SKICO, are zoned C, Conservation; these parcels house the existing Lift 1 A base area. The unimproved Summit Street right-of-way, which separates Parcel A from Parcels B and C, is also zoned C, Conservation. Hill Street, which the Applicant proposes to vacate, is zoned L, Lodge, as are Parcels D, E and F. Parcels G and H, which contain Lift One Park and Willoughby Park, respectively, are zoned Park, Historic. The immediate site area surrounding the proposed Lift One Lodge is zoned L, Lodge. To accommodate the Lift One Lodge and associated improvements to the project site' two existing parks, the Applicant proposes to rezone Parcels A, B and C and vacated Summit and Hill Streets to L, Lodge, and Parcels G and H to Pub(H), Public, Historic. The rezoning of Parcels A, B and C is required as a lodge is not a permitted use in the C, Conservation, zone district. The Applicant further proposes to place a PUD overlay over the entire project site to permit a unified approach to development and the establishment of dimensional requirements for the two Public zoned parcels. A PUD overlay is also required for the development of a timeshare lodge. A C L B C L C C L D L L E L L F L L G Park, Historic Public. Historic H Park, Historic Public, Historic Summit Street ROW C L Hill Street ROW L L Parcels A, B, C, D and E, and the Summit Street and Hill Street right-of-ways will be replatted as Lot 1 of the proposed PUD. This parcel will contain the proposed timeshare lodge. Proposed Lot 2 will contain the existing Skiers Chalet Restaurant which is to be converted to affordable housing. Lots 3 and 4 will contain the Lift One Park and Willoughby Park, respectively. The 8040 Greenline traverses Aspen Mountain immediately above the project site. The Aspen city limits line roughly parallels the 8040 Greenline further up Aspen Mountain. In general, the C, Conservation zone district is confined to those areas of the City which are Page 5 of 7 located above the 8040 Greenline. The only areas within the city limits which are located below the 8040 and zoned C, Conservation, are the Little Nell and Lift IA base areas. The existing and proposed zoning districts are shown on Exhibit 3 to this memorandum. Page 6 of 7 Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Review for Willoughby and Lift One Parks As previously mentioned, the master plan that is a part of the Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD/Timeshare Application has components that are a part of the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures"; the Boat Tow, Lift 1— Tower and Skiers Chalet Steakhouse. These structures and the sites on which they sit are subject to the review of the Historic Preservation Commission. In March 2006, the Applicant submitted an application for a Major Development (Conceptual) Relocation, Demolition and Variances for these properties. The application was reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission in Resolution 12, Series of 2006. A copy of this Resolution is attached as Exhibit 4. 1. Willoughby Park — The location of the Aspen Historical Society Museum was a significant part of the aforementioned Historic Preservation Commission review. The major consideration was the placement of this facility and its relationship to Dean Street as well as the surrounding historical assets of Lift 1 and the Ticket Building. Attached as Exhibit 5 are two diagrams which provide context for the discussion that led to the ultimate approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Alternative B represents the general location of the Museum that was approved as a part of Resolution 12. Further discussion regarding the review process will be presented by the Aspen Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie at the July 10'' meeting. Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 1 —W Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado POSS ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING O0 - !i CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS: Tramway/Lift Corridor Study 0 3'2'-- 12V ILL 1 POSS AND (7 ) 970 / 925 4755 (F) 970 / 920 2250 NORTH M (D 2007 NCI-IffECTUREMI&G, P.C. 06.29.07 Exhibit 2 /"7i1 Ir Pros: • Maintains the openness of the existing park per City of Aspen Parks Department requests • Uncluttered ski run during the winter • Low maintenance Cons: . -------------------------------------------------------- • Limited shading and defined gathering / g g g spaces �wr- OGfRfl+NQ� �� / '1 • Less park like and more ski run like compared to Alternate B ��.r a Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado PUSS ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING®INfCONCEPTUAL C E P T U A L DIAGRAMS: Lf` l Park Study -Alternate ATIN 2BAUNN,o 1a zo 2A m 9701923 4755 tri 0101920 2950 NOH ARCHITECTUREP.C. .. r��,..s rE { 01F Pros: ----------------------------------------------------------- • Greater shading and more defined gathering spaces within the park • More park like than Alternate A while still maintaining the ski run • Deciduous trees will soften the lodge structure in summer while opening up the park during winter Ste/ T/)Sars/Fft /ram E5 S Cons: ----------------------------------------------------------- • Restricts the current openness of the ski run ` • Greater maintenance requirements GlY�! • Non historic plantings Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado P �$$ ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS: Lift 1 Park Study - Alternate B 2p 0 0 >a zo' MIlli 2007 BILL POSSAND ASSOCIATES D to 0701925 4755 to 9701920 2050 NORTH ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. 06.29.07 Exhibit 3 O 610] L, 110, W 12,Wri W [ 10, BOP 00allslS 9 !O] I 9101 1107 ■ 9101 h 2 ^ ■ 110, 1Z w ^e 1101 11107 110, QI °O wQ q� ■ z � a� fIf ) Fibl *I TORIC �f H IEIS Z d z 10] w Q I o m Me 4� z 107 L 10, P 1p] O (L �o `1101 �I I � V �^ I ■ r 10] 11 10, 1 10] ■ I L, .977 1 MAY 7NY7 AWYEV Oors'le SLZ Nd JOY 71A N! /lOIY 00vH'9 1006Z1 ISEGZ N L, OD E t R-15, MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Z W CL Q I I C, CONSERVATION I EXISTING ZONING — - — - — - - - Zone District Boundaries I --------- 8040Greenline Lift One Lodge Aspen City Limits Aspen, Colorado po$$ ARCr,, I SUTURE + PLANNING I CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS • IlI Existing Zoning 3ABILL Pons AND Aoo Ro u 2007 aENsM,P.0to 0101923 4755 to 9701920 2250 NORTH 6.29.07 Z w r2 Q NG Jaries --------- 8040Greenline Lift One Lodge — — Aspen City Limits Aspen, Colorado PUSS ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 0 0 �� CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS • Proposed Zoning 3p M11 2007 BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES D in 91U/925 4755 cn 070/920 2990 NORTH Q ARCHITECTURE AND P NNG,P.C. 06.29.07 Exhibit 4 %n% NOV. 9.2006 3:23PM IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -NO 9176 P. 1/4 ■' ■- ��I, �`����� l�` ����� �i�� 1111 10/31 /2006 01:21F 11lll�l l��ii �lilil 111� 1�111 E JONICE K V05 CAUDILL P1TK1N COUNTY CO R 21.00 D 0,00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, (DEMOLITION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT WILLOUGHB'Y PARK, LIFT 1 PARK, AND 710 S. ASPEN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.21, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL ID: Willoughby Park (PID# 2735-131-16-851), Lift 1 Park (PID# 2735-131-19-851), and 710 S. Aspen Street (PID# 2735-131-21.001) WHEREAS, the applicants, Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge- Aspen, LLC, with authorization by the Aspen Historical Society and the City of Aspen, and represented by Poss Architecture and Planning have requested Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the properties at Willoughby Patk (PID# 2735-131-16-851), which is located on.jhe corner of Dean and South Aspen Streets and is described as Lots 1-14, Block 7 and Lots 1-3, Black 8, Eames. Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, Skier's Chalet Steakhouse (PID# 2735-131-21-001), which is located at 710 S. Aspen Street and is described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado and Lift 1 Park (PID# 2735-' 131-19-851) which is bounded by Gilbert Street and Hill Street and is described as Lots 3, 4 (partial), 11 (partial) and 12 of BIock 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 f the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enl ged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or dis ict until flans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Developmen Director and approved in accordance with the procedures ,established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conform,ance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415,070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, that: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3_ The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or NOV, 9. 2006 3; 24PM IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO. 9176 P. 2/4 530468 10 /3 Page, 2 08 4 Of# 10/3i/200a 01 .21F JRNJCE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 b 0.00 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building; structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for apnrovai to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: l , It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; ar 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be rnet: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and ' WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26,415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the variance- a- Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 9, 2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen NOV. 9. 2006 3:24PM _WUNITY DEVELOPMENT a"0.9176 P. 3i4 630468 ��I�11 I�� llill ills! �I11111 ill ����� Ilil Illl 10/31 /2006 81 121F JRNICE K VOB CAUDSLL vISK1N COUNTY CO R 21 .00 D 0.00 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 9, 2006, with a quorum present for the meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 3 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the affected properties with the following conditions: 1. The approved site plan is labeled as "Iteration B." For Final Review, the applicant is required to restudy the eastern stair and elevator exit from the garage to potentially incorporate them into the museum structure, reinforcing the prominence of the museum along. Dean Street. 2, HPC approves the following variances related to the existing Skiers Chalet Steakhouse: a ° 5 foot front yard setback variance, and 5 foot setback variances on both sideyards. 3. Additional details on the rehabilitation of the historic resources (the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, Lift Towers, Outhouses, Ticket Office, and Deep Powder Cabins) on the affected properties will be required at Final 14PC Review. Details on the relocation and renovation of the Skier's Chalet Lodge shall also be provided, 4. Once the Skier's Chalet Lodge has been relocated to Willoughby Park, the landmark designation of Willoughby Park will be amended to recognize the Lodge (the new museum) as a contributing historic resource. 5. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within two years of August 9, 2006 or the Conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415,070.D.3.e,3 of the Municipal Code. 6. For Final HPC Review, the board requires the applicant to restudy leaving the large conifer tree, currently proposed for relocation, in its current location. 6. For Final HPC Review, the applicant is required to restudy the spacing of the vertical slats in the revised western egress building (Option B). 7. A structural report from a licensed or the housemover must be submitted, demonstrating that the Skier's Chalet Lodge building can be moved and providing information about how it will be stabilized, This information must be submitted as part of the building permit application related to the Skiers Chalet Lodge. 8, A bond or letter of credit in the amount of 530,000 to insure the safe relocation of the historic structures (Skiers Chalet Lodge and Lift Towers) must be submitted with the building permit application. This dollar figure may be revisited based on the perceived risks involved in moving the buildings when further information about the relocation process is provided, 9. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of August 2006. NOV, 9.2006 3:24PM IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N0.9176 P. 4/4 Approved as to Form: I I4IHI 4fl Illy IIIII HMI �If ICI( IIII�IIIIIIIIfII 0g468 0L.=IF pP JRNICE K V05 CRUDLLL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.00 i Davi Hoefer, Assistant tity Attorney Approved s to content: HISTORICPHESEOIVATION COMMISSION Jeffre Ha ferry, Chair _ lr A T Tc fhy St cl and, Chief Deputy Clerk b PEASE RETURN To CITY CLERK f30 S. CAIENA ASPEN co 9161, 0 Exhibit 5 -E! T �H SIT )OS WIN AZTEC CONDOS �A� lNI�INT/}/ "R11 S ! Cl dowi ' 1 " S , A4Cf" ! ! I I TELEMARK APTS j 0 Pros: ----------------------------------------------------------- • Strengthens the openness of the public park along Dean Avenue --- • Maintains the historic relationship of the Lodge to grade and South Aspen Street ! • Doesn't overwhelm Dean Avenue • Maintains the current status of the ! remaining views to the lift ! • Establishes the historic relationship of the Deep Powder Cabins to the street � Cons: I-- -------------------------------------------------------- I • Reduces Museum accessibility from the street • Restricts the openness along the lift line between the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and the lift terminal • Weaker relationship of the Deep Powder Cabins to the museum as compared to Alternate B • No defined event space for the Museum Lift One lodge Aspen, Colorado pOSS ARCHITECTURE . PLANNING O C ON C E P T U A L D I A G R A M S: Museum / Lodge Location Study - Alternate A 0 16' 37 sw BILL PDSS AND ASSOCIATE 5A to 970 / 925 4735 u) 270 / 920 vse NORTH 0 2007 ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNIMG, P.C. 06.29.07 r� u 4 AZTEC TELEMARK CONDOS APTS I� I it I I ONJiY y� p �ufP ACG pOSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING 0 I®��S�6N SOS EAST MAIN STS7FT ASPRIL CSISEAII 81911 0 Z V 64 (TI 1 70/9 10 4735 (T) 9701810 200E NORTH Pros: ----------------------------------------------------------- • Museum highly visible and easily accessible • Preserves the existing relationship of the Lodge structure to a street • Creates out door museum space for special events that does not directly impact the rest of the park • Less crowding in front of the lift as compared to Alternate A Cons: ----------------------------------------------------------- • Removes Deep Powder Cabins from their historic relationship to the street • Less efficient use of available park open space • More impactful to the Southpoint neighbors due to proximity and height along Dean Avenue • Limits openness of the public park • Reduces efficiency of the garage below due to required storage and gallery space on lower portion of the site Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado C ON C E P T U A L D I A G R A M S: Museum / Lodge Location Study - Alternate B O 2007 ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNNIk, P.C. 06.29.07 MEMORANDUM TO: Joyce Allgaier and Jessica Garrow FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Operations Manager DATE: June 22, 2007 RE: LIFT ONE LODGE /PUD & TIMESHARE LODGE DEVELOPMENT Parcel ID # 2735-131-19-001; -002;-21-001 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting conceptual planned unit development (PUD) and timeshare approval for the development of a new lodge, its associated affordable housing, a public parking garage, and a ski museum. BACKGROUND: The development is proposed on several adjacent parcels of land located on the east side of South Aspen Street between Dean Street and the base of Aspen Mountain. The project site consists of six privately owned parcels of land. Two additional parcels are owned by the City of Aspen that are proposed to accommodate a parking garage, ski museum and various other related park and public improvements. This memo will relate only to the mitigation requirements for employee housing and the employee housing units themselves. The applicant is proposing the following: • On Lot 1, a membership lodge in the form of a timeshare lodge; the applicant will maintain control of the facilities their operation. A minimum of 256 membership interests will be established, equivalent to 8 membership interests per lodge unit. When not occupied, the lodge units will be available for nightly rental to the general public. • The former Holland House Lodge will be demolished and the Skiers Chalet Lodge will be relocated to Lot 4 and converted to a ski museum. • A public parking garage will be constructed beneath Lot 4, with the existing surface parking on Lot 4 and the on street parking within South Aspen Street to be relocated to this new subgrade garage. • The historically designated Skiers Chalet Steak House, proposed on Lot 2, will be renovated and converted to deed -restricted employee housing. The parking garage and the redevelopment of the Skier's Chalet Steak Housing into employee housing was approved by the Historical Preservation Commission on August 9, 2006. • The base of Lift I will be replaced with a new high-speed detachable chairlift. • Rezoning will need to take place on some of the lots to allow for public, park and historic uses. • The proposed lodge, which is to be known as the Lift One Lodge, will consist of a single multi -level structure to contain 32 lodge units, 5 employee housing units, and various guest amenities including a spa and fitness facility, a public restaurant and bar, a business center, a ski concierge, a ski storage/tuning area, and a rooftop pool and terrace. Three of the lodge units will be configured as multi -level townhouses. A total of 85 keys, or separately rentable divisions, will be contained in the 29 unit lodge suites. The lodge's five on -site employee -housing units will consist of three one -bedroom units and two two -bedroom units to contain a minimum of 600 to 850 square feet. These units create a mitigation amount of 9.75 employees (1.75 per one -bedroom unit and 2.25 per two -bedroom unit). These units are proposed as Category 2 units and will be offered for rent to the lodge's employees. A 1 /10`h of 1 % ownership shall be conveyed to APCHA on these five units. The replacement of the existing lodge and commercial development is exempt from growth management and any associated employee -housing mitigation requirements. The former Holland House contains 20 lodge units and one free-market residential unit. The Skier Chalet Lodge contains 10 lodge units while the former Skier's Chalet Steak House contains 8 lodge units. The demolition of the existing free-market residential unit is subject to the City's Resident Multi - Family Replacement Program. The proposed lodge's commercial uses (the spa and fitness area, the restaurant, kitchen and bar, and the Ski Co. facility) is proposed to contain approximately 11,677 square feet of net leasable area. The applicant is proposing to remove a non -historic addition to the existing Skier Chalet Steak House located on Lot 2 and restore and convert the remainder of the structure to deed -restricted employee housing. The interior will be reconfigured as six one -bedroom units — five of the units to contain in excess of 600 square feet of net livable area while the remaining unit will contain approximately 581 feet. This unit contains slightly less than the minimum net livable area required for a one -bedroom unit, but the reduction is less than 5% of the required square footage and the structure carries a historic designation. The six units will be deed -restricted to Category 2 and provide mitigation of 10.5 employees (6 X 1.75). Again, the applicant is requesting the ability to rent to lodge employees with a 1/10`h of 1% interest being conveyed to APCHA. MITIGA TION REQUIREMENTS: No employee housing mitigation is required for 38 of the proposed lodge's 97 keys and the 2,429 square feet of the lodge's 9,415 square feet of associated net leasable commercial area. The site's existing reconstruction credits cover this development. According to Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, 60% of the employees generated by the lodge units are mitigated through the provision of employee housing or cash -in -lieu thereof, however, if the project qualifies as an Incentive Lodge project pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.3, then only 30% of the employees generated by the lodge units shall be mitigated. The applicant is bringing forward this application as an Incentive Lodge project so pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.3.e), 30% of the employees generated by the additional lodge units and associated commercial area must be mitigated. 2 59 Lodge Suite Keys X 0.5 Employees/Key = 29.5 Employees 29.5 Employees X 30% = 8.9 Employees The proposed lodge's spa and fitness facility, restaurant, bar and kitchen contain 9,415 square feet of which 2,429 is a credit leaving 6,986 square feet subject to employee housing mitigation. Based on an employee generation rate of 4.1 employees per 1,000 square feet, the lodge's remaining net leasable commercial area will generate 28.7 employees of which 8.6 must be mitigated. 6,986 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable Area =1,000 Sq. Ft = 7.0 7.0 X 4.1 Employees/1,000 Sq. Ft. = 28.7 Employees Generated 28.7 Employees Generated X 30% = 8.6 Employees The proposed SKICO facility will contain 2,262 square feet of net leasable commercial area of which 1,317 is subject to employee housing mitigation. 1,317 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable Area _ 1,000 Sq. Ft = 1.3 1.3 X 4.1 Employees/1,000 Sq. Ft. = 5.3 Employees Generated 5.3 Employees Generated X 30% =1.6 Employees A total of 19.1 employees must be mitigated. However, the demolition of the free-market residential unit falls under the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program which requires an additional mitigation requirement of .5 employee -housing unit containing a minimum of 0.5 bedrooms and 489 square feet of net livable area. A total of 20.25 employees will be housed within the proposed subdivision/PUD. If you assume that one of the one -bedroom employee -housing units is used to satisfy the mitigation requirements in connection with the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program, the remaining ten units will house 18.5 employees sufficient to mitigate the 17.5 employees generated by the new lodge units and net leasable commercial area. The Aspen Skiing Company has agreed to satisfy the 1.6 employee mitigation requirement associated with the expansion of the SKICO Lift 1 A facility. The form of mitigation is to be provided by the Aspen Skiing Company in the final PUD application. All mitigation is satisfied on -site except for the 1.6 FTE to be provided by the Aspen Skiing Company for the expansion of the SKICO Lift I facility. RECOMMENDATION. The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held June 20, 2007 and recommend approval under with the following conditions: The 11 units (9 one -bedrooms and 2 two -bedrooms) mitigate for a total of 20.25 employees. A total of 19.1 employees must be mitigated plus an additional mitigation requirement of .5 employee housing unit containing a minimum of .5 bedrooms and 489 square feet of net livable area. One of the one -bedroom units shall mitigate for the .5 3 bedroom and 489 square feet of net livable requirement under the Resident Multi - Family Replacement Program leaving 8 one -bedroom units and 2 two -bedroom units that mitigate for 18.5 employees. This leaves a balance of .6 to be mitigated; however, the Aspen Ski Company has stated that they will mitigate for 1.6 employees associated with the expansion of the SKICO Lift 1 A Facility. Prior to Final Plat approval, the 1.6 mitigation requirement needs to be presented to the Housing Office for review and acceptance. 2. Each employee -housing unit shall have one reserved parking space located in the below -grade parking structure. 3. The units can be rental units but the deed restriction will state that the units will become ownership units at such time the APCHA deems any of the units out of compliance over a period of one year or more. At such time, the units will be listed through the APCHA for sale as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 price in effect from the date of recording of said deed -restriction appreciated at 3% or CPI, whichever is less, to the time of the listing. 4. The two -bedroom units must meet minimum occupancy. 5. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units. Since the project is a mixed deed-restricted/commercial project, the assessments shall some how e based on the value of the commercial component compared to the deed -restricted value of said units. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. 6. Should City Council approve the 11 one -bedroom units as rental units, the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the units such that 1/101" of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. 7. The deed -restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4 AZTEC FUTURE CHART CONDOS OUSE REDEVELOPMEN ASPEN MOUNTAIN TOWNHOUSES CCONDOS IN QUEEN TELEMARK LINSE CASCADE APARTMENTS TOWN- SILVER HOMES SHADOW CONDOS CARIBOU CONDOS TRAIL TO CONNECT —TO TELEMARK APARTMENTS 14.5' 1_.5 4).5 -- _— — _ DOUNSEK TIE INTO -- — -- -- -- �-. ELEVATOR esr RESIDENCE EXISTING ' 7 & STAIRS IP KING GARAGE — PARKING ENTRY I EXISTING ACCESS FENCE TO SHUTTLE 7 RELOCATED REMAIN LIFT ONE LODGE 1 / STOP I DEEP POW DER RELOCATED SKIER'S CABINS '_1UNDISTURBED CHALET LODGE/ 5 AREA - A ASPEN HISTORIC CRUSHER 1 SOCIETY SKI EXISTING 'O — — — K ❑ MUSEUM FINES FENCE TO BE HISTORIC a LIMITS OF ROOF GARDENS PATH REM VED,• OUTHOUSE A0.3• j I I REFERENCE ROOF GARDENS I I I m rLOT FOUR '—' v _ ' 1 I 1 'LOT ONEJ SOUTH POINT z i - 31' 1 CONDOS m HISTORIC LIFT 1 1 "`—" I r— r i r z. OT TWO --- ---- — — —, I 26 I m WILLOUGHBY __ ISTORICTICKET - - ACCESS PARK •`� BOOTH I i 1 APRES SKI STAIRS TO PARKING 1 LIFT ONE LODGE I---- )= I TERRACE .a HISTORIC 3.a5 OUTHOUSE GARAGE. l Iz I. 9.3' 5.4' I ,� J' 6' car ASPEN SKIING 9 COMPANY nSOUTH ASPEN STREET 28' _ROW MOUNAINN — ELEVATOR �'- JUAN ` y , STREET — ACCESS m \\V___—__—__—__—__—_ _—_____—__— REHABILITATED LIFT ONE SKIERS CHALET CONDOS STEAK HOUSE LODGE AT LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNIAIN ASPEN MOUNTAIN •� I Z/\I.A MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOS LIFT ONE LODGE SITE PLAN xox>H LEGEND aCONCRETE PAVING SPECIALTY PAVING ❑ SPECIALTY STONE PAVING CRUSHER FINES PAVING —BUILDING BELOW LIFT ONE LODGE ROOF GARDENS I Q A -A la -1 P/ :i� io %(°I w.-fK6_. LIFT ONE LODGE Aspen, Colorado po$$ ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING ®�ES�6N CONCEPTUAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 16 i!S FaJi lia• sil1E[T .f Hl G6 11111 lil Omm k:F= . _� 6.14.07 (1)!)!!9]S i)!! (i)!)U)!]0 291. ]!SD 15 w w cn w- m J LMI Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado SS cxs*9s Er XSYEX. CO109X09 9i9""' ae9us 6th LEVEL FLOOR PLAN il 0/ NOH 0M07k%r"06.14-07 Property Line poss ;,RCHITE,"JURE4 Pb,,vr ING 905 FIST YII■ STREET I59FL E....00 91911 0 9' I6' 1 ITI 97-25 4755 IF) 9701920 2250 NORM Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado 7th LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 23 Property Line ............ .... _CVesri%F7a... . • f2opf.-.-.-.•. a i-- ----I- ............. ............................... .... I .'.•Roof'.•.'-•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.'. t _ _Lodge Suite I a I' 1 — — i —01 + — — — — Greerif.Flat:.,.:. ® Lode' Suite ..flo6f- aze — ---- ------ o,_,te W -- —— — — — — — — I W a -. (_ — 5el— �� V/ a -- L�t 1 Parma Lodge Smte a29 �— — — Service C�yy Key 9' . . . . . . . . . . . . I � 1 "Ysc Lodge Suite I n28 1 �' ` j 0 o Apres Ski Deck � o c Existing Tree to be SOUTH ASPEN STREET Lift One lodge Aspen, Colorado po$$ ARC HITEMIRE �'L Y:����diING 8th LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 24 ses usr rue :Herr eeesiseeso eisn s e• a 0 adw K' n.lSN� h:.1:.....� 06.14.07 rn slo 1 eps 4753 RY no192s 2950 NORIH \--" Ys• Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado PR SS t`ARCHiIECIURE t PLANNING 5 ROOF PLAN 03 [9St Y.IN ST9[[t 93Pfq CO109190 8�9�1 O IT) 8I0/993 .)SS M 970/920 2950 NORTH o2W�nr[xna�...ar. 06.1407 2 MEASURED HEIGHTS 1 20=0' 2 26'-31/2" 3 38' 71/2" 31'--2 112" 4 33'3' 5 27'--0' 6 45' 5" 37'--7" 7 1 29' 11 " 8 36 -8" 9 41'--3" 33' 9 112" 10 35-0' 11 44=5" 32'8" 12 26' 3" 13 39'8" 35'--1" 14 23'6' 15 26-6" 16 20'-0" 17 13' 5 112" 18 37' 10' 19 42'--10" 37' 10" 20 20-11" 20'9" 21 44' 10. 44' 10" 22 48'6" 48'6" 23 43' 10" 43' 10" 24 48' 6" 48' 6" 25 37-0" 37'-0" 26 42'-4" 42=4" 27 31'0" 29'0" 28 40' 0" 37'--0" 29 42' 1 " 38.6" 30 33'--1 " 31 26'0" 32 36.1" 32-3" 33 34' I" 34 30'0" 35 33'--9" 33=9" = HEIGHT GREA TER THAN 42 FEET ABOVE GRADE BY CODE p s s 5 FSSL Y�IM STi[[t .SY[R CO [ON�00 91611 0 6' Ifl 9]0/9�3 .]SS Ifl 9]Of 9]0 ]930 %�j �I�I�III�I�I�I����I�II�I�IIII t■�■ ��) /I`—�II�II_ III-IIIa�L=_■ ■-I —------____ it —. PIT, ■ A�II�IIIIIiIII:��ililiililiilililiI•�1 IU Illll�l l�A,— III �i� I111111111 '�' II1111111�1 ■ ■Ili Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN o30 - .. .... 06.14.07 v C z z ti V) m m LIFT ONE LODGE SITE PLAN LIFT ONE LODGE - PRELIM. PLANTING LIST BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME DECIDUOUS SHADEISTREET TREES Fraxinus penits hanica'Summ iY ISummit Ash Populus an ustrfolla I NamoAleaf CottonAood Sorbus aucupana 'Cardinal Ro ar Cardinal Royal Mountain Ash ORNANENTALTREES Malus'Spnn Snow/ S -n Snow Crabs e Populus tremulotdes Quaking Aspen Prunus mrginiana'ShuberY lCanada Red Chokecherry EVERGREEN TREES P ices pungens Colorado Spruce Pmus Ponderosa Pondemsa Pine SHRUBS Amelanchier alnrfolia Saskatoon SerAceberry Artemesia filifolia Sand Sagebrush Caragara arborescens Sibenan Peashrub Comus s. 'Balleyi Bailey's Redtw.ig Dogwood Comus s. 1santi' Isanti Dogwood Cytisus pas ans'Spanish Gold Spanish Gold Broom Juniperus sabina'Broadmoon Broadmoor Juniper Lon"ra imolucrata Twinberry Honeysuckle Permskia atnpiicrfolia Russian Sage Philadelphus x wginalis 'DAerf Snowflake' DwarfSnowflake Mockorange Picea abies'Nidiformis' Bird's Nest Spruce Pinus mugo Slomnound' Slowmound Mugo Pine Potertttlla fruticosa )Coronation Triumph' Coronation Tnumph Potentilla Prunus besseyi Pawnee Buttes Creeping Western Sand Cherry Ribes AI inum IAIpine Currant Rosa Woodsii Nati%e Pink Shrub Rose S mphoricapros oreophilis IMountain Snowberry ISynnge sp I Lilac species PERENNIALS Achllea Moonshine' Moonshine Yarrow Aglaklgia sp. Columbine Aster x.f.'Monch L"nder Blue Aster Centranthus nrber Red Valerian Garsardia aristata Nah a Blanket Flog Geranium sanguineum Bloody Cranesbill Hdenium autumnale Srteezeweed Helk;totnchon semperwens Blue Arena Grass Leucanthemum x.s 'Alaska' Alaska Shasta Daisy Lmum perenne Blue Flax Lupmn sp Lupine Mahonia repens Creeping Mahonia Miscanthus sp. Maiden Grass Penstemon sp Penstemon Redbeckia is. 'Gcldstlum' Goldsturm Black Eyed Susan Santa n. May Night' May Night SaMa pOSS .1 —1.. T 11—k PLA1— O mmm !0! .1 , fTSFET �S.r1 LDta. rlrlr 0 11 ]0' !V IT; S)O/!]! .1$5 111 910IS]0 ]S!O aatll PLANTED ROOF (MAINT ...— .11— —1— LIFT ONE LODGE ROOF GARDENS LEGEND EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREES PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SHADE/STREET TREES PROPOSED SHRUBS PROPOSED PERENNIALS TURF/NATIVE GRASS MIX PLANTED ROOF NATIVE SEED MIX LIFT ONE LODGE Aspen, Colorado CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 38 otx/ a ._ 6.14.07 -1 LIFT ONE LODGE SITE PLAN NOTES: 1) SEE FINAL PUD PLANS FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ROW, GRADING & DRAINAGE, AND UTILITIES. 2) SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR PLANT LIST. 3) SITE AND EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING TO BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 4) EXTERIOR BUILDING FIXTURE TYPE TBD. 5)NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTICAL CODES SHALL GOVERN THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF WORK. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE DRAWINGS AND APPLICABLE CODE, THE CODE SHALL PREVAIL AND INSTALLAION SHALL BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDTIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF LIGHTING EQUIPMENT. 6)LOCATION OF FIXTURES AS SHOWN IS SCHEMATIC. LOCATIONS OF EXTERIOR AND SITE FIXTURES TO BE VERIFIED PER FINAL ARCHITECTURE AND SITE PLANS. 7) ALL EXTERIOR FIXTURES TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ASPEN LIGHTING ORDINANCE. 8) TYPE, LOCATION, AND NUMBER OF LOW-LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES AT OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES TBD. 9) EXTERIOR DOOR LOCATIONS ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. LEGEND: Exterior fixture Pedestrian fixture LIFT ONE LODGE ROOF GARDENS nannt LIFT ONE LODGE Aspen, Colorado PoS C-I 1 — 117 �iURE�PDO S ,d w ,'I SS.SS)SS "1 w Im � mol CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN �(� .w . 6.14.o7 J LIFT ON RTNERS • Roaring Fork Club • Snowmass Village • Long history in area 4. . • Record of partnerships '!�Illit and responsibility to community and environment • Long Term business plan ONTEXT • 60th Year of Skiing of MourApin i'Itis MASTER PLAN EVOLUTION • Holland House • Assemblage for master plan • Skico Property • Skiers Chalet • City Parcels • Historical Society relationship II_II 1 1 �Al • Iterative planning- neighbors, community goals and policies, financial/market realities N GOALS ,�eritage and reinforce the role of skiing IF, Changes will lead to increased safety, better connectivity, ar3d more _. C Now, se t • a VRies and ^use of,th er more resident ;s .ors. ar stkVkl,l d"Mi ar � S,ieR.S �pr om TeRMfv'ff.,W<h!c.+�r *''ib� i '6> s� • it � �i'. COMMUNITY INFLUENCES • AACP . ., • Economic Report • Lodge Inc District f COMMUNITY INFLUENCES • AACP • Econory Report • Lodge Incenl,— District — Ll� COMMUNJIMINFLUENCES • AACP • Economic S ta Report • Lodgelncen District 0011M I Ftww A 3. I -W PLANNIN • Regional • city 4 } � • Neighborhoo ENCES COMMUf� IFLUENCES • 1991 Vote- Museum F 09 • Dean St. Plan • Canary Initiative �., 0 W' ► ► ►[r 1� fir! J�� • H istory • Site PLAN NIN NCES S.. Sirn.nna,. j PAST PLANNING INFLUENCES HISTORY PRESENT PLANNING ,UENCES .. Ift 1c, ��� ��, 111111 1 !1� i t J -F. PLANNING INFLUENCES SITE EXyfp� ✓ • PLANNIN View Anaiy_,:: t` CES PLANNING INFLUENCES SITE Historic Preservation •Ticket Booth •Skiers Chalet Lodge •Skiers Chalet Steak House •Deep Powder Cabins PLANNING 1TONCES Restoration and *Affordable Housing •Ski Museum •Historic Park Reuse ..d PLANNING INFLUENCES Parking, i •Eniry s...�. *162& •S,ih t� •hi; C P5ti - PLANNING INFLUENCES USE Points of Destination •Museum •Park •Ski Lift PLANNING INFLUENCES USE PLANNING INFLUENCES USE Ski Patterns •Evolving •Unsafe Encroachment, •Private i Public Use PLANNING IN USE Boundaries ENCES i1�11IT" I ►• USE Points of Interaction •Ski Museum •Ticketing •Lift Access •Apres Ski •Ski Through PLANNIN(MWLUENCES On Site Affordable Housing. Lodgim, PLANNING INFLUENCES USE PLANNING INFLUENCES USE Lodge Amenities • ,ut. An irkkmwdOthw,fa ie r+$mo�sore reeWhok§ rap& WsddrAuFdh more hot beds at base of ski area. a lk �.mono rL� • Strong history • Little connection to greater community • Neglected present • Lack of gathering • Questions about place future rt Forf. r. "f ; 17 W1 • New Ski Museum • Stop deterioration of historic assets • Relocated Volleyball Courts • Park becomes a Usable Park • Parking Moved Underground • Deep Powder and Skiers Chalet Lodge adaptive reuse and Historic Designation SKIERS CH ARK heir+• ." EAKHOUSE .lk T • , _ Continued Deterioration of -- --- _ Historic Structure t ► `' Non -Historic Addition Constrains Skiing No Permanent Ski Access — wd SKIERS CH • Affordable Housing • Preservation of Historic Asset • Removal of Non -Historic Addition Ac KHOUSE • Icy, Dangerous Road • No Pedestrian Access • Difficult Mountain Access • No Sense of Destination or Arrival a Street improvements ° Renewable energy onmwme|t ° Sidewa|koforaufe Lax- pedestrian access ^ Disabled access -^~ ~ Transit service , Sense ofarrival _ m* ° Lost Vitality ° NoGathering Place " Dilapidated Facilities 0 4 21 LODGING • Meets Standards of Lodge Incentive District • Western Portion — Pedestrian` Scale w/ Varied Roof Lines • Eastern Portion — Articulated _so'{"' �rm1c.. for Ski Access • Green Roofs k • Hot Beds at Base of Lift • Combination of Membership and Daily Rental • Vitality • 97 Keys • Fully staffed, on -site front desk in lobby • Non specific unit ownership, 97 separate keys in 32 suites • Available rooms listed with Stay Aspen • Lodge amenities open to all guests i • Combination provides hottest Beds, 100% Lodge, No Free Market ASKING Vacate Unused and Isolated Rights of Way Rezoning of Park to Public for Museum and other Public Facilities and Conservation to Lodge to Increase Bed Base And Public Amenities at the Base Variance of Height for Elevator and Trellis nor , Free Market Units Height Variance (Beyond Elevator Overrun and Roof Trellis) Setback Variance Additional FAR Off -Site Employee Housing COMMUNITY BENEFITS f.; Stabilized Historic Assets Aspen Historical Society Permanent Ski Access t..a.TTOM TcR•�+�hTF-.W�n+�aM4��Esrs'.ri <.Fr.'/f.>�cN� Como, COMMUNITY BENEFITS Speed Lift Pedestrian Improvements Safe Accessible Parking Skier Accessibility _ � 1 s �.AeTTaM Tt Rti'I�h,f%-, 14, �,. �'1► yo.�pesTS?i <�FT, ffn N COtiO, , A=6 M On Site Affordable Housing taurant _ Willoughby Park Public Ski Facilities =""� Lodging — Hot Beds CPO/lei. tI I AN �7rOM Ttr l(M.A �{t•, YV. rtr-..1► Gs�pIEST_s Ti .: �F'r, /{., �c.v4 Ce= v. �,� � �+y, MAST►N GOALS 4 26 7� 97j, A 27 m TO: THRU: FROM; RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director 6�0 Jessica Garrow, Planner M C? Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare Review — Public Hearing Applicant Overview of Project June 11, 2007 ,J t a ph C' P/ I - SUMMARY: The Conceptual PUD application for Lift One Lodge has many components and Staff has requested the applicant present an overview to the Commission. This is being done for two reasons: 1) The project has a number of components that are intended make up a "larger picture." Understanding that larger picture initially will make the topic reviews more efficient and less confusing. 2) Major threshold issues that need to be addressed during the conceptual review can be identified up -front and the Applicant can further address these issues and/or Staff can research/analyze the issues as needed. Staff intends this session as primarily an informative meeting with more in-depth substantive review sessions occurring on July 3, July 17, and July 24. Staff envisions this presentation to be approximately 30 minutes the remainder of the meeting reserved for Commissioner and public clarification questions. Staff will also present an overview of the required reviews and the public hearing timeline. This initial meeting, and the entire conceptual process with the Commission, will be administered as a public hearing. The public should be given an opportunity to ask clarification questions and/or request further exploration into certain issues. Staff is suggesting that there are a number of threshold questions to be answered during this conceptual review. These are summarized below. As part of this overview, the Commission should determine if these are indeed the threshold issues or if the list needs to be amended to add or delete issues. Staff recommends the Commission ask the applicant team clarification questions about the application, establish the threshold issues to be addressed during this. Conceptual Review, and continue the public hearing to July 3, 2007. THRESHOLD ISSUES: The Community Development Department Staff is suggesting the following threshold issues be addressed during this Conceptual Review. Staff has limited the issues to the categories of land use, intensity, and spatial relationships. This being an initial review, more detailed issues may be more appropriate for Final PUD/Timeshare Review. During the applicant's initial overview presentation, the Commission should review this list of topics and determine if additional items need to be addressed during this Conceptual Review. • Overall Site plan. Includes location of all accepted uses. • Lodge/Timeshare Function. Operational characteristics. • Park Sites. Programming of spaces and adjacent uses. • Pedestrian connections/experience. Park connections, street/sidewalk upgrades. • Street/Infrastructure Upgrades. Snowmelting Aspen St, moving parking into garage, energy usage. • Parking. For all uses, overlap between uses. • Emergency access. Turn -around area. • Restaurant. Capacity, orientation to various uses, location. • Affordable Housing. Category, type of units. • HPC Conceptual Approval. Willoughby Park, Lift 1 Park, Deep Powder Cabins. REMINDERS: 1. The Site Visit will be at noon on the 191h. A shuttle van will be available from the alley behind City Hall at noon or meet us on -site. Please wear comfortable shoes in order to walk the site. 2. The application has already been distributed and Commission member should bring their copy to the overview presentation. sWt*I+ w/ arf IhA*1h o rI-t ce,0(1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner RE: Schedule for P&Z Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare Review DATE: June 11, 2007 Before the Commission is the Conceptual PUD and Timeshare Application for the Lift One Lodge. As the Commission is aware, this is a significant proposal with many moving parts. Staff is providing this general memo and the Application to the Commission before the first meeting to allow for additional review time. A proposed public hearing timeline and a summary of the project is attached. The schedule has been composed according to the natural relationships between the various plan components. Staff and the Applicant anticipate a minimum of four meetings to review the application and make a recommendation to City Council. A public hearing for the project will be opened on June 19`h and continued accordingly. Attachments: 1. Lift One Review Schedule 2. Lift One Development Program 3. Application dated November 24, 2006 4. Appendix dated November 24, 2006 5. Executive Summary from Applicant, dated May 22, 2007 Lift One Review Schedule Planning and Zoning Commission Conceptual PUD/Times/rare Review June 19 Noon Site Visit 12-1 p.m. A shuttle van will be available leaving from City Hall at 12. Otherwise Commissioners may meet on site. We will meet at Willoughby Park and walk up the hill, so please wear comfortable shoes. June 19 Planning and Zoning Commission #1 — Meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. Informational presentation of overall plan. This is intended to be an informational presentation with only clarification questions, and not a substantive review of the project. Staff envisions this presentation to be approximately 60-90 minutes with the remainder of the meeting reserved for Commissioner and public clarification questions. Staff will also present an overview of the required reviews and the public hearing timeline. July 3 Planning and Zoning Commission #2 — Meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. Substantive Presentation and Review of: • Site and Infrastructure Constraints/Opportunities • Public experience throughout the site • Site Plan, Uses, and Massing • Review of HPC Conceptual Review for Willoughby Park Notes: 1. This meeting includes one other agenda item that will be heard before this project. 2. These items may not be presented in this exact order. July 17 Planning and Zoning Commission #3 — Meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. Substantive Presentation and Review of: • Lodge/Timeshare Functions and Components • Affordable Housing • Remaining substantive issues from previous meeting. Notes: 1. This meeting includes one other agenda item that will be heard after this project, and may need to be continued. 2. These items may not be presented in this exact order. July 24 Planning and Zoning Commission #4 — Meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. Substantive Presentation and Review of. • Transportation infrastructure including parking structures, changes to Aspen Street, street and alley vacations, and connections to the ski mountain. • Energy commitments and conditions. • Remaining substantive issues from previous meeting. Notes: 1. This is a special meeting and the agenda has been closed to other business to allow for adequate review time and P&Z recommendation. 2. These items may not be presented in this exact order. 2 A*c'ilv�oAtz_ Lift One Development Program June/July, 2007. The proposed development includes eight (8) parcels that will be combined to create four (4) parcels. The four (4) proposed parcels are indicated in the Application on a foldout map, located just after page 23 of the Application. The development program below is divided based on these four (4) proposed parcels. Parcel 1— Timeshare Lodge • 32 timeshare units divided into 8`h interests (a total of 256 member interests) and 97 keys o 3 four -bedroom multi level units with a total of 12 keys. o 12 one -bedroom units with a total of 24 keys o 11 two -bedroom units with a total of 33 keys o 3 three -bedroom units with a total of 12 keys o 2 four -bedroom units with a total of 10 keys o 1 five -bedroom unit with a total of 6 keys • 5 Affordable Housing units • Sub -grade parking garage consisting of 216 parking spaces (note: all 11 Affordable Housing units are proposed to have assigned parking in this garage) • Public Apres Ski area • Restaurant, kitchen, and bar • Guest Services (business center, ski concierge, ski tuning/storage) • Spa and Fitness facilities • SKICO facilities Parcel 2 — Skiers Chalet Steakhouse • 6 Affordable Housing units Parcel 3 — Lift One Park • Historic Lift One Parcel 4 — Willoughby Park • Historical Society Sky Museum (the Skiers Chalet Lodge will be relocated for this purpose; the Holland House will be demolished; see Exhibit 1 Appendix C for the HPC resolution approving demolition and relocation) • Deep Powder Cabins • Refurbished Historic Lift One and Original Ticket Office • Sub -grade parking garage consisting of 119 parking spaces (to replace lost parking on South Aspen Street and current Willoughby Park surface parking) • Park Facilities and Green Space • Shuttle Stop `JAB cam, 4�, -412,4- /6-1- MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Joyce A. Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Lift One Conceptual PUD/Timeshare Review — Public Hearing Continued from 7/17/07 DATE: July 24, 2007 SUMMARY: This Conceptual PUD/Timeshare hearing for Lift One Lodge is going to focus on identifying any major questions or concerns related to the areas of focus listed below. It is staff s intent to glean from the Commission any issues (big or small) that you would like to have the applicants address further, either at this stage of review (conceptual) or provide at a later, more specific stage of review (final). Staff and the Commission can make a determination about when any item should be addressed (conceptual or final) as we proceed. During the Conceptual Review Phase, it is important that the Commission find comfort with the project meeting the basic intent of the PUD and Timeshare Development requirements and criteria. (The PUD purpose is listed below and the Timeshare purpose is listed within the Lodge/Timeshare section.) Most notably, in a project of this size and importance, the matter of compatibility with the surroundings and neighborhood rises to the top. Also, the matters of scale and mass are important. But with this project in particular, because of its location and and setting, is the need to find that the project integrates important places and spaces that are part of this project .... a revamped Willoughby Park, Lift One Park, a new museum building and its enhanced use, historic buildings, historic ski slope and lift towers, the base of IA, and the synergy of all of these together. To heighten the importance of this integration is the fact that it is located in an area of town that is experiencing redevelopment and creating a new "place" in Aspen. What should this new place be like? There is a huge opportunity for this part of the city to be redeveloped with respect for all of its pieces and create a place that functions well, is attractive, fun, energized and one that adds to Aspen's economic and community vitality -it should be phenomenal! Project Overview In A Nutshell: The proposed development includes eight (8) parcels that will be combined to create four (4) parcels. The four (4) proposed parcels are indicated in the Application on a foldout map, located just after page 23 of the Application. The development program below is divided based on these four (4) proposed parcels. Parcel 1— Timeshare Lodge • 32 timeshare units divided into 1/8`h interests (a total of 256 member interests) and 97 keys 0 3 four -bedroom multi level units with a total of 12 keys. 0 12 one -bedroom units with a total of 24 keys 1 0 11 two -bedroom units with a total of 33 keys 0 3 three -bedroom units with a total of 12 keys 0 2 four -bedroom units with a total of 10 keys 0 1 five -bedroom unit with a total of 6 keys • 5 Affordable Housing units • Sub -grade parking garage consisting of 216 parking spaces (note: all 11 Affordable Housing units are proposed to have assigned parking in this garage) • Public Apras Ski area • Restaurant, kitchen, and bar • Guest Services (business center, ski concierge, ski tuning/storage) • Spa and Fitness facilities • SKICO facilities Parcel 2 — Skiers Chalet Steakhouse • 6 Affordable Housing units Parcel 3 — Lift One Park • Historic Lift One Parcel 4 — Willoughby Park • Historical Society Sky Museum (the Skiers Chalet Lodge will be relocated for this purpose; the Holland House will be demolished; see Exhibit 1 Appendix C for the HPC resolution approving demolition and relocation) • Deep Powder Cabins • Refurbished Historic Lift One and Original Ticket Office • Sub -grade parking garage consisting of 119 parking spaces (to replace lost parking on South Aspen Street and current Willoughby Park surface parking) • Park Facilities and Green Space • Shuttle Stop Rezonings: • Conservation to Lodge • Park to Public (Willoughby and Lift One Parks) with Historic Overlay • PUD Overlay RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION AT THIS MEETING: Staff recommends the Commission discuss the Threshold Areas of Focus listed below. The purpose of the conceptual review is to highlight any issues that should be addressed at either the conceptual level or at final review stage. Staff has discussed the "areas of focus" in this report. As part of this overview, the Commission should indicate their level of satisfaction and/or concern regarding these components of the project. Staff would like the Commission to identify areas that they feel should be considered further, need refinement or change. From these, Staff will prepare a resolution to reflect needed changes, study, redesign or acceptance. This application is slated for continuation to August 71h, at which point a draft resolution would be considered by the Commission. Staff is in favor of this application moving forward with conditions that will address concerns of Staff and those of the Commission. PUD PURPOSE STATEMENT TO USE IN CONCEPTUAL REVIEW The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development, and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural, or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. THRESHOLD AREAS OF FOCUS FOR CONCEPTUAL PUD/TIMESHARE REVIEW: The Community Development Department Staff has along with the Commission, identified the following threshold areas of focus to be addressed during this Conceptual Review. Staff has limited the focus generally to the categories of land use, intensity, and spatial relationships. This being an initial review, more detailed issues may be more appropriate for Final PUD/Timeshare Review. • Overall Site plan. Staff supports the overall layout of the development and the general orientation of the buildings. In addition to the historic preservation staff, planning staff understands the constraints and demands of the site which lead us to find that the relocation of the old Skier's Chalet (future museum) to a place along Dean Street is appropriate. We find that the location of the museum anchors the parcel and helps to solidify the conceptual "Dean Street Plan" by having an attraction at the end of Dean Street and at bottom of the subject parcel. In Staff s minds we feel the question is whether this bottom portion is to be dominantly a park (in the traditional sense) or a museum with public grounds that create a park feel around its sides and upslope. We see it as the latter. Staff feels that through appropriately selected and sited pedestrian/public park amenities that this can be achieved by the proposed location of the museum building. It will also be important to the creation of a dynamic "people place" that the museum includes openings, doorways and uses (coffee/bookshop) that will draw connections between the natural setting and the museum use. In this location, the museum is a tremendous opportunity to tell the story of a part of Aspen's history in the place it began. The additional buildings can lend to the sense of 3 history here (although the Deep Powder buildings are not native to the site), create a softening of the edges at the lower portion of the subject site, and add interest to the museum setting. With regard to the new lodge location, Staff finds that the building takes good advantage of the rather narrow bottom of the ski area. The entire width of the building where it meets the slope is committed to people places, both private to the club and for public use. We feel that the transitional space, where the building meets the slope should be as public as possible and the applicants should relook at this interface. This is part of the ski area and should feel like part of the public realm. Overall, the siting of buildings is good so that the historic ski way is improved by increased widths. (More on site plan in Architecture below.) • Lodge/Timeshare Function. Operational characteristics. Operational characteristics of the fractional units should support the purpose of the Timeshare Development (26.590) regulations and the AACP. That is, to increase vitality (hotbeds, access to visitors, increase new visits and raise occupancy levels), preserve and enhance the lodging inventory (have physical and operational features of the traditional lodge, non-exclusive, access to visitors), upgrade the quality of accommodations (maintain high quality, stay competitive in resort economy), and maintain community character (maintain a high quality resort and preserve neighborhoods). Based upon the applicant's submittals to date, the applicant's proposal appears to align with the purpose of the City's timeshare development regulations. At the time of final review a full and specific operational plan will need to be submitted that addresses the mandatory operational practices of the Timeshare Development regulations. Such plan must address, at a minimum provisions for the following: guaranteeing short term rentals, use by non -owner visitors, rental pool usage at competitive rates, walk-in rentals, calendar/timing of reservations by owners, lodge service operations (concierge, front desk, commercial/food service) etc. • Rezonings. Staff finds that the requested rezonings are acceptable for the uses proposed. We have had situations along the base of Aspen Mountain and Highlands where pieces of the Conservation Zone were changed to other zone districts. Historically the ski slopes were zoned Conservation along with areas above the 8040 Greenline. Rezoning should be contemplated at this point and is confirmed at the time of Final Review. Staff feels that these are appropriate designations. • Architecture and Neighborhood Compatibility. Staff feels that opportunities should be taken and a great deal of focus given to the architecture and siting of the new structures. An opportunity arises in this redevelopment to allow for the Lift One corridor to progress up the mountain, instead of being cut off by the structure. The structure should celebrate the area's history by embracing the old lift line into the new structure. Whether through large glazed areas in the new lodge (above the ski through), or an adjustment to the building alignment, the viewer from the bottom 2 or the viewer from within the new lodge facility, should feel the space and integrity of the old lift alignment. The layout and design should be reconsidered to accomplish this. The subject property is full of interest. Working from the bottom up, it is full of different and potentially interesting spaces; a redesigned & connected Dean Street walkway, a ski museum, people/park places, an attractive (& safe) Aspen St. streetscape, a ski through -opening up to the mountains, an attractive lodge with public spaces, the base of a ski run and a new lift. Each area should be maximized in terms of function and interest yet unite them in some way -architecture may could be the key. Staff would like to see the architecture on this side of the road explicitly reflect this eclectic combination of interesting things. Staff is concerned about the relationship of the new lodge structure to the existing residential uses/buildings to the east in terms of height. Applicants should restudy the possibility of greater inflection. • Park Sites. Programming of spaces and adjacent uses. The applicants need to work further with the Parks Department to confirm relocation and a plan regarding the volleyball courts. Spaces within the central core of the project should be people -oriented and active versus being crowded by trees. The ski slope has the potential to enliven and create the ski way through the project as a people place (depending on season). In this case, this part of the "park" should be people enhanced with appurtenances like picnic tables (ala snowboard rail?), seating and other people enhancements. The doorways from the lodge structure need to provide for easy access to this areas. • Pedestrian/Public Use, Connections/Experience. Park connections, street/sidewalk upgrades. Areas of public use versus private club use. See above comments in "Park Sites". Staff feels that the public area of the project should span the length of the lodge building with the slope, rather than choking down the public component and restaurant to just the corner of the building. • Street/Infrastructure Upgrades. Snowmelting Aspen St, moving parking into garage, energy usage. The South Aspen St. streetscape plan & upgrade, along with snowmelting, is supported by Staff. Since the early days and conceptual review of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain proposal, across the street, the issue of safety on Aspen has been an impediment. By way of background, numerous options for improving the safety of the street have been contemplated. These ranged from the private developer taking over maintenance, private developer paying for extra city maintenance, magnesium chloride (not allowed in Aspen) to snowmelt. While not the "greenest" way to go, the ground source heat pump source of energy balances out the CO2 footprint impact. Parking along S. Aspen Street has never been a good situation and the proposed streetscape plan and parking plan are a good solution. Clarity of how the public parking will work and what costs, if any, needs to be clarified. • Parking. For all uses, overlap between uses. The parking meets the code requirements for the proposed uses. 5 • Affordable Housing. Category, type of units. The affordable housing requirements for this project are met and Staff is pleased with the location and quality of units. One designated parking space per AH unit must be provided. "�,, ifi ei�- Oar,, S Vl&,i rel t,C- t I vctk J—I("/o-�— SNOWMASS ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK .July 3, 2007 ,Joyce Allgaier Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3`d floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lift 1 A Aspen Mountain Dear Joyce: ASPENCf SNOWMASS.. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY As you know the Aspen Skiing Company has been working with the Lift One Lodge Applicant relative to the mountain circulation and skiing aspects of this land use application. Our planning and mountain operations teams are participating in the }Manning of the proposed lift location, the proposed mountain access, the proposed physical access points and the general interface with skiing. The Lift One side of Aspen Mountain is currently an under utilized access and egress point for both locals and visitors to the ski area. This historic mountain base unfortunately also lacks guest vitality and appeal in its presently dated condition. Aspen Skiing Company supports the enhancement, re -animation and revitalization of this mountain portal and believes the proposed development's improvements to ski infrastructure and skier services will help achieve these goals. We specifically write this lcttcr to communicate our thoughts about the future of lift operations in this area. Alter reviewing and analyzing the options, we have concluded that if Lift 1 A is replaced with a new, high speed lift, then the general location depicted in the Lift One Lodge application is the most appropriate -location (Replacement of the existing lift with a high speed detachable quad is referenced in the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan.). As a part of this analysis we have examined the practicality of trying to provide lift service from Willoughby Park as was once done with the original Lift One. As you may be aware, Colorado Trarnway Board setback standards affect and constrain the location, design and operation of lift systems, particularly with respect to their proximity to structures and other improvements. These standards require a clear corridor width of approximately 85 feet for the lift facility. The existing locations of the historic Lift One, the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, the Holland House and the Skier's Chalet Lodge do not adequately allow for the creation of such a corridor. P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 1248 970-925-1220 www.aspensnowmass.com eTmw.o Re rle v— In addition to the lift setback constraints, it would be impractical and undesirable to direct all returning ski traffic into a constrained corridor such as that which exists through Lift One Park, behind the Skiers Chalet restaurant, and through Willoughby Park. The limited ski -way width of 51 feet or less in this area would be unduly narrow and crowded to comfortably direct the volume of returning ski traffic to the bottom of such a portal, as well as difficult to groom and maintain a quality snow surface. Because of the setback requirements, narrow ski -back corridor, the terminal size of high speed quad lifts, circulation requirements for such lifts, return and repeat skiing access and convenience we have concluded that a lift connection through and lower terminal situated in this area is not an appropriate design alternative. Our preferred location, whether or not the Lift One Lodge project moves forward remains at the toe of the present ski slope generally in the area where the lift is proposed. This location provides adequate area to site the tenninal, as well as its necessary circulation and queuing. It enhances return or repeat skiing and snowboarding on the lift, allows for efficient and convenient emergency service connection through a vehicular cul de sac at the top of Aspen Street, and provides close mountain proximity to skier services and amenities for guests right at the base of the mountain, not two blocks removed. We see these advantages as compelling design directives. There are likely to be questions that arise during the Planning and Zoning Commission review of this master plan regarding the interface with skiing and riding on Aspen Mountain. While this project is at the conceptual review stage, design and logistical refinements will occur as greater design scrutiny and detailing is undertaken. We feel confident that we can continue to work with the Applicant to make sure that the end result is an enhancement to the guest experience on Aspen Mountain that retains and meets all of the functional requirements of this mountain portal. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, David Corbin Vice President, Planning and Development Aspen Skiing Company cc: Bob Daniel ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: OV, wl�, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200� STATE OF COLORADO ss. County of Pitkin I, yell v I y L. - �� (name, please print) beinf or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public f hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. l Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Si ature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this Away of _ , 200 - by E�6/G'ar4 Jri��Q> ) PUBLIC NOTICE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RE: LIFT ONE LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 19, 2007, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Council Cham- bers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to re- view the "The Lift One Lodge" Conceptual PUD and timeshare development plan which is pro- posed to include 32 lodge units with 256 member interests, 11 affordable housing units, commercial space, a skiers museum, and a sub -grade parking garage. The subject property is generally de- scribed as Block 7 Lots 1 through 14, Block 8 Lots 1 through 14, Block Lots 1 through 14, Block 10 Lots 1 through 14; mmonly known as the area along South Aspen treat between Dean Street and Summit Street. For further informal) n, contact Joyce Allgaier at the City of Aspen C mmunity Development De- partment, 130 S. G lens St., Aspen, CO (970) 429.2754, (or by email at joycea®cLaspen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the applica- tion should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. Applicant: Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge - Aspen, LLC, PO Box 6237, Snowmass Village, CO, 81615 repre- sented by Vann Associates, LLC Planning Con- sultants, 230 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 s/Ruth Kruger, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on June 3, 2007.(365846) My commission expires: o Public ATTACHMENTS COPY OF THE PUBLICATION RAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /.VW. ���� ��r��, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200 7 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The fo!Xf.4 .ng "Affidavit of Notice" was ac owled ed before me this l�1 day of _ ,20�, by o hie WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My CurNw►tjsronfAPires My commission expires: Q9114/2010 O�P�Y P UN/0 � C ��� i Notary Public MARMt4E E. NEILEY �OF CO'`� ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LIFT ONE LODGE CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 19, 2007, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to review the "The Lift One Lodge" Conceptual PUD and timeshare development plan which is proposed to include 32 lodge units with 256 member interests, 11 affordable housing units, commercial space, a skiers museum, and a sub -grade parking garage. The subject property is generally described as Block 7 Lots 1 through 14, Block 8 Lots 1 through 14, Block 9 Lots 1 through 14, Block 10 Lots 1 through 14; commonly known as the area along South Aspen Street between Dean Street and Summit Street. For further information, contact Joyce Allgaier at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-2754, (or by email at oa yceakci.aspen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. Applicant: Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC, PO Box 6237, Snowmass Village, CO, 81615 represented by Vann Associates, LLC Planning Consultants, 230 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 s/Ruth Kruger, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 3, 2007 City of Aspen Account Impression antibourrage et a secha apide www.avery. AVERYO 5160(D Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1-800-GO-A 911 SOUTH MILL ST LLC ALYEMENI MOHAMMED & ALICE ANDERSON BRUCE J C/O FRIAS PROP TOMC 3109 OAKMONT DR 700 S MONARCH #207 730 E DURANT STATESVILLE, NC 28625 ASPEN, CO 81611-1854 ASPEN, CO 81611 APRIL FAMILY TRUST 114 INT ASPEN DOLOMITE ASSOC NO 6 ASPEN KABINN LLC 3501 S 154TH ST ATTN: WHITE, MCELWEE, DEPENTINO, C/O NIKE COMMUNICATIONS/NINA WICHITA, KS 67232-9426 RYAN KAMINER C/O 150 E SWEDESFORD RD 35 E 21 ST ST WAYNE, PA 19087 NEW YORK, NY 10010 ASPEN LAND FUND II LLC ASPEN LAND FUND II LLC ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC 302 E HOPKINS AVE 660 NEWPORT CENTER DR #500 PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ASPEN, CO 81612 BARBEE MARY K LIV TRUST BENT FORK LLC BERHORST JERRY 625 SKYLINE DR C/O FESUS GEORGE BERHORST CAROLE CODY, WY 82414 P O BOX 9197 7161 LINDENMERE DR ASPEN, CO 81612 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 BIEL ALEXANDER L & LEE M BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LP BOURGAULT MARY JANE 381 LOVELL AVE 1206 N WALTON BLVD 555 E DURANT AVE #4J MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRIGHT GALEN BUSH STEVEN S CABELL JOE 205 E DURANT AVE #3D 0046 HEATHER LN C/O CHARTHOUSE ASPEN, CO 81611-3813 ASPEN, CO 81611 1765 ALA MOANA BLVD HONOLULU, HI 96815 CADER ANDREW CAIN DOUGLAS M C/O STIRLING HOMES CAIN CONSTANCE MOFFIT TRUSTEES CALKINS GEORGE W 600 E MAIN ST #102 1960 HUDSON ST 105 S CHEROKEE ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80220 DENSER, CO 8223-1834 CHAPLIN ARLENE & WAYNE CHIATE PROPERTIES LLC CHRISTENSEN CINDY 54 LAGORCE CIR 20628 ROCKCROFT DR 109 JUAN ST MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 MALIBU, CA 90265-5342 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHU FAMILY TRUST 2/3 INT LU NANCY CHAO TRUST 1/3 INT CITY OF ASPEN COHEN ARTHUR S 38 CORMORANT CIR 130 S GALENA ST IBSEN 72 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ASPEN, CO 81611 MEXICO CITY MEXICO, 11560 CROW MARGERY K & PETER D CYS RICHARD L AND KAREN L CZAJKOWSKI MICHAEL 46103 HIGHWAY 6 & 24 5301 CHAMBERLIN AVE CZAJKOWSKI SANDRA J GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 90 LA SALLE ST APT 16G NEW YORK, NY 10027 AH3AV-09-008-L ®091S 31V`ld VY31 asn ptiany Impression antibourrage et a secha pide www.avery. o AVERY& 51600 Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1 1-800-GO-AN DANCING BEAR LAND LLC DAVIS CAROL L DOLINSEK JOHN 124 ANNAPOLIS LN 7838 HILLMONT ST 619 S MONARCH ST PONTE VERDA, FL 32082 HOUSTON, TX 77040-6108 ASPEN, CO 81611 DOLOMITE 12 LLC DONCER JOYCE TRUST DUNN STEVEN G C/O EDDIE CHEZ 7641 W 123RD PL 107 JUAN ST 141 W JACKSON BLVD STE 2900 PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60604 EAST JAMES COLLIER TRUSTEE ELDER TRUST ELLERBECK FAMILY PTNRSHP LTD II 5800 R ST ELDER JERRY TRUSTEE 121 N POST OAK LN LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 PO BOX 308 HOUSTON, TX 77024 LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308 ELLIS JAMES BYRON ELLIS PAUL DAVID ERICKSON CLAIRE L & BETTY LOU 17 1/2 FLEET ST 100 E DEAN ST #2F 1231 INDUSTRIAL RD MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 ASPEN, CO 81611 HUDSON, WI 54016 ESENJAY PETROLEUM CORP ETKIN DOUGLAS M & JUDITH G EVANS DAVID COURTNEY 500 N WATER ST #1100 SOUTH 29100 NORTHWESTERN HWY STE 200 PO BOX 952 CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78471 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 ASPEN, CO 81612 FARINO CAROL FARR BRUCE K & GAIL H FAULKNER JOHN L PO BOX 10421 PO BOX 5142 2433 ROCKINGHAM ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ARLINGTON, VA 22207 FELDMAN SELMA FLETCHER KAREN K & JAY R FORD WARWICK S & NOLA M 300 S POINTE DR APT 2403 PO BOX 3476 6 ELLERY SQUARE MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139-7329 ASPEN, CO 81612 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 FREIRICH MARK A FRIEDKIN THOMAS H FRONSDAL ARNE PO BOX 774056 PO BOX 4718 HUNDSUNDVEIEN 35 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80477 HOUSTON, TX 77210-4718 1368 SNAROYA NORWAY, GILBERT DONALD C 2004 TRUST GILLESPIE JOHN E REVOCABLE TRUST GLICKMAN EDWIN C 67 TURTLE BACK RD S 775 GULFSHORE DR #4219 2322 LAZY O RD NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 DESTIN, FL 32541 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 GOLAY FRANK H JR & INGA M GOLDSMITH ADAM D GOODMAN MARK C/O SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP PO BOX 9069 700 MONARCH ST #103 1888 CENTURY PARK EAST #2100 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES, CA 90007 50 AH3AV-O9-008-1. ®09LS 3.LVIdW31®/IJaAV asn Impression antibourrage et a sechi apide www.avery. N AVERYO 51600 Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1-800-GO-A GRANT BROTHERS LLP 436 COFFMAN STE 200 PO BOX 908 LONGMONT, CO 80502-0908 GROOS NICHOLAS D 210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD HASTINGS, MI 49058 HARDEN SHEILA H REV TRUST 8111 CAMINITO MALLORCA LA JOLLA, CA 92037 HEIMANN GEORGE R 100 E DEAN ST #2E ASPEN, CO 81611-1967 HENRY WAYNE SCOTT PO BOX 2383 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099 HORTON KAREN JANE TRUST 588 S PONTIAC WAY DENVER, CO 80224 ICAHN LIBA PO BOX 11137 ASPEN, CO 81612 IMREM SUE GORDON TRUSTEE 219 E LAKE SHORE DR #5D CHICAGO, IL 60611 JAMES FAMILY TRUST 1/4 INT 1 CASTLEWOOD CT NASHVILLE, TN 37215-4617 KABERT INDUSTRIES INC PO BOX 6270 VILLA PARK, IL 60181 GRAY W CALVIN JR & CONSTANCE M PO BOX 140 CENTREVILLE, MD 21617-0140 GREINER JERRY M GREINER TERESA U 330 BICKLEY RD GLENSIDE, PA 19038 HALL THOMAS L PERS INCOME & ASSET HANG TEN ADVENTURE TRUST 809 S ASPEN ST #2 15145 PAWNEE CIRCLE ASPEN, CO 81611 LEAWOOD, KS 66224 HARVEY JEFFREY & NANCY 711 S DEARBORN ST - #507 CHICAGO, IL 60605 HEMMETER GEORGE MEAD 1900 MYRTLE ISLAND DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89112 HILL EUGEN DUBOSE III & JOAN LUISE TRST PO BOX 129 PRIDES CROSSING, MA 01965 HOTEL DURANT 122 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 IDB INVESTMENTS LLC 131 E DURANT AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 J&E HANSEN LLC C/O EDWARD HANSEN 204 E DURANT AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 JOHNSON KERRI & DEREK 117 JUAN ST #1 ASPEN, CO 81611 KAPLAN BARBARA 3076 EDGEWOOD RD PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 HATCHER HUGH S 205 E DURANT AVE APT 2E ASPEN, CO 81611 HENDERSON BROTHERS LLC PO BOX 407 TROY, AL 36081 HILLMAN RICHARD HAYES TRUST 13562 D ESTE DR PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 IAVARONE GIANFRANCO & RITA 341 ORIENTA AVE MAMORONECK, NY 10543 IMHOF FAMILY TRUST 2409 GREEN ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 JACOB PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC 500 FORD RD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426 JUAN STREET HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 119 JUAN ST ASPEN. CO 81611 KAUFMAN STEVEN 0554 ESCALANTE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 A213"-OD-008-1, p09LS 3JMIdIN31 &/Vany asn Impression antibourrage et a secha rapide www.avery.----n a AVERY@ 51600 Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1-800-GO-A KELTNER DONALD H KINGSBURY FAMILY TRUST KIRLIN DONALD W 25% INT 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD #730 PO BOX 198 PO BOX 3097 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 HOLDERNESS, NH 03245 QUINCY, IL 62305 KLINDWORTH J TODD & HEATHER KULLGREN NANCY A KWEI THOMAS TRUST 50% PO BOX 25318 205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2-C 75 CAMBRIDGE PKWY PH8 ST CROIX, VI 00824 ASPEN, CO 81611 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 LACY ROANE M JR LARKIN THOMAS J & MARYANN K LCH LLC PO BOX 367 1 SHELDRAKE LN C/O TOM DIVENERE WACO, TX 76703-0367 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33418-6820 124 ANNAPOLIS LN PONTE VEDRA, FL 32082 LEONARD-PECK SHEILA KATHRYN LEOPOLD HOLDINGS LLC LEVIN BARTON J AND NANCY M RR 1 PO BOX 375-P 303 S BROADWAY #200 701 S MONARCH ST #6 VINEYARD HAVEN, MA 02568 DENVER, CO 80209 ASPEN, CO 81611 LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST LEVY HYMAN & GAIL LIBMAN KENNETH J 421 WARWICK RD PO BOX 1365 65 CENTRAL PARK WEST #1E KENILWORTH, IL 60043-1145 BOCA RATON, FL 33429-1365 NEW YORK, NY 10023 LIBMAN KENNETH J LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC LIFT ONE LLC 72.40% 800 S MONARCH ST #2 131 E DURANT AVE 24 LINDENWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80127 LOCHHEAD RAYMOND R & EMILIE M LUNDHOLM KERSTIN M MACDONALD KENNETH HUGH REV 200 SHERWOOD RD 115 JUAN ST TRUST PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 ASPEN, CO 81611 44 W HANNUM SAGINAW, MI 48602 MAGES LAWRENCE M & MARY K 84% MARUER JANIE K QPRT MAURER IMICHAEL S QPRT 216 LINDEN AVE 11550 N MERIDIAN ST #115 11550 N MERIDIAN ST #115 WILMETTE, IL 60091 CARMEL, IN 46032 CARMEL, IN 46032 MCCALL CAROLYN E MCCARTNEY BRENDA DAHL MCCONNELL THOMAS W & KAY L 100 E DEAN ST #1 E 113 JUAN ST 3814 OAKHILLS ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 MCKENZIE BART MEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE MENDEL M MARK 4840 30TH ST 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR MENDEL GRACE A - JT TENANTS ARLINGTON, VA 22207-2716 NAPERVILLE, IL 60564 1620 LOCUST ST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 -.noi c �. I MnAM I9A AH3AV-OE-008-L 0091S 31`dldiN3J. ®tiaAV asB Impression antibourrage et a secha Utilisez le gabarit 51600 ipide www.avery. - - -- 1-800-GO-A' SAVERY@ 51600 MITCHELL ELSA R PO BOX 2492 ASPEN, CO 81612 MORGAN MICHAEL L 115 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 NARDI STEPHEN J PO BOX 641997 CHICAGO, IL 60664-1997 NOREN LARA L & STEPHEN C 10927 BRIGANTINE DR INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46256-9544 OLSON PAUL & DIANE CANEPA PO BOX 128 BRECKENRIDGE, CO 80424 PASCO PROP LLC SMITH PATRICK A P O BOX 850 ASPEN, CO 81612 PINNIGER SIMON S & SIMON PO BOX 10420 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROARING FORK PROPERTIES C/O HOWARD A WILL JR 5055 26TH AVE ROCKFORD, IL 61109 ROBLES ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ALVAREZ CRISTINA MONTES URALES 350 LOMAS CHAPULTEPEC MEXICO DF MEXICO, 11000 RYAN ELIZABETH H 1/2 INT COPE G RICHARD & NANCY M 1/2 INT 419 WINNEBAGO DR JANESVILLE, WI 53545 MONIGLE ETHEL M 3200 OHIO WAY DENVER, CO 80209 MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES INC 333 E DURANT AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 NITSCHKE RUPRECHT TRUST 50% NITSCHKE ELIZABETH TRUST 50% 7107 FRANKLIN ST MIDDLETON, WI 53562 NORTH LAUDERDALE PETROLEUM LLC 6318 NW 23RD ST BOCA RATON, FL 33434 ONEAL PROPERTIES LLC 8100 E CAMELBACK RD #31 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251-2773 PETROVICH NICK D PETROVICH ROSA DEL CARMEN FERNANDEZ C/O FRIAS PROP CA ASPEN-730 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-2072 POLLOCK WILLIAM HARRISON PO BOX 2421 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROARING FORK PROPRIETARY LLC 2519 E 21 ST ST TULSA, OK 74114 RUDERMAN ERIC P & MIMI E 1536 OGDEN ST DENVER, CO 80218-1406 S C JOHNSON AND SON INC TAX DEPT 412 1525 HOWE ST RACINE. WI 53403 MOORE JOHN W 50% 10426 WHITEBRIDGE LN ST LOUIS, MO 63141 MULKEY DAVID A DR TRUSTEE 2860 AUGUSTA DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 NOBLE GUY T PO BOX 9344 ASPEN, CO 81612 NORTHCUTT BARRY & JENNIFER 1905 MISSION HILLS CIR EDMOND, OK 73003 ONEILL ROGER PO BOX 711 LAKE GENEVA, WI 53147-3579 PINES LODGE DEVELOPMENT LLC 2353 IRVINE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RINGSBY GRAY PO BOX 1292 HAIKU, HI 96708 ROBERT FAMILY TRUST 1/4 INT 771 FERST DR ATLANTA, GA 30332-0245 RUPERT INVESTMENTS LP 150 N MARKET WICHITA, KS 67202 SCHAINUCK LEWIS I & MICHELLE T 2900 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DE MAR, CA 92625 A113AV-OD-008-L @09LS 3lVldW3-L @Ajany asn Impression antibourrage et A sechag aide www.avery.co— AVERY@ 51601D Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1-800-GO-AV 9 SCHAYER CHARLES M III SCHERER ROBERT P III SCHIFFMAN ROBIN 588 S PONTIAC WAY 217 GOLDENROD AVE 700 MONARCH ST #103 DENVER, CO 80224 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHROEDER C M JR SETZLER ALEX SHADOW MOUNTAIN AERIE SCHROEDER BETTY ANN 100 E DEAN ST UNIT 2C PARTNERSHIP LLP 3629 ROCKBRIDGE RD ASPEN, CO 81611-1957 C/O ARTHUR J & PAMELA T COLUMBIA, SC 29206 WASHINGTON 21 BRIARCLIFF RD LARCHMONT, NY 10538 SHEFFER BARBARA & DOUGLAS SHINE FAMILY LLC SILVERMAN MARC A & MARILYN L PO BOX 250 8677 LOGO 7 CT 937 DALE RD ASPEN, CO 81612 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46219-1430 MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046 SIMON HERBERT REV TRUST SKY BLUE LLC 27.60% SLOAN SUSAN MARIE 8765 PINE RIDGE DR 5743 CORSA AVE # 101 500 S ORANGE AVE INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260-1778 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 SARASOTA, FL 34236 SLT ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC SM-15 SMITH RONA K C/O EPROPERTY TAX DEPT 206 SEELBACH WILLIA - C/O 1742 HILLSIDE RD PO BOX 4900 45000 S WOODLAND STEVENSON, MD 21153 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85261-4900 CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 SOLOMON GARY L SOLONDZ TAMI S SOUTH POINT CONDOMINIUM 3139 N LINCOLN PO BOX 2829 ASSOCIATION CHICAGO, IL 60657 ASPEN, CO 81612 205 E DURANT AVE #2F ASPEN, CO 81611 SOUTHPOINT-SUMNER CORP SPAULDING RICHARD W STANTON JAMES 4828 FORT SUMNER DR THOMPSON ELEANOR M C/O WORLD-WIDE HOLDINGS CORP BETHESDA, MD 20816 PO BOX 278 150 E 58TH ST CONCORD, MA 01742-0278 NEW YORK, NY 10155 STARK RENEE A STARWOOD VACATION OWNERSHIP STEINER DONALD R 205 E DURANT AVE APT 1 D C/O JOAN LAND ACCT MGR BUCKHEAD GRAND ASPEN, CO 81611-3813 9002 SAN MARCO CT 3338 PEACHTREE RD #3307 ORLANDO, FL 32819 ATLANTA, GA 30326 STEWART SCOTT STRAWBRIDGE GEORGE JR STUART FAMILY TRUST 1/4 INT 4710 PLAINFIELD CT 3801 KENNETT PKE BLDG #B-100 1 CASTLEWOOD CT MIDDLETON, WI 53562 WILMINGTON, DE 19807 NASHVILLE, TN 37215-4617 SZYMANSKI WILLIAM R & LYNNE E TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD TELEMARK APARTMENT 2 LLC 2220 E SILVER PALM RD C/O PATRICK D MCALLISTER PC 3910 S HILLCREST DR BOCA RATON, FL 33432 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 DENVER, CO 80237 ASPEN, CO 81611-2909 ,�,AIOAV-09-008-L � @09 L5 3171dIN31 @AiaAv asD Impression antibourrage et a sech rapide www.avery m AVERYO 51600 Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1-800-GO TELEMARK ASPEN LLC THREE REEDS LLC TOP OF MILL INVESTORS LLC 55 SECOND ST 2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW C/O FRIAS PROPERTIES COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87104-3096 730 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 TOP OF MILL LLC TOP OF MILL TH HOA TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO 1001 E CHERRY ST 1000 S MILL ST ASSOC INC COLUMBIA, MO 65201 ASPEN, CO 81611-3800 C/O ASPEN LODGING COMPANY 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 TUCKER RC DR TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP VANDER WALL DEAN ROBERT & COLOROW - ATTN: 1730 IROQUOIS TR BEVERLY J 6420 STAUDER CIR HASTINGS, MI 49058 PO BOX 189 EDINA, MN 55436 LONE PINE, CA 93545 VANTONGEREN HAROLD V & LIDIA M WALDRON GAILYN L TRUSTEE WARGASKI ROBERT E TRUST 2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8 PO BOX 7964 30353 N DOWELL RD DENVER, CO 80206 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCHENRY, IL 60050 WASERSTEIN ALAN I & TRACI WHEELER CONNIE CHRISTINE WHITE JALEH 6555 ALLISON RD MC CALLION GERARD THICKMAN DAVID MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 322 E 57 TH ST #313 152 E DURANT AVE NEW YORK, NY 10022-2949 ASPEN, CO 81611-1737 WILHELM FAMILY PARTNERSHIP WILLETTE NANCY WOLF FAMILY TRUST 12/23/1986 907 S MILL ST #A 100 E DEAN ST #2D 1221 MYRTLE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 WOLTIN ROBERT WOODING MERRITT B WOODSON TATJANA D 2701 AQUA VISTA BLVD PO BOX 339 P O BOX 125 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 HOPE, NJ 07844 TETON VILLAGE, WY 83025 WOW LIFT ONE LLC WUGALTER JOEL C/O WARSTLER ROBERT T 3200 N OCEAN BLVD #909 10 WINDJAMMER LN FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33308 MT ARLINGTON, NJ 07856 a,09L5 rnA?IaAH 1\�'!II AH3AV-O9-008-L @09LS 31V_IdiN31®tiaAV asp ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE BLOCK 1 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLOCK 8 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLOCK ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 9 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLOCK 10 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 19th , 2007 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, Stephen C.R. Holley (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. x Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 1st day of June , 200 7 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled d before me this / da of .>�.� l� , 200�, by `��� �Ft7 !� - �-E t/ MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Y COMMISSION EXPIRES 10/1 6 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL NOTICeOF PUBLIC HEARING DATE DUNE 19, 2007 TIME 4:30 P.M. PLACE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL, 130 S. GALENA ST., ASPEN, CO BODY ASPEN PALNNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TYPE 1 PURPOSE: TO REVIEW THE "THE LIFT ONE LODGE" CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH IS PROPOSED TO INCLUDE 32 LODGE UNITS WITH 256 MEMBER INTERESTS, 11 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, COMMERCIAL SPACE, A SKIERS MUSEUM, AND ASUB-GRADE PARKING GARAGE. APPLICANT ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN LODGE -ASPEN LLC, C/0 ROARING FORK LODGING P.O. BOX 6237, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 REPRESENTED BY VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC PLANNING CONSULTANTS, 230 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 PROPERTY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK 7 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLOCK 8 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLOCK 9 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLOCK 10 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14; COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE AREA ALONG SOUTH ASPEN STREET BETWEEN DEAN STREET AND SUMMIT STREET. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. GALENA ST., ASPEN, CO (970) 920-5090 §Tn-. SIN ON z &z. Iwo HOUR '� '�•; �.� i �".� T' .art s �, �' �{„ � to ., • �'.. •��`��1+' . op .4 A IL A ft 4"w ov I LODGE Ir TEAK IfUL' m IE Ft IIA L T �� ��F'. d� S.: ,• ,*}T v, M jiq .j�. � F^iy' n� { .S JI �7. ! v � jt V' _ � 6{',� i t r - � i 1 r } C F ' W. ". � -. - � �, .. - _ .. -. ,. ✓ter t C t _ � � R r � w * r• x NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE JUNE 19, 2007 TIME a 30 P M PLACE CITY (aUNCII CHAMBERS CITY HAIL, 130S. GALENAST„ ASPEN, C0 BODY ASPEN PALNNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TYPE / PURPOSE: , TO REVIEW THE THE LIFT ONE LODGE' CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH IS PROPOSED TO INCLUDE 32 LODGE UNITS WITH 256 MEMBER INTERESTS, I1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, COMMERCIAL SPACE, A SKIERS MUSEUM, AND A SUB -GRADE PARKING GARAGE. APPLICANT ROARING FORD MOUNTAIN LODGE -ASPEN LLC, t 0 ROARING FORk LODGING P.O. BOX 6237, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 8I6I5 REPRESENTED BY VANN ASSOCIATES: LLC PLANNING CONSULTANTS,, 230 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN, C0 81611 PROPERTY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK 7 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLOCK B LOTS I THROUGH 14, BLOCK 9 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLOCK 10 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14; COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE AREA ALONG SOUTH ASPEN STREET BETWEEN DEAN STREET AND SUMMIT STREET. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. GALENA ST., ASPEN, C0 (970) 9M5090 *'6N:,:. r_ Mir l_ MV IWV Iry 1wriv NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAk PUWE rr+lam■ ■u1�a DWY dr■*we a■■c +Ai r+�.■cl l�11 AN r- +- *AO WTI:pwr h�& 4ai4'M i WTI *410,^d �&41 :4,itl r A 4w'x :1wh u "I i 1tNth MrVrx� �■rr a11o+�ar F�11U4rr.Ml1N .- � -: 1A1u ati r 4 lia■l■�f 1iS uxn1i�llrL � MW AM Ur1W1 x•. •T rA .P 1 -kk" t { IA A i 44 a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAKINU TUNE 19, 2007 CITY COUNCIL (HAMSERS CITY HALL.130 S. GALENA S1, ASPEN, (0 ASPEN PALMNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TYPE I PURPOSE: TO REVIEW THE THE LIFT ONE LODGE" CONCEPTUAL PUD AND TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHIZ( TO INCLUDE 32 LODGE UNITS WITH 256 MBER INTERESTS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, COMMERCIAL SPATE, A SKIERS MUSEUM AND A SUR-GRADE PARKING GARAGE. APPLICANT ROARING fORK MOUNTAIN LODGE -ASPEN LLC, ( O ROARING f ORK LODGING 1'-0. BOX 3 ASSCI�ATES,S ll(IEPIANNING 81615 REPRESENTED BY VANN CONSULTANTS. 230 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN. CO 61611 PROPERTY THE SUBJE(T PROPERTY IS GENERALLY DES(RIBED AS BLO(K d LOTS 1 THROUGH 14, BLO(K 8 LOTS 1 THROUGH 14. BLO(K 9 LOTS-1 THROUGH 14. RLO(K 10 LOTS 1 THOUGH 14, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE AREA ALONG SOUTH ASPEN STREET BETWEEN DEAN STREET AND SUMMIT STREET. R FURTHER INFDRMAT4014 (ONTA(1: "EN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAKTIMENI GALENA ST., ASPEN. (0 (970) 920-5 /s a : f POSS ®uEsi�N ��w� —I'll c- Sal 12' 30 so Lift One Lodge Aspen, CO Existing Conditions Plaff- -vc>�f Roaring Fork Lodging Company May 22, 2007 City of Aspen, Mayor and City Council City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners: Please consider this a letter an introduction and executive summary for the Lift One Lodge. I am writing this based upon my experience at one of the Town Meetings on growth at the Hotel Jerome this past summer and the subsequent discussion at my table about development proposals. I was struck by the voting on one of the questions in which participants seemed to think that applicants submitted projects that included much more than they wanted and then expected to get an approval for something smaller that would still meet their needs. Based upon the work over the last year to understand the opportunities and constraints related to our redevelopment plans, I did not want you or the public to think that our application was submitted with such an approach. We have worked hard to put together a proposal that optimizes benefits, implements City planning goals, addresses neighborhood impacts, and will result in a project with long-term benefits. We initially completed the information required for submittal last April. After review of that submittal we realized as a project team that we could step back and spend more time working in order to propose a project that was more in keeping with the specific stated goals of the community and was more sensitive to potential neighbor impacts. The last six months have been spent revising and reducing our project and meeting with neighbors and City staff to resolve as many impacts as possible prior to submission. The project that we are submitting is the project that we hope to build rather than a "straw man" that we are offering up for sacrifice. About Us The principals in the project are Jim Light, Jim Chaffin, and David Wilhelm. The principals are responsible for the Roaring Fork Club in Basalt, which has been recognized for innovations related to green golf course management and for the voluntary real estate transfer fee that created and has provided ongoing financial support for the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Chaffin and Light were early developers at Snowmass Village and have resort community experience around the country. I am working with them on this project and have been a member of the community and involved in engineering, construction and development related activities in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley since 1988. The business plan for this project calls for constructing, owning, and operating the lodge over the long term. The financial plan is based on long-term returns derived from the sale of membership interests, similar to the long-term perspective used by lodges that have operated in Aspen over the last 50 years. 24398 Highway 82• P.O. Box 4560 • Basalt, Colorado 81621 • 970/927-1100 pAmm • 970/927-2834 fax May22,2007 P�Cp2of7 Our planning approach began with an understanding of what the Lodge zone district would allow, reviewing City plans for the area, talking with adjacent property owners, and conducting detailed market analysis to determine the financial viability of the Lodge. All of these influences have resulted in a project that we are very proud to the present to the City. Lift One Lodge Overview The lodge concept for Lift One Lodge is relatively simple; replace the dilapidated Skiers Chalet Lodge and Holland House with updated and market appropriate beds at the base of a new high speed ski lift. The assemblage of land included acquisition of the two lodges and a parcel from the Aspen Skiing Company that includes the location of the existing lift. Lift One is due to be replaced slightly uphill of its current location. Aspen has experienced a net loss of more than 1,000 visitor rooms since 1991 and has tried various approaches to increase its bed base and to encourage the upgrade of older lodges. The Lift One Lodge program will increase "hot beds" and offers significant community assets in order to rejuvenate the Lift One area. The site is currently occupied by the former Holland House, which included twenty lodge units, the Skier Chalet Lodge, which included ten lodge units and the Skier Chalet Restaurant, which included the restaurant and eight lodge units. The proposed Lift One Lodge includes thirty-two "lodge suites" which will contain a total of ninety- seven keys of separately rentable rooms. The lodge rooms will be made available to the general public when not in use by members. Other facilities in the lodge include a new public restaurant and apres ski deck to serve skiers and lockers, spa and fitness facilities for lodge members and guests. The Aspen Skiing Company will also have space within the lodge for ticket sales, public restrooms, and lockers for Skico workers. Our first iteration of the plan was based on what the underlying Lodge zoning allows without any deviations to the underlying dimensional requirements. After meeting with neighbors, we reduced the building height and set the building further back from the eastern property line than required to reduce impacts to our most immediate neighbors. In order to maximize the number of beds and minimize impacts to the area, we are not proposing to utilize the 25% free market component offered under the Lodge zoning. As part of the approval process for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain, a new high-speed lift was proposed for Lift One that would allow greater access to Aspen Mountain from this location. The Lift One area serves local residents and visitors to area rental properties, serves as focus for area ski racers and the Aspen Valley Ski Club racing program, hosts World Cup competitions, and provides a second entrance to Aspen Mountain during busy periods. Review Process A four -step review process will be required for the project. The public parking facility, ski museum, and other improvements at Willoughby Park require action by the Historic Preservation Commission May2Z.W PaW.3 of 7 (HPC). The Planned Unit Development (PUD) and associated requests require City Planning and Zoning Commission and Council action. fOn August9,2006, we were pleased to receive unanimous Conceptual Approval from the HPC to our lated to the historic museum, underground parking, and other site improvements at illoughby and Lift One parks. The attached application is for Conceptual Approval of the Lift One Lodge PUD and associated requests. If the City approves the concept, then final applications to the HPC and City Council will be submitted in the future. We have identified several key issues associated with the Aspen Area Community Plan that have been addressed in the application. I would like to highlight the specific components of character, neighborhood impacts, energy consumption/greenhouse gases, transportation, and affordable housing. Character There is no one meaning to the concept of Aspen's character. It may be that character is tied to the context of a specific site in addition to the City as a whole. Our project focuses on character through its relationship to skiing history and specifically to implementing the community's goal for a museum at Willoughby Park in partnership with the Aspen Historical Society. The Lift One Lodge also focuses on implementing City transportation improvement goals for South Aspen and Dean Streets and addressing neighborhood impacts. The area is evolving toward an interesting mix of historic and contemporary uses and the Lift One Lodge will contribute to that evolution. We have made a major commitment to working with the City and Aspen Historical Society to create and implement a historic park. In a 1991 vote, the citizens of Aspen overwhelmingly supported the use of Willoughby Park for a ski museum, however to date the Historical Society has been unable to establish this facility. We have committed to move the Skier Chalet Lodge to Willoughby Park and rehabilitate/renovate it for use as the Ski Museum. After rehabilitation and relocation are complete, we will donate the facility to the Historical Society. In addition, at our expense, the original Lift One towers will be refurbished and the original ticket booth rehabilitated so that these pieces of Aspen ski history are preserved for the future. The City has been pursuing improvements along Dean Street to establish a link between the two access points to Aspen Mountain. The Gondola Plaza would anchor one end of the link and the proposed ski museum at Willoughby Park would anchor the other end. Pedestrian -friendly improvements along Dean Street have been under consideration by the City and would create an enjoyable walking experience that might include some interpretive elements about Aspen's skiing history. Through time spent at the site and discussions with area residents and long-time skiers, another aspect to the character of the area was discovered. Some skiers enjoy skiing to points along Aspen Street, to their adjacent property, or to Dean Street. This informal ski route crossed private and public property, including Lift One Park and Willoughby Park. i W22 2007 Pa_w4 of 7 Instead of stopping use of the private property for such activities, we believe that the character of the area can be honored while embracing new development. In response to these informal traditions in the area, the Lift One Lodge was redesigned to create a "ski through" lodge that will allow skiing through the center of the project. Skiers will ski through the property and along the towers of the original Lift One to the park, ski museum, and the underground parking garage. Neighborhood Impacts The neighborhood generally enjoys good ski access and the properties immediately adjacent to the Lift One Lodge are largely used for ski rental or second homes. Many of the owners in the area have owned their property for more than a decade and are regular visitors. With the exception of the Dolinseks along the eastern boundary of the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, there are virtually no full-time residents immediately adjacent to the property. Over the last year, project team members have met with property owners, Homeowner Board representatives, and property managers to better understand the context for our project and to better understand neighbor issues. These discussions helped to shape our proposal for Willoughby Park, South Aspen Street, the underground parking garage, skier access through the property, and building setbacks. We believe that neighbors and the entire community will enjoy safety improvements to South Aspen Street, sidewalk and streetscape improvements to South Aspen and Dean Streets, park improvements to Willoughby and Lift One parks and proposed ski access through the property. While there is no way to develop the site in an economically viable manner without having some impact to units at the Cascade, Silver Shadow, Shadow Mountain and Caribou condominium buildings, we have made significant changes to our proposal in order to accommodate concerns expressed to date. The primary issues expressed included. maintaining ski access to units, minimizing impacts on views to town, Shadow Mountain and Red Butte, and minimizing the impact of roof mounted mechanical systems. While the City's code is not designed to protect the views from every property, the neighbors to the east of our property have enjoyed the benefits of the lack of expansion of the existing structures. The primary views from the living rooms of a majority of the units along the east side of the property are toward Monarch Street rather than Aspen Street, however each unit enjoys a view toward Shadow Mountain, Red Butte, or the ski area. There are also several units that look directly toward the Lift One Lodge site. Team members have had discussions with property owners of every property along the eastern boundary and have been inside most of the units in order to better understand the unique characteristics of each unit and how owners use their unit. Based on those visits and discussions, the Lodge was redesigned from the initial concepts. These changes allowed the building to move farther from the adjacent properties than the five-foot setback required by code to over ten feet from the property line. Additionally the building was articulated along the southern edge to create a viable ski access to southernmost adjoining properties. May22,2V Pap5 of 7 The expanded setback shrinks the building footprint and allows adjacent property owners to continue skiing to a location between the Silver Shadow and Caribou that serves as access to several owners and to the ski gate at Caribou. In addition, there has been a focus on the architecture along the eastern portion of the building. The design and materials were selected to make sure that this does not appear as the `back of the building'. In addition to shrinking the building footprint, great care was given to establishing the roofline for the lodge. The northernmost section of the building has a roof that is similar in height to the existing Skiers Chalet Lodge. While other sections of the roofline are higher than adjacent properties, the building footprint and lower roofline toward Gilbert Street will allow preservation of some vistas. The Lodge was redesigned to allow public access to the lobby from the eastern boundary of the property. This will allow convenient access from Monarch Street and adjacent property owners to the Lodge, the public restaurant, and ski lift. The property owners to the north (Lift One, South Point, Telemark, etc.) maintain all of the current benefits enjoyed by skier access while also enjoying significant park area, road and pedestrian improvements. Owners of these units will also enjoy convenient ski access to the new lift via the proposed shuttle stop at Willoughby Park. The entire terminus of South Aspen Street is being improved to address several significant issues in front of the Shadow Mountain complex. Currently there is an unsightly mixture of parking, equipment storage and dilapidated structures in this area. With no appropriate cul-de-sac, there is not adequate fire access to the properties at the end of South Aspen Street. The right-of-way for South Aspen Street does not provide adequate space to accommodate these improvements, so these improvements have been designed to extend onto the Lift One Lodge property. The lack of road definition and improvements creates impacts for the Shadow Mountain residents during the ski season. From a building perspective, the rooflines and improvements along the southern edge of Lift One Lodge are set back significantly from the property line and articulated down the hill to minimize the visual impact of the project on the Shadow Mountain units. The Mountain Queen and Shadow Mountain complexes will experience some changes when Lift One moves uphill. The location of the new lift has been established by lift engineering and operational requirements. Ski -in access has been maintained to all units and changes to ski -out access are triggered by the change in lift location. Energy/Greenhouse Gases Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are important community and Global issues. The City of Aspen has taken a leadership role on this issue through its Canary Initiative. Addressing these issues in a new development works best when energy efficiency is addressed at every stage, from the initial conceptualization of the building through construction and operation. The Lift One Lodge team includes engineer David Houghton of Resource Engineering Group, who has extensive experience in designing mechanical systems that exceed City energy code requirements. MW22,2(l0'7 PaW6 of 7 David is leading our effort to implement a renewable energy approach for the project that allows for the snowmelt of South Aspen Street, by minimizing the carbon footprint of the Lodge using geothermal exchange energy for heating and cooling. We are also proposing "green roofs" on a large portion of the lodge to reduce energy consumption, minimize storm water runoff and pollution, and to soften views from properties above our site, such as the Shadow Mountain units and the ski area. To date there is only one other development (the EPA headquarters in Denver) in Colorado that has included this innovative rooftop approach. In addition to these active efforts in the design and operation of the Lodge, we are making the commitment to purchase renewable energy and/or renewable energy credits for the operation of the Lodge to assist in offsetting the remaining energy demand from heating, cooling, and normal electric uses. These energy credits and energy sources will be sought from reliable sources to insure that we are providing the greatest benefit possible for this project. Transportation It often seems that transportation issues dominate discussion of land use applications. Even though the Lift One Lodge is only expected to generate about 36 peak winter hour trips, major transportation improvements are proposed to address existing deficiencies in the neighborhood. The current winter road conditions, lack of sidewalks, and lack of transit access limit the use of one of the two gateways to skiing on Aspen Mountain. Users currently experience dangerous walking and driving conditions along South Aspen Street due to the average grade of 14% between Durant Street and the current lift location. The conditions are so severe that the City changes stop signs in the winter to stop cars on Durant Street to avoid vehicles sliding down Aspen Street and striking cars on Durant Street. In addition, there are stories about vehicles parked along Aspen Street suddenly sliding downhill into other parked cars. While the grades along Aspen Street are fixed, the City has identified employing snowmelt as a potential tool for improving public safety. In addition, the lack of sidewalks in the area forces skiers to walk in South Aspen Street, thereby creating additional safety hazards for both pedestrians and vehicles. Finally, there is currently no transit service to Lift One, forcing locals, visitors, and participants in Aspen Valley Ski Club racing programs to drive to the site. A parent cannot currently send their child to the ski club program unless they drive up the hill or have their child walk in the road. During drop- off and pick-up times, the area near the base of the lift is snarled with traffic, while South Aspen Street and the parking lot of the Shadow Mountain Townhomes becomes a staging area for parents. The Lift One Lodge, in conjunction with the Lodge at Aspen Mountain is proposing a series of improvements to address the safety and accessibility issues in the area. The revised roadway will be reconstructed to two traffic lanes with no on -street parking. New improvements include sidewalks, landscaping and the aforementioned snowmelt system. Dean Street will also be improved in accordance with the Dean Street Improvement Plan, which includes an improved roadway, curb and gutter, stormwater improvements, and new sidewalks along the perimeter of Willoughby Park. All of these improvements will make this section of Aspen safer and more pedestrian friendly. May2Za007 PaW,7 of 7 Another significant improvement to the area is a proposed transit service. A shuttle system could connect Rubey Park, Lift One, and the walkway to the Gondola Plaza at Dean St. during the winter months with a level of service similar to the Galena Street Shuttle. The service would be funded by an improvement district made of area lodge properties, including the Lift One Lodge and Lodge at Aspen Mountain. The final significant transportation improvement in the area is a proposed 115-space underground parking garage to replace the on -street parking along South Aspen Street and the unsightly surface parking in the lot that currently dominates Willoughby Park. This is a safer and more aesthetically pleasing alternative to the current parking conditions. We believe that the combination of transportation improvements described above will serve the community at -large and provide a viable alternative to the gondola for accessing Aspen Mountain, which will benefit all area property owners. These public improvements, which typically require major public investment are community benefits offered by the redevelopment of lodging properties in the area. Affordable Housing All of the Lodge employee housing requirements will be met on -site and all of the units will be above grade. The Skiers Chalet Restaurant, which has historic designation, will be renovated and converted into six one -bedroom employee housing units. The building will benefit from the renovation and workers will enjoy the historic nature of the building in a great ski -in location. Three one -bedroom and two, two -bedroom units are be included in the lodge building. Whe eleven units will house over 20 employees, more than the required mitigation under the code requirements. All but one of the units are Category 2, offering truly affordable rental rates in a great location. Due to the significant subsidy required to provide lower Category housing, it is notable for a private sector project to supply Category 2 units to the housing inventory. Closing While the application for the Lift One Lodge is relatively complex, including rezoning, rights -of -way vacations, and improvements to public parks, the core idea is relatively simple; lodging at the base of Aspen Mountain coupled with numerous community benefits. Our project team has taken care to meet all of the dimensional requirements and height limitations of the Lodge zone district and to address many neighborhood and community issues. I look forward to presenting this project to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for Conceptual Review and appreciate you taking the time to consider the work that we have put into bringing forward the best project possible. Sincerely, Aobe' . Daniel, Jr. Roaring Fork Lodging Company MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer Date: April 11, 2007 Re: Lift One Lodge Meeting One The Development Review Committee (DRC) has been asked to review the proposed development of the property east of S. Aspen Street as The Lift One Lodge at the April 11, 2007 DRC meeting and has compiled the following comments. Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Joyce Allgaier, Planning; Trisha Coyle, Adam Trzcinski, Aaron Reed, City Engineering; Denis Murray, Building; Amy Guthrie, HPC; Blake Fitch, Parking; Brian Flynn, Parks; Cindy Christensen, Housing; Todd Grange, City Zoning; Tom Bracewell, ACSD; Steve Hunter, Public Works; John Krueger, Transportation; Sunny Vann, Vann Assoc.; Bob Daniel and Joe Enzer, Owners Reps.; Stephen Holly and Marina Skiles, Poss Architecture; Dave Carpenter, DHM Design; Jay Hammond, SGM Engineering. Building Department - Denis Murray; • Could not make comments because of the scale of the drawings that were submitted as part of this DRC package. Fire Protection District - Ed VanWalraven; • This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2003 Edition Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be installed (IFC as amended Section 903 and 907 Engineering Department -Trisha Coyle, Adam Trzcinski, Aaron Reed; (separate meeting maybe scheduled) • Final design shall be compliant to all sections of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21, and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Parks - Brian Flynn; • Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the Page 2 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. • Additional Tree Protection Measures: • Roots: The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Roots 2" or greater shall be professionally pruned with the on call tree service. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. • Excavation: All excavations adjacent to the drip zones will be required to be vertical excavation only, with no over digging. Excavations will be soil stabilized in a manner that prevents over excavation of the site. This will require a one sided pour for all foundation walls located within these protection zones. • Mulching: Six inches of mulch is required to be placed within the zone of vegetation protection. The mulch shall be maintained at a level of 6 inches during the entire project. • Irrigation: Irrigation of trees is required throughout the entire length of the project. The Contractor will supply water to the trees at a rate which is appropriate for proper health. Additional watering will take place along the edge of the roots cutting. The contractor will be required to place a burlap protection cover over the cut roots. The contractor will irrigate the burlap with an appropriate amount of water in order to keep the burlap moist. • Access: Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times. • Parks will need detailed plans for the proposed excavation around the large Blue Spruce located on the corner of Gilbert and South Aspen. This vertical excavation will require soil nails or soil grouting only, helical piers are not permitted due to the extent of the surface impact. The applicant will also be required to provide a $100,000 bond, for a period of three years after excavation, in the event the tree fails the bond will be released to the City of Aspen. In addition the applicant will be required to replace the tree with a tree of significant value and size. • Applicant should be aware that the Parks Department is not approving the proposed excavation distance shown in the conceptual plans. Further review and details will be required for review and approval. • Landscaping and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. Parks will need to meet with the landscape architects and planners for a final review of the planting plan, specifically the spacing of the street trees and species. Page 3 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge • ROW requirements require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, if a system is not in place one will need to be added. • An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. • The applicant shall consult with the Director of the Parks and Open Space Department in order to discuss how mitigation will be completed depending on the partnership with the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. • Parks Department will require the applicant work directly with the Parks Department planners on the final park layout, plantings, amenities and public benefits for both Lift 1 and Willoughby Parks. (For example Lift 1 Park should be served with a sidewalk on the south side of Gilbert Street.) • The Parks Department is requesting the applicant provide the City with a 1000 sq foot staging/storage area in the public garage located below Willoughby park. • The replacement sites and the costs associated with replacement of the volleyball courts will be the responsibility of the developer. The applicant should work closely with the Parks department in site location and planning of new courts. • Applicant shall provide a public easement across Ski Co property in order to protect the public access to and from Lift 1 Park. This would allow for perpetual use of the property as access during both summer and winter. • The City Attorney and City Council will approve final plans for Willoughby Park's lease agreement between the applicant, the Historical Society and the City. • Placement of the utilities underneath the sidewalk zone is a major concern for future impacts and repairs to the services. Any repairs would require disruption of the sidewalk zone, loss of pedestrian access and conflicts with ROW landscaping. Parks does not recommend placing the utilities underneath the ROW. A new plan for utility placement should be discussed and presented. If am alternative solution can not be reached, the developer should draft an agreement and language that outlines the responsibilities of the metro district to repair, replace and pace for all associated costs related to all utility repairs within the City ROW. Zoning Officer - Todd Grange; • A fee matrix for School Land dedication to include the Current Market Value TDM and park dedication fees. These fees are based on bedrooms and a net leasable number. The net leasable number should be verifiable per plan set. • A Roof Plan over a survey with grades to verify building heights. Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz; • Inclinometer installation and bi-monthly monitoring a minimum of one seasonal cycle before the issuance of a building permit. Number and Page 4 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge location of installations must be submitted and approved by the City. Pieziometers to evaluate groundwater conditions should also part of the pre -construction data gathering. • If any slope movement is identified that historic rate will not be exceeded during or after construction. • A soils boring grid / matrix must be no greater then 100' by 100' between test locations in the area under the building footprint. In areas outside of the building foot print the distance between holes be increased to 500' by 500' . • Depth of the soils borings must extend to a depth 20-feet greater then the maximum designed bottom footer. • Determination of global stability if historic movement is documented must meet the requirements of AASHTO for "Critical Structure" which implies a factor of safety 1.5 minimums. • The majority of what is being shown in the DRC package is site improvements with only a brief reference to project impacts. Site improvements need to include a full analysis of uphill condition including but not limited to offsite drainage, geo hazards, stability issues, groundwater mitigation (const. and post const). • To determine project impacts, analysis of existing infrastructure needs to be conducted. Cash in lieu is acceptable but the appropriate amount must be determined. Analysis of risk by not having infrastructure improvements completed downstream at the time of construction needs to be determined. Primarily the runoff from the area above the project and the addition of thousands of square feet of impermeable area being added. • The rational method of determining storm runoff is not appropriate for basins of this size and complexity. It is strongly recommended that the storm water management model (SWMM) be developed for this analysis. In conjunction with this effort a significant hydraulic modeling effort of the existing hydraulic capacities of the current system needs to be provided. Including the expected consequences of combined flows piped and street flows for the 100-year event. • Specific details are not part of the "conceptual" agreement. Adequate design detail is being required for final PUD approval. • A performance bond, letter of credit or the like for an amount determined by the City Engineer to insure the competition of the infrastructure improvement proposed with this project. The amount will be provided under a separate cover. • Mud Flow as identified in the 2001 City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan should be addressed in the architectural design. This should be considered for any at grade, uphill (south elevation) side structural openings. Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Tom Bracewell; • Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a "Collection System Agreement" is required, which is an Page 5 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge ACSD Board of Director's action item. Once detailed utility plans are made available to the district, we can initiate CSA. Two CSA's may need to be executed between the developer and the City of Aspen. • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. • Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. • A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. • All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. • On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. • On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. • Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the o/s interceptor. • Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. • Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. • Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. • When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (6) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities. • Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system. • Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. • Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. • All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. • Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be Page 6 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). • The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. • ACSD will administer and construct the proposed new main sanitary sewer line in Aspen and Gilbert Streets at the developer's expense. • The proposed main sanitary sewer line in Aspen Street will have to be extended south to accommodate the Ski Co. on mountain sewer line. • If the main sanitary sewer line is built underneath the landscaping, curb, gutter and sidewalk areas, the developer will have to set up a means for their future replacement of the same at no expense to the taxpayer, such as a metropolitan district, homeowners association or similar. Housing Office - Cindy Christensen; • Unit count appears correct based on uses shown. • Must have assigned parking for the units at the Lodge. • November 15 presentation to the Board for approval. • Units that are being proposed for the Smuggler Racquet Club also require Housing Board approval. Parking - Tim Ware, Blake Fitch; • We would like to know the garage operational plan. • Ownership of the facility needs to be determined. • A determination of restrictions must address parking hours and fees. Environmental Health - Jannette Murison; I recommend the following for performance targets be set as conditions of approval: • AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.081 to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the cam..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". • The land use code states that the density of a PUD may be reduced if the proposed development will have a pernicious [negative] effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. • In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the following condition is recommended: • Pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee. Other recommended measures include: Page 7 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge • Units are sold with only one parking space. Additional spaces are provided at additional cost to homeowner. If a homeowner needs only one space, purchase price will be reduced so that the program is revenue -neutral. • Hotel and businesses join the Transportation Options Program (TOP). • A vehicle should be purchased to be part of the Roaring Fork Vehicle program, to be used by the residents and guests for car -sharing. • Provide covered and secure bike storage. • REMINDERS FOR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS: • The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments and reminders: • ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. • ENGINE IDLING: The applicant is reminded for the construction phase of the project that per municipal code section 13.08.1 10 it is unlawful for any person to idle or permit the idling of the motor of any stationary motor vehicle for a prolonged or unreasonable period of time determined herein to be five (5) minutes or more within any one (1) hour period of time. FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures. A fugitive dust control plan is required as part of the applicants erosion control plan. A fugitive dust control plan may include, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project will last greater than 6 months. NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18-04-01 'The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well Page 8 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. " • During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. • It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. • A construction noise suppression plan must be submitted to the City of Aspen Construction Mitigation Officer if the construction of this project will create noise greater than 80 decibels. • TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recycling containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance, Chapter 12.06. • The applicant is advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for recycling during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include the following recyclable material: Cardboard, Co -mingled (plastic bottles, aluminum, steel cans and glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper. • A total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utility/trash service area is recommended for recycling facilities. • One 90-gallon toter = 2"x2.5" (5sq. ft.). Need one for each: co -mingled, office paper, newspaper = 15sq. ft. Cardboard - At minimum could use a toter = 5sq. ft and at most need a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (Yx4"). Can have required space reduced in a review if can prove use of a cardboard shelf = Osq.ft • FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES: Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado requires a review of plans and specifications by this Department. The Department shall be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the grease trap. Restaurant grills are regulated by the City of Aspen and the applicant should contact this Department to be it is in compliance with City code. • The applicant should be aware that approval of both plans and specifications is required before the building permit is approved. A minimum of two weeks is necessary for the Environmental Health Department to review and approve plans. Also, final approval from this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance of a Colorado Food Service License. Page 9 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge POOLS AND SPAS • All design, installation and maintenance must comply with "Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, adopted August 15, 1993." A copy can be obtained from our office. • A snowmelt system "commissioning plan" should be developed and be a requirement of the PUD approval. • All buildings will perform at least 50% better than the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code. On or off -site renewable energy may be used to meet this target, provided the location of any renewable energy system is approved by CORE and located within Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary. • All CO2 emissions from snowmelt system(s) located in the public right of way shall be offset by on or off -site renewable energy provided the location of any renewable energy system is approved by CORE and located within Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary. Any fee -in -lieu for offsetting the CO2 emissions shall be no less than the cost of a renewable energy system described above. Such a system shall be operational before the snowmelt system is activated. Quantification of CO2 emissions from the snowmelt system(s) shall be verified by the City of Aspen. • CORE funding can only be used for a renewable energy(s) system or an energy efficiency upgrade(s) that exceeds the above stated performance targets. Public Works - Steve Hunter; • The SGM engineering report from Jay Hammond states that the 12" and 8" water lines will be relocated so as to minimize the potential for disturbing the proposed snowmelt surface. Minimization of conflicts is not sufficient. The utilities must be placed in a right of way or easement area of sufficient width to be clear of the snowmelt surface when maintenance or replacement activities are necessary. Also it will require that all existing lateral water service lines to adjoining properties along the entire length of the snowmelt system be replace d according to existing City of Aspen standards. At a minimum, this replacement is required to the curb box for each adjoining property served. Finally, an advice to property owners adjoining the snowmelt surface will be recorded advising each property owner that there is a snowmelt system installed that covers the water service lines and that any and all additional replacement or repair costs imposed as a result of the presence of this system is the sole responsibility of the improvement district that operates the snowmelt system. • City of Aspen review of and approval of final utility design drawings will be required prior to initiating modifications to the water system. A preconstruction conference is required to review the approved design with the contractor in advance of construction of modifications to the water system. The applicant will be responsible for all City of Aspen costs involved in modification of the water system including engineering review and construction observation. Page 10 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge • 12" Waterline Re -Alignment Alternative C is the preferred alternative of the City of Aspen Water Department (we will still need to review and sign off on construction level drawings) • The fire hydrant fed by the existing 12" to the east of the proposed lodge will need to be relocated and fed from the new 12" ( this must be approved by AFPD) • The Water department will need to see plans showing the waterlines in Monarch and Summit Streets and how connections will be made and service will be maintained • All standards apply (water, electric, stormwater) Snowmelt System & Energy: • The preliminary PUD approval did not make provision for the proposal for snow melting three blocks of South Aspen Street right of way. There is not an existing precedent establishing the conditions under which the public right of way can b used for this purpose. In particular the proposal may be at odds with the Canary Initiative and the action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is currently under development. The proposal to mitigate energy impacts (page 47 of the application) is not sufficiently specific in order to provide a basis for determining if a plan sufficiently mitigates new CO2 emissions associated with the snowmelt system. In particular, the proposal to use natural gas boilers to fuel the system seems problematic. It is suggested that a ground source heat pump using energy provided by the Aspen electric system be considered to reduce carbon emissions be considered. Aspen's current carbon emission factor of 0.6 Ibs CO2 per kwh is together with this type of system would be substantially below equivalent emissions from burning natural gas. The Holy Cross Franchise agreement provides for use of Aspen electric energy on public works types of projects, which this activity would satisfy because it is in a public street. More specifically, if a snowmelt system is to be approved for the public right of way in Aspen St., the project should be conditioned to meet the following standard for mitigation of impacts to CO2 emissions: the net emissions for the proposed buildings and facilities on the project site (including the snowmelt system) can not exceed the existing CO2 emissions from existing buildings and uses. Special Improvement District: • The application does not provide sufficient details regarding the functions and responsibilities of the proposed improvement district. Will the district be responsible for street maintenance, stormwater system maintenance, street light maintenance and surface restoration and improvements resulting from future ground disturbances? Are specially selected materials to be used for sidewalk materials and other similar improvements and will these materials be consistent with those in use in other locations in the City? Storage and re -stocking such specialized items is a concern due to a proliferation of these types of districts. The City has no capacity to store pre -stocked materials for eventual replacement of limited stock items Page 11 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge (pavers, non-standard street light fixtures and accessories, etc.). Any City approval of such an improvement district should be subject to negotiation of a final agreement defining the relative roles and responsibilities of the parties with respect to the above issues. Stormwater: • The City of Aspen is in the process of finalizing a Stormwater Utility Business Plan. The applicant should be advised that if this project moves forward as proposed, a system development fee on the gross impervious surface area will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. This fee is distinguished from an impact fee because, rather than applying to the net increase in Stormwater runoff, new development would be responsible for paying the pro -rated up -front cost of the stormwater collection and treatment system proposed in the plan. Snowmelt Transition to Surface Streets: • Attention should be paid to the design of surface drainage from the snowmelt system where it transitions to Durant Avenue to avoid any water runoff to non -snow melted surfaces at the intersection of Durant and Aspen St. Transportation - John Krueger; • The Lift One Lodge should include a detailed operation plan for its proposed shuttle service as part of the Transportation Plan. I think it should ultimately become a condition of approval for the project. • The Detailed Operation Plan should include at least the following information: • A description of the Service proposed including; o Dates of service o Hours of operation o Headways o Number of vehicles and spares o Description of the route o Organizational chart showing manager and personnel providing service o Monitoring and reporting of the service including -ridership statistics, accidents o Type and size of vehicles to be operated o Number and location of stops o Shelters o Marketing and promotion of the service o Estimated Costs of service The plan should clearly define the financial responsibilities including purchase and replacement of vehicles, operating costs, vehicle maintenance, purchase, and maintenance of shelters, etc. If the service is to be contracted out, then details of that should be provided The applicant should join the TOP (Transportation Options Program) Page 12 of 12 April 11, 2007 Lift One Lodge • Contribute financially toward the Car Share Program by purchasing one hybrid vehicle Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Paul Smith * Chairman Michael Kelly * Vice- Chair John Keleher * Sec/Treas April 19, 2007 Joyce Allgaier Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lift One Lodge-PUD Dear Joyce: Frank Loushin Roy Holloway Bruce Matherly, Mgr We have reviewed the development application for the Lift One Lodge-PLID and Timeshare development and our comments are attached. Please include our comments in your response to the applicant. Thanks. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager attachment RECEIVED APR 2 0 2007 AS�tN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 565 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970)925-2537 DRC 4-11-07 ACSD Review Comments Lift One Lodge Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a "Collection System Agreement" is required, which is an ACSD Board of Director's action item. Once detailed utility plans are made available to the district, we can initiate CSA. Two CSR's may need to be executed between the developer and the City of Aspen. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the o/s interceptor. Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (6) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities. Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. ACSD will administer and construct the proposed new main sanitary sewer line in Aspen and Gilbert Streets at the developer's expense. The proposed main sanitary sewer line in Aspen Street will have to be extended south to accommodate the Ski Co. on mountain sewer line. If the main sanitary sewer line is built underneath the landscaping, curb, gutter and sidewalk areas, the developer will have to set up a means for their future replacement of the same at no expense to the taxpayer, such as a metropolitan district, homeowners association or similar. SNOWMASS ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK A S P E N C S N O W M A S S. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY ASPEN SKIING COMPANY APR 2 1 2006 April 18, 2006 Chris Bendon, Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Ca816l l RE: Lift One Lodge Dear Chris: The Aspen Skiing Company hereby authorizes Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge - Aspen, LLC to file and process an Application for Conceptual PUD/Timeshare Approval for the Lift One Lodge which affects the real property owned by the Aspen Skiing Company described below: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 10, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 12, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. Very truly yours, ASPEN SKI G COMPANY By: P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612-1248 970-925-1220 www.aspensnowmass.com ® Pnnted on Recycled Paper. THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination Of Completeness Date: 1 /5/07 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number, name, and property identification number assigned to this property is Lift One Lodge, 0066.2006.ASLU, I will be handling this case. U Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. ❑x Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2754 if you have any questions. Thank You, Joyce Allgaier, DeputylTirector City of Aspen, Community Development Department C:\Documents and Settings\joycea\My Documents\Joyce's Forms\Determination of completeness letter.doc File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help MainCustom Fields Fees 4chons Parcel$ Routing Status Fee Summary Routing History ` F 9- Permit Type Permit p 10066.2006.A5LU Address �710 GILBERT 5T Apt/Suite CRY ASPEN State (CO MJ Zip 01611 PermiO Information Master Permit Routing Queue askA6, Applied 1tJ24J2006 Project — ' Status p;Zg_ Approved Description CONCEPTUAL PUD/TIMESHARE APPROVAL FOR THE LIFT ONE LODGE Issued Final Submitted IVANNASSOCIATES925.6958 Clock Runr* Days F 17 Expiies 12J06J2007 JI i;raner Last Name POARING FORK MTN LODGE K First Name j PO BOX 6237 Phone J970J 923.4500 SNOWMASS VILLAGE CO 81615 Owner is Ap*aM? Last Name ROARING FORK MTN LODGE _J First Name 1 r0 BOX 6237 NOWMASS VILLAGE CO 81615..__ Phone ;[970) 923-4500 Cult # 3A9 Lender Last Name j Fist Name i r_ Phone I .Enter t1�e main brie at tP�e parrr,d addres> V Record: 1 of 1 Pu-b I one.. Roaring Fork Lodging Company June 29, 2007 Joyce Allgaier Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3`d floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lift One Lodge — Conceptual PUD Application Dear Joyce: This attached information is written to provide background on the specific meeting topics for the scheduled July 10, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Review Process for the subject project. Per the meeting schedule that was provided, the discussion topics for the July 1 Oth meeting are: • Site and Infrastructure Constraints/Opportunities • Public Experience Throughout the Site • Site Plan, Uses, Massing and Zoning • Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Review for Willoughby and Lift One Parks Many of these items warrant an interactive discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission that will occur at the July 1 Oth meeting. We will have additional graphic presentation material to review with you and the Commission at that meeting. We look forward to the discussion and are available to meet with you in advance of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting if you have any further questions. M Robert E. Daniel, Jr. Roaring Fork Lodging Company 24398 State Highway 82 • P.O. Box 4560 • Basalt, Colorado 81621 • 970/927.9000 p✓,a.,. • 970/927.2834 fQ. Lift One Lodge Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 Site and Infrastructure Constraints/Opportunities In the overall design of the master plan for the properties included within the PUD application for the Lift One Lodge there were several constraints and opportunities. Our project team tried to address each constraint and opportunity with an intention to further our master plan goals related to History, Accessibility, and Vitality. As presented during our initial meeting, those goals are: History Changes will honor the ski heritage and reinforce the role of skiing in the future Accessibility Changes will lead to increased safety, better connectivity, and more mobility Vitality Changes will increase the activities and use of the area for more residents and visitors. Changes will lead to more hot beds at base of ski area. 1. Lift 1— As discussed in the master plan presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 19, 2007, the presence of the original Lift 1 ski lift is a primary design consideration for Willoughby Park and Lift One Park. These structures are listed on the Local and National Historic Registries. At Willoughby Park in particular, enhancing the opportunity for the general public to view and access this piece of Aspen's skiing history is a major design consideration. The master plan is designed to increase activity and vitality at Willoughy Park so that residents and guests will interact with the historical assets rather than merely seeing them as artifacts. The view corridor, ski access, and pedestrian trails from the Lift 1 bottom terminal at Willoughby Park up to the towers above Gilbert Street in Lift One Park are currently obstructed by the existing parking, the `Soccer Club' building, the Deep Powder Cabins and the non -historic addition to the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse. The master plan moves parking underground, removes the non -historic portions of the Soccer Club building and Steakhouse, and relocates the Deep Powder cabins. The improvements open up views into and through the park, improve ski access, create a more park -like setting, and improve access to historic assets. 2. Parks — Prior to the development of a master plan for this area, the Applicant met with the City of Aspen Parks Department staff to understand their priorities for Willoughby and Lift One Parks. During those discussions, we learned that the Parks Department envisioned Willoughby Park becoming more of a destination within the overall system of parks throughout the City. Additionally, there was an expressed desire to maintain Lift One Park much as it is today, passive green space that could possibly be used in the winter for skiing. Currently there is little or no `community' usage of the Lift One Park parcel in the summer. Page 2 of 7 The history of Lift One Park goes back to the relocation of Lift 1 to the current location of Lift 1 A. The land for the park was donated to the City of Aspen in 1971 by the Aspen Skiing Company with the encumbrance of a skiing easement to the benefit of Aspen Skiing Company. It is our understanding that after the donation, the City of Aspen established the 51 foot by 130 foot parcel (6,630 square feet) as a part of the City park system. 3. Lift 1 A Relocation — As a part of the master plan, the Applicant worked with the Aspen Skiing Company on the relocation of the new Lift IA. As you are aware, a new lift was originally proposed during the review of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. In addition, there has been a long-standing need for a cul-de-sac at the top of Aspen Street. A cul-de-sac would improve emergency access, bring order to the current traffic mayhem at the base of the lift caused by a lack of an appropriate drop-off/pick-up area, and create the opportunity for a more enticing access to the mountain. Various scenarios were explored relative to lift location. Everything from bringing a new lift down to Willoughby Park, running a fixed guideway system in Aspen Street from Durant to a new lift location, and moving the lift slightly uphill were examined. The Aspen Skiing Company is finalizing a letter that outlines the technical and regulatory restrictions that go into the design of lift and ski corridors. In short, the constraints of the corridor and the existence of the Historic Lift 1 prohibit the creation of a terminal with appropriate skier access for a lift system in Willoughby Park. A diagram is included as Exhibit 1 to provide a graphic representation of these constraints on the property. After review of the constraints and opportunities for maintaining ski -in access, providing a cul-de-sac and meeting current ski industry safety and design standards, the master plan has evolved into relocating the lift, improving ski -in access, dedicating project land for a cul-de- sac, and providing pedestrian and transit improvements. Public Experience Throughout the Site As presented at the June 19th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, two of the primary objectives of the master plan are to increase accessibility and vitality in this part of Aspen. This will be accomplished through several components of the plan. Willoughby — The existing surface parking lot along Dean Street creates a barrier to public access to the historic structures that are a part of this property. Our observation, after working in the neighborhood over the last two years, is that few people are aware of or drawn to the assets. Many people only know the site as a parking lot. The master plan offers new pedestrian connections to the Dean and Aspen Street corridors and brings park amenities to the streets. Additionally, the plan improves views into the park, provides a destination in order to draw people to the park, and removes surface parking. We believe that these improvements will increase the opportunities for the public to engage in the historic resources, including Lift 1, the relocated Deep Powder Cabins, Lift Ticket Building, Boat Tow and Outhouse. This is further explained in the section regarding the Historic Preservation Commission approval of the Conceptual Application. Page 3 of 7 2. Skiers Chalet Steakhouse — The removal of the non -historic addition to the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse opens up the corridor for skiers and provides a greater visual connection to the to the historic aspects of the building and lift towers adjacent to the Steakhouse. The adaptive reuse of the Steakhouse for employee housing offers additional vitality in the area and provides for rehabilitation of the asset. 3. Lift One Park — Currently there is no real connection from Willoughby Park to Lift One Park due to the interruption of the non -historic addition to the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse. The removal of this structure creates a greater visual connection to Lift One Park from Willoughby Park. In response to comments from Community Development Staff regarding an alternative plan for Lift One Park, the Applicant has developed an alternative plan to leaving Lift One Park unimproved. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this memorandum are two potential improvement plans for Lift One Park that the Applicant will review and discuss with the Planning Commission at the July 10t' meeting. 4. South Aspen Street — A major focus of the master plan has been the experience along South Aspen Street from the Durant Avenue intersection to the top of the street in front of the Shadow Mountain Town Homes. At the July l0U' meeting, the Applicant will present information delineating the existing conditions and the proposed relationship between the street and lodge from a pedestrian perspective at several critical points along South Aspen Street. 5. Slopeside/Apr6s Ski — As a part of increasing both the accessibility and vitality of the neighborhood, the master plan provides improvements to increase the general public's use of the Lift 1 A side of Aspen Mountain. At the July 10'' meeting, the Applicant will provide specific information relative to the public experience and utilization in and adjacent to the ski area. 6. Lift One Lodge —Asa part of the presentation on July 10t', the Applicant will provide diagrammatic information representing the portions of the facility that are open to the general public and those that are open to guests and members of the lodge. Page 4 of 7 Site Plan, Uses, Massing and Zoning Many of the components of this topic are best presented and discussed during the meeting using graphics at a large scale. Below is a description of the existing zoning and the zoning proposed in the master plan. 1. Existing/Proposed Zoning — Parcels A, B and C, which are presently owned by the SKICO, are zoned C, Conservation; these parcels house the existing Lift 1 A base area. The unimproved Summit Street right-of-way, which separates Parcel A from Parcels B and C, is also zoned C, Conservation. Hill Street, which the Applicant proposes to vacate, is zoned L, Lodge, as are Parcels D, E and F. Parcels G and H, which contain Lift One Park and Willoughby Park, respectively, are zoned Park, Historic. The immediate site area surrounding the proposed Lift One Lodge is zoned L, Lodge. To accommodate the Lift One Lodge and associated improvements to the project site' two existing parks, the Applicant proposes to rezone Parcels A, B and C and vacated Summit and Hill Streets to L, Lodge, and Parcels G and H to Pub(H), Public, Historic. The rezoning of Parcels A, B and C is required as a lodge is not a permitted use in the C, Conservation, zone district. The Applicant further proposes to place a PUD overlay over the entire project site to permit a unified approach to development and the establishment of dimensional requirements for the two Public zoned parcels. A PUD overlay is also required for the development of a timeshare lodge. A C L B C L C C L D L L E L L F L L G Park, Historic Public. Historic H Park, Historic Public, Historic Summit Street ROW C L Hill Street ROW L L Parcels A, B, C, D and E, and the Summit Street and Hill Street right-of-ways will be replatted as Lot 1 of the proposed PUD. This parcel will contain the proposed timeshare lodge. Proposed Lot 2 will contain the existing Skiers Chalet Restaurant which is to be converted to affordable housing. Lots 3 and 4 will contain the Lift One Park and Willoughby Park, respectively. The 8040 Greenline traverses Aspen Mountain immediately above the project site. The Aspen city limits line roughly parallels the 8040 Greenline further up Aspen Mountain. In general, the C, Conservation zone district is confined to those areas of the City which are Page 5 of 7 located above the 8040 Greenline. The only areas within the city limits which are located below the 8040 and zoned C, Conservation, are the Little Nell and Lift 1 A base areas. The existing and proposed zoning districts are shown on Exhibit 3 to this memorandum. Page 6 of 7 Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Review for Willoughby and Lift One Parks As previously mentioned, the master plan that is a part of the Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD/Timeshare Application has components that are a part of the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures"; the Boat Tow, Lift 1 — Tower and Skiers Chalet Steakhouse. These structures and the sites on which they sit are subject to the review of the Historic Preservation Commission. In March 2006, the Applicant submitted an application for a Major Development (Conceptual) Relocation, Demolition and Variances for these properties. The application was reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission in Resolution 12, Series of 2006. A copy of this Resolution is attached as Exhibit 4. 1. Willoughby Park — The location of the Aspen Historical Society Museum was a significant part of the aforementioned Historic Preservation Commission review. The major consideration was the placement of this facility and its relationship to Dean Street as well as the surrounding historical assets of Lift 1 and the Ticket Building. Attached as Exhibit 5 are two diagrams which provide context for the discussion that led to the ultimate approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Alternative B represents the general location of the Museum that was approved as a part of Resolution 12. Further discussion regarding the review process will be presented by the Aspen Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie at the July 10t' meeting. Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 1 I �,1r , MOyNT�1ry a/KV.Yv.�rc ' i Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado po$$ ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING O C ON C E P T U A L D I A G R A M S: Tramway/Lift Corridor Study 1 0 3Y 64' 129' I '! I BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES 1 in 9701$25 4755 M 970nzo 2250 NORTH (D 2007 ARCHITECTURE AND PUINNING,P.C. 06.29.07 Exhibit 2 ===+_— --�- :lei f T o N e- f rt f �- Pros: • Maintains the openness of the existing park per City of Aspen Parks Department requests • Uncluttered ski run during the winter • Low maintenance Cons: fr / ';���,. • Limited shading and defined gathering / spaces / t • Less park like and more ski run like �6GF OGERfdANQ� � \ �� `v' 7�J compared to Alternate B r s� ry ���;1�Jr� fir ' � 'i; -� • r • ' .l,r Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado po$$ ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING O o 10 20 in ereiaxe 4753 cn vru non 2250 NORTH CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS: LiftlParkStudsy- AlternateA BILL POSS AND ASSOCVITE 2A 0 2007 ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. 06.29.07 a E a3;tr.j; r� 4tt t " PO$$ ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING O 0 �Df�Jjj'j (T) 970/925 4755 111 070/220 2250 NOM 10' 20' �10' Pros: ----------------------------------------------------------- • Greater shading and more defined gathering spaces within the park • More park like than Alternate A while still maintaining the ski run • Deciduous trees will soften the lodge structure in summer while opening up the park during winter s,<i r�saFtr ��ESS r, Cons: • Restricts the current openness of the ski run �`,!�!' • Greater maintenance requirements • Non historic plantings �a R! Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS: LiftlParkStud+-AlternateB 02007 ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. 06.29.07 Exhibit 3 v C ' 6 10, 711 diIVHO v � I9101 I 0 110, 910, W I110, O( 10, S 10, Y 107ko I J1 < Z' `. . ry� ) RK,�I h� 1107 r to- N� Qi �� "', TORIC m � H H Ld D I 71117 o ^e cc Orr 10, ov r 101 i �.r1or 1ot , f 1o, i IF Inz .� I oil Wr_ M 377 if QNlId 7AW N SV 00EZ1E1 ELZ Nd JOV !A V1YWfl0N AOUVIIS 1006z1 lSEL2' N L, LODGE �� max\ c, RR-_1.5, MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL pO$S ARCmTECTURL . PLANNING 0 40' 60' 160' (T) 97615I5 4739 (f) 970/025 2950 NORTH I �I U Z w Q I I I — - — - — - — - — - — Zone District Boundaries I --------—� 8040Greenline Lift One Lodge Aspen City Limits Aspen, Colorado CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS: Existing Zoning 0 2007 ARCHITTECTURDE AND PLANNING, P.0 06,29.07 3A C, CONSERVATION EXISTING ZONING O 6t0] 0,0] O 1H �LXYH.7 ! 10] O [0] O 9-7 S [O] w =) Z a r 10] 2a H OUS W zsls z d z [o> O 0 , ,o, V L, ,DTI 11 QN d ONY7 NFa SV "0 l LZ Nd 377 1 oNfld 7AW N sv Oorelvf ELZ Nd 111 N! llON OQYHS 1006Z< <SSLZ N L, LODGE �XN T -15,_MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL p0$$ ARCHITECTURE- PLANNING 0 u 4cr w ,w �II��Ili4 (T(0701025 4735 (n 970/020 2950 NORTH Z W I I I PROPOSED ZONING - - - Zone District Boundaries --------- 8040Greenline Lift One Lodge Aspen City Limits Aspen, Colorado CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAMS: Proposed Zoning LL POSS AN 0 2007 ARCHIITTECTURE AND PIANHIf1G, P.C. 06,29.07 3 B C, CONSERVATION Exhibit 4 '�. NOV. 9.2006 3:23PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO.9176 P. 1/4 ��■�� 530468 111111IN11111111111111111111111111 1page: I of 4 0/31/2008 01:21f PNIC lull f 5 AUD lull JANICE K Vo5 CRUp1Lt PirKiN COUNTr c0 R 21.00 D 0.80 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC`} APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT WILLOUGHB'Y PARK, LIFT 1 PARK, AND 710 S. ASPEN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.21, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL ID: Willoughby Park (PID# 2735-131-16-851), Lift 1 Park (PID# 2735-131-19-851), and 710 S. Aspen Street (PID# 2?35-131-21.001) WHEREAS, the applicants, Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge- Aspen, LLC, with authorization by the Aspen historical Society and the City of Aspen, and represented by Poss Architecture and Planning have requested Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the properties at Willoughby Patk (PID# 2735-131-16-851), which is located on.,the corner of Dean and South Aspen Streets and is described as Lots 1-14, Block 7 and Lots 1-3, Block 8, Eames. Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, Skier's Chalet Steakhouse (PID# 2735-13I-21-001), which is located at 710 S. Aspen Street and is described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado and Lift 1 Park (PID# 2735-' 131-19-851) which is bounded by Gilbert Street and Hill Street and is described as Lots 3, 4 (partial), 11 (partial) and 12 of Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 f the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enl ged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or dis ict until }clans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Developmen Director and approved in accordance with the procedures ,established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary io make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, that: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic districi and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or NOV. 9.2006 3:24PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT f, NO.9176 P. 2/4 ���I�I 530468 IN1111I1111I1I111�111110/3 Z 06 4 Ill 30,33, 20.0 01.21s JRNICE K VOS CAL'DILL PI7KIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 A 0.00 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building; structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and _ Additionally, for approval to relocate gll of the following criteria must be met; 1, It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; an 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition,of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish all of the following criteria most be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback, variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the variance, a_ Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoirting designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 9, 2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen NOV. 9. 2006 3:24PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO. 9176 P. 3/14 I f II l ! 630468 Page; 0/31/2eeG 01121F lllllllll JANICNICE K 40S CRUO1Lt vITK1N COUNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.00 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 9, 2006, with a quorum present for the meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 3 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the affected properties with the following conditions: 1. The approved site plan is labeled as "Iteration B." For Final Review, the applicant is required to restudy the eastern stair and elevator exit from the garage to potentially incorporate them into the museum structure, reinforcing the promindnce of the museum along Dean Street. 2, HPC approves the following variances related to the existing Skiers Chalet Steakhouse: a 5 foot front yard setback variance, and 5 foot setback variances on both sideyards. 3. Additional details on the rehabilitation of the historic resources (the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, Lift Towers, Outhouses, Ticket Office, and Deep Powder Cabins) on the affected properties will be required at Final HPC Review. Details on the relocation and renovation of the Skier's Chalet Lodge shall also be provided. 4. Once the Skier's Chalet Lodge has been relocated to Willoughby Park, the landmark designation of Willoughby Park will be amended to recognize the Lodge (the new museum) as a contributing historic resource. 5. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the 14PC within two years of August 9, 2006 or the Conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415,070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code, 6. For Final HPC Review, the board requires the applicant to restudy leaving the large conifer tree, currently proposed for relocation, in its current location. 6. For Final HPC Review, the applicant is required to restudy the spacing of the vertical slats in the revised western egress building (Option B). 7. A structural report from a licensed or the housemover must be submitted, demonstrating that the Skier's Chalet Lodge building can be moved and providing information about how it will be stabilized, This information must be submitted as part of the building permit application related to the Skiers Chalet Lodge. 8. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the historic structures (Skiers Chalet Lodge and Lift Towers) must be submitted with the building permit application. This dollar figure may be revisited based on the perceived risks involved in moving the buildings when further information about the relocation process is provided, 9. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of August 2006. NOV. 9.2006 3:24PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , NO.9176 -P. 4/4 530468 1 HI((1111111 llf 11(((1111 f111 Page: ,z00g 01:21F 111111E 111111�111 Illl IIII Approved as to Form. I 0.00 pp JgNIGE K VOG CRU�LI.L PlTKlN COUNTY COGO R 21.00 lJL- Davi Hoefer, Assistant Vity Attorney Approved is to content: HZSTO ?!!!!jn1ON COMMISSION Jeffrej Ha ferty, Ch r yr A T T; AA d i6ithy St cl snd, Chief Deputy Clerk SSG�AREHARIV ro C11Y CLtRK ASPEN, Co 8l61} Exhibit 5 AZTEC_ TELEMARK I To po$$ ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING 0 0 V W M I) l� l (7) 9701.2E 4739 (q 970/920 2230 NORTH Pros: • Strengthens the openness of the public park along Dean Avenue • Maintains the historic relationship of the Lodge to grade and South Aspen Street • Doesn't overwhelm Dean Avenue • Maintains the current status of the remaining views to the lift • Establishes the historic relationship of the Deep Powder Cabins to the street I Cons: _ • Reduces Museum accessibility from the -- street _ • Restricts the openness along the lift line between the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and the lift terminal pP� �°bE�P6/i eAA1Ar� • Weaker relationship of the Deep Powder Cabins to the museum as compared to Alternate B • No defined event space for the Museum Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado C ON C E P T U A L D I A G R A M S: Museum / Lodge Location Study - Alternate A 2007 ARCHITTEC UILL POSS RE ANsD PIANNIk, P.C. 06.29.07 5A AZTEC CONDOS 4 I� I TELEMARK APTS c I Z'-V - ff*D%uAP Ila pOSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING O �II��II�N sss EAST MAEI STREET AErEE, 1AlAAA 8181E O 18' 32- 84' (n e70 0 1 wu �n naT9}o sclass NORTH Pros: ----------------------------------------------------------- • Museum highly visible and easily accessible • Preserves the existing relationship of the Lodge structure to a street • Creates out door museum space for special events that does not directly impact the rest of the park • Less crowd i ng i n front of the I ift as compared to Alternate A Cons: ---------------------------------------------------------- • Removes Deep Powder Cabins from their historic relationship to the street • Less efficient use of available park open space • More impactful to the Southpoint neighbors due to proximity and height along Dean Avenue • Limits openness of the public park • Reduces efficiency of the garage below due to required storage and gallery space on lower portion of the site Lift One Lodge Aspen, Colorado C ON C E P T U A L D I A G R A M S: Museum / Lodge Location Study - Alternate B BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATE 5 g 2007 ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. 06.29.07 JUN. 19. 2007 9.54AM AUSTIN PEIRCE SMITH N0, 288 P. 2 AU'STIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys At Law 600 E. Hoplans Avenue Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Frederick F. Peirce Thomas Fenton Smith' Daniel J. Sullivan Ronald D. Austin OF COUNSEL OAlsoAdmitted in Delaware June 19, 2007 VI,A, FACSIMILE — 920-5439 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Chris Bendon, County Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO S 1611 Re: Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD Dear Chris: Telephone (970) 925-2600 Facsimile (970)925-4720 Emil Addresses &eirCe@Czi2S cla com ismitkZ ans-nc.com dsullivag@_aps-nc. com This letter is for the purpose of correcting an error in my letter of yesterday regarding the above -referenced application. In that letter I stated that the Caribou Owners' concerns regarding skier access and building setback could be resolved by increasing the setback "to fifteen feet." It is our position that the building setback should be increased "by fifteen (15)" feet from what is reflected currently in the application. I apologize for any confusion caused by my error. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITIJ, P.C. By Thomas Ven on i TFS/dh cc: Caribou Owners via e-mail David Myler, Esq. February 5, 2007 Chris Bendon Director of Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Bendon, RJ�oz� Fe 0 6 200, e111�oIN.4o�P� R��FNT I am the full time resident and co-owner of Southpoint Condominium 2B. I am writing to you regarding the plans for the moving of the new Ski Museum building south of Dean Street, between Monarch and Aspen Streets. I understand that the plan has been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and will shortly be going to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review. As you know, the plans call for the moving of the former Skiers' Chalet building to the site of Willoughby Park, opposite the Southpoint Condominium building. Apparently, at the request of the Historic Preservation Commission, the developer of the Lift One Lodge --who will be carrying out the re -positioning of the Skiers' Chalet building --has re- drawn the placement of the building from up the hill on Willoughby Park to being located right on the south side of a slightly widened Dean Street. Dean Street is a very narrow street, less than 22 feet wide at the present, and the Museum building will be 35 feet high at the ridge and 28 feet at the eaves. I urge the Commission to come to walk this site with the residents of Southpoint, because they will immediately see that this placement will eliminate the feeling of a park and open space currently enjoyed by Willoughby Park, and will turn Dean Street into a narrow, cold and dark alleyway. It will block the winter sun from many of the residents of Southpoint and will also eliminate the views of Aspen Mountain for many of the apartments at Southpoint. I would also point out that the developers of the Lift One Lodge must have recognized this situation when they originally placed the building further up the hill in Willoughby Park, up from the present volley ball courts. We understand, at Southpoint, that the placement of a 35 foot high building in Willoughby Park will inevitably affect the historic views of Aspen Mountain that Southpoint residents have enjoyed. But the narrowness of Dean Street makes the placement of this building, so that it directly abuts Dean Street, an unacceptable and unnecessary imposition. The two buildings will be no more than 50 feet apart, with only a narrow alleyway between them. In this placement, the museum building will jut out a good 15 feet further than the Aztec Lodge, the only other building on the south side of that block of Dean. There is no similar situation in the neighborhood. Durant Street is some 60 feet wide and the distance between the buildings on either side of Durant is over100 feet. The same is true at Cooper Street. If you come to view the situation on site, I know that you will immediately see the problem. 4 The whole issue can be significantly mitigated —both for Southpoint and for the attractiveness of Dean Street —by simply moving the museum building farther up the hill in Willoughby Park; up above the volley ball courts, as the developers had originally planned. Please ensure that this matter is thoroughly reviewed and considered. We are available to discuss and walk this problem with you at any time. Sincerely, Elizabeth Ballinger Cc: BOD Southpoint Condominiums Historic Preservation Commission Lift One Lodge RECOJED FES 0 6 Z007 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys At Law 600 E. Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Frederick F. Peirce Thomas Fenton Smith* Daniel J. Sullivan Ronald D. Austin OF COUNSEL *Also Admitted in Delaware July 23, 2007 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ioViceaAci.asUen.co. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Dept, 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 816.11 Re: Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD Dear Joyce: �� Gfil l +/23 /D T Telephone (970)925-2600 . Facsimile (970)925-4720 F' Email Addresses Ji)-t4c 4, IP$._N.W4R1 tsmitlinnps-pc.com dsullivan n(1pS�DS_49t11 We represent the Caribou Condominium Owners' Association with respect to the above -referenced application. By letters (2) dated June 18, 2007, we expressed our concerns about safe skier access to the Caribou Condominiums consistent with historic use and prescriptive rights, as well as building height and visual impacts. In those letters we requested an increase in the building setback from the Caribou building of 15 feet from what is reflected currently in the application. Since that time the Caribou homeowners have continued to negotiate with the applicant's representatives in an effort to resolve their issues. The homeowners are not opposed to the project, but we believe that an increase in the setback is necessary for safety reasons. In that regard, the Caribou Homeowners' Association has the following proposal to make, which represents a compromise of its previous position and which would require the recommendation of the P&Z to the City Council as a condition of approval. It is our understanding that the eastern wing of lodge rooms has been sited with a five (5) foot setback from the Lift One Park. Given the passive nature of that park and its primary orientation as a ski way, we request that the City approve a variance from the setback from Lift One Park so that the lodge building could move 5 additional feet to the west. The variance would improve ski access to the Silver Shadow and Caribou condos and would also allow better physical separation between our buildings. This is the minimum increase that is acceptable to the homeowners' from a safety standpoint. I expect to be present at tomorrow's P&Z meeting to present this request. Thank you for you consideration. AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. By Thomas Fenton Smith TFS/dh cc: Caribou Owners via e-mail David Myler, Esq. cu E E (+ 0.2 -28 C:) Lo CL) CD CU CU CL _C6-- uj < F- IL O Ok w V 0 0 w z 0 I ASPEN ► MIKTM14 E L;' TELEMARK q[. - ,t fff�lll APARTMENTS tNSE U.S�i.A FUTURE CHART #1il ;> s1 utT+r�ttrS SILVER BfDfYEt+:w. t+GftfS xy # I "'�**.'r,.• f � CDROM TIIAlt TO CONNECT �---TQ TfMMk _APARTIEENig • COt.FM�4( t £LEVA"QR : ,t_- t1ESICEZ EZISTiNG t - _ -• - - _._._._ _. _ —iE- - i 3 S?AIRS :4d9t 'GRRA€;E iI EXtSTttiG ACCESS S S--' Tt..E - _ FENCET Q STLE t EQGIT'ED REMAIN ,._�..'' DEEP PCMfDER RELE A(Ep-K RS CA8rN5 ` Ct4AcR LOCGE! 'V. UNDISTURBED {€ .SA£1i "ARC tC t AREA SCCPfTY SKt CRUSHER '.- -"w F6NES EXISTING HISTtitC_.,. AT" ,c REM D,,. _. CatTwCdls£ mr ter; j t ` I p •t �-EorFOU SEs• L`T}I POINT I Ct:irCCS HISTORIC I.Ifr 1 '� ` a---- - - - ° " _ t NEW LIFT I WK loumey �4FM TCKEr tG PARK � -.t-ACCESS WSTOM STAIRSTQPRKi t8CQTH t >.oTERRACE OUTHOUSE `' - Z� I .P ASPEN SM(NG. S } .Y! .. .........�_... — - � m � .p,:,., soa .'-."3i3:.."••'t+'t"'•..:.._•j �.5_>-r.".'N"`.^.---...S'.'..«... ..,.- .�.'. ... �. �•. +...:" _ - _ �� 1 � trL3LiFh`+CY JUAN LITATED � STREET ..,.• ._... ___-_. . e ' t LEFT OF'£ I SKIERS CKPIL[r 1 ! Y t LODGE AT i STEM HOUSEASPEN LOOGt AT MOUNTAIN ASPEN WOUNTAIN LIFT ONE LODGE SITE PLAN / \\ LEGEND eELCW _ VIA 4 CONCRETE PAVING SPECIALTY PAVING SPECIALTY STONE PAVING CRUSHER FINES PAVING LIFT ONE LODGE ROOF GARDENS LIFT ONE LODGE . v:lorado poss MIT3110i�� �L I 6 ,a ^aa PUBLIC EXPERIENCE 61 Nfe:_1 PUBLIC EXPERIENCE UA Z-Ak qCE 4CE PUBLIC EXPERIENCE A IOLA W Z-A. -k W, y. 0 SOUTH ASPEN STREET Nomny L— ;OA44,1� ao-Ild Z� r�l��r�rr��•-r�1�J HPC APPROVALS 1 5 OR Ight S ARCHITECTURE A Wil its 'WWiI A ICY 4 r' .1;;VI MR 101 x PON! !3 ..Ids 12; -p64'.a1-"iet-vv 5iiIAG" 10 INNS ARCHITECTURE 1107 RV7- A 3 q4 A. so Tongue Creek Orchard Cedaredge, Colorado Dr. Bruce Carlson Principal/Manager 415 East Hyman #402 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gi ` F) Clrro N ems. L .Ar TD fir- L MARILYN & MARC SILVERMAN 205 EAST DURANr AVENUE, #21) ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 920 5312 October 24, 2006 Ms. Helen Klanderud, Mayor City of Aspen, City Council Box 1558 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Ms. Klanderud: As avid skiers, frequent regular visitors and owners of Aspen properties since the late 1960's, we appreciate Aspen's rich history and we support the proposed creation of a Ski Museum. As current residents in the Southpoint Condominiums, however we have deep concerns about the processes that City Council, P&Z and HPC are following in the proposed project for re -development of Willoughby Park, Skiers Chalet and Lift One Park. In particular, we understand that you are considering between three different proposals from the developer for the re -citing of the Skiers Chalet Lodge as a Ski Museum. We believe it imperative that, in making this choice you, as our officials, seek to limit the proposed project's overall impact on the existing neighborhood. In particular, we believe that you should consider these factors: 1) Expand the park, green open -space, environment along as much of the Dean Street corridor as possible. 2) Maximize setback along Dean Street and minimize sightline damage to mountain views from the north (town side). 3) Minimize automobile traffic flow and congestion on Aspen and Dean Streets, particularly given the other large projects that are proposed or under development in this area. 4) Reduce the potential for pedestrian/auto accidents on a dangerous section of Aspen Street between Dean & Durant by moving some of this traffic flow from Aspen Street to Monarch Street. For several months now, representatives of Southpoint have been in communication with the developer to ensure that they consider these factors to produce the best overall result for the neighboring community. If you do likewise, we believe that you will conclude, as we have, that the best location for the citing of the Ski Museum is in the southeasterly corner of the current volleyball courts. Sincerely, A4- AL/ j CC Southpoint Homcowncrs Association JUN.18.2007 4:52PM AUSTIN PEIRCE SMITH N0, 286 P. 2 AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys At Law 600 E. Hopkins Avenue Suite 2o5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Frederick F. Peirce Thoxnas Fenton Smith Daniel J'_ Sullivan Ronald D..A.ustin OFCOUNSEL 'Also Admitted in Delaware June 18, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE — 920-5439 Aspen planning & Zoning Commission c/o Chris Bendon, County Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re, Lift One Lodge Conceptual >PUD Dear Chris: Telephone (970) 9=5-2600 Facsimile (970)925-4720 Email Addresses tsm'I z ROPS-Pc rom dad, o «ys.,jOT72 RFr,FIVFD JUN l 9 2007 BUILDING DEPARTMENT We represent the Caribou Condominium Owners' Association in connection with the above -referenced application. Please place this letter in the record of proceedings commencing June 19, 2007, and place us on the mailing list for all information relating to this application. We also wish to advise you that the Caribou Owners' Association has several issues of concern with regard to the current application. Members of the Association have been in contact with the applicant's representatives, and I have made their concerns known to the applicant's attorney, David Myler, Esq. The Association, is not seeking the denial of the application and we hope that the issues of concern to us can be resolved during the review process. The Association has three primary issues: skier access, building setback, and building height. As proposed, the project will substantially impact the Caribou homeowners in all of these respects, I shall not explain each of these issues in detail no r but I shall do so more fully in, person when public comment is appropriate. Suffice it to say for now that the proposed skier access for the Caribou owners substantially JUN,18,2007 4:52PM AUSTIN PEIRCE SMITH NO, 286 P, 3 AUSTIN, FERCE & SMITH, p.C. Attorneys ar Law Mr. Chris Bendon June 18, 2007 Page 2 diminishes the access which is available to them now and which they have used for about thirty (30) years. We believe that the Caribou owners have a prescriptive easement for the current access and that therefore they are entitled to access of the same quality and level of safety upon re -development of the property. This problem could be resolved by increasing the building setback to fifteen (15) feet instead of the proposed five (5) feet which does not allow for the safe and reasonable access. The owners will also be substantially affected by the proposed height of the building which will impact the sunlight and views currently available from the property. We look forward to participating in this process. We hope that your recommendation to the City Council will address these concerns. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SWTH, P.C. Thomas FentYh ?1nith TFS/dh cc: Caribou Owners via e-mail David Myler, Esq_ RECEIVED JUN 1 9 2007 A,'WO BUILDING DEPARTMENT F:\Files A-L\Caribou Condo Ass.-G, Strawbridge\Chris Bendon Ur. 6.18.07.doc 205 E. Durant Avenue, Apt 2E Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 22, 2007 Mr. Chris Bendon Director of Aspen Community Development 130 Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Bendon: Re: Lift One Lodge Project Enclosed is a copy of a letter I have sent to Chairperson Kruger and other members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I understand this project will, in the near future, be coming to the Commission for review. I am a full-time resident of Aspen, and live in an owner -occupied unit in the SouthPoint condominium building at the corner of Aspen and Durant. My unit faces Aspen Mountain and Dean Street and across from the current parking lot and Willoughby Park. My letter relates to the placement of the Ski Museum in Willoughby Park. I believe the original placement on or near the volley ball court by the developers is the best location. That placement would cause less negative effect on the views of the owners on that side of our building. It would also result in a more ascetically pleasing Park, as well as not crowding out the original Lift One, which is to be restored. I understand the Aspen Historical Preservation Office (HPC) prefers that the Ski Museum be more in the middle of the Park and practically down on Dean Street facing our building. I have not heard the reason(s) for the change. The HPC approach would seem to be much less appealing, not only to SouthPoint owners, but also to the general public, as compared to the approach taken by the developers. I hope the Commission can take another look at this and conclude that the original proposal for the location is the right one. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Hugh S. Hatcher Ruth Kruger, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Madam Chairperson: 205 E. Durant Avenue, Apt. 2E Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 22, 2007 Re: Lift One Lodge Project I am writing you regarding the portion of the above project that relates to Willoughby Park, specifically the location of the Ski Museum building (formerly the Skiers Chalet Lodge building being moved to the Park). I understand this project will be coming before the Commission in the near future. I am a full-time resident of Aspen, and live in an owner -occupied unit in the SouthPoint condominium building. Also, I am the Secretary/Treasurer of our condo association. My unit is on the second floor above the corner of Aspen and Dean, facing Aspen Mountain. Some of the SouthPoint owners have worked with the developers of the Lift One Lodge Project from the early stage. As far as I know, all the owners involved were in concurrence with the developers on the placement of the Ski Museum in the Park, as well as the entrance to the underground garage. The Ski Museum location was basically where the volley ball courts are now located, and would be back against the large spruce trees. The original location would tend to minimize any negative effect on the mountain views of the owners living on the south side of our building. In addition, and very important, it would result in the most ascetically pleasing Park, i.e., a placement of the building south of the new grass area (presently the asphalt parking lot) and a setback from Dean Street. It would not interfere with the original Lift One, which will be restored and located in its present position. One only needs to visit the site, or review the original plans to see that this is the obvious preferred location of the Museum. Moving the Museum to the middle of the Park and practically on Dean Street would place the building much closer to the original Lift One and detract from the whole setting. It is my understanding that the Aspen Historic Preservation Office (HPC) prefers that the Museum be located more in the center of the Park, and right across Dean Street from our building. Personally, I have heard no reasons for the move. The Museum will be a three-story building, which was one of the reasons for the original placement on or near the volley ball court location, in order to minimize the height problem by placing it further away from our building. Unless owners are given additional information that might provide some justification for this change in the location, I believe the current position of the HPC seems somewhat arbitrary and does not appear to serve any public interest. It certainly is to the detriment of SouthPoint owners, as well as creating a less pleasing park and layout of the property for the general public. Our building has 30 units, and is made up of a number of full-time Aspen residents, as well as a number of owners who use their unit for extended periods of time. There are a few short and long-term rentals, but it is primarily modest apartments that are homes to full-time residents, or truly second homes for other owners. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have in regard to my comments. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, cc: P & Z Members Hugh S. Hatcher Steve Skadron Brandon Marion John Rowland Brian Speck 4f SNOWMASS ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK July 3, 2007 Joyce Allgaier Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3'd floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lift 1 A Aspen Mountain Dear Joyce: ASPEN( SNOWMASS_ R CMFIM G COMPANY JUL 0 6 2007 A,*th 8UM_W DEPARTMEW As you know the Aspen Skiing Company has been working with the Lift One Lodge Applicant relative to the mountain circulation and skiing aspects of this land use application. Our planning and mountain operations teams are participating in the planning of the proposed lift location, the proposed mountain access, the proposed physical access points and the general interface with skiing. The Lift One side of Aspen Mountain is currently an under utilized access and egress point for both locals and visitors to the ski area. This historic mountain base unfortunately also lacks guest vitality and appeal in its presently dated condition. Aspen Skiing Company supports the enhancement, re -animation and revitalization of this mountain portal and believes the proposed development's improvements to ski infrastructure and skier services will help achieve these goals. We specifically write this letter to communicate our thoughts about the future of lift operations in this area. After reviewing and analyzing the options, we have concluded that if Lift i A is replaced with a new, high speed lift, then the general location depicted in the Lift One Lodge application is the most appropriate -location (Replacement of the existing lift with a high speed detachable quad is referenced in the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan.). As a part of this analysis we have examined the practicality of trying to provide lift service from Willoughby Park as was once done with the original Lift One. As you may be aware, Colorado Tramway Board setback standards affect and constrain the location, design and operation of lift systems, particularly with respect to their proximity to structures and other improvements. These standards require a clear corridor width of approximately 85 feet for the lift'facility. The existing locations of the historic Lift One, the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse, the Holland House and the Skier's Chalet Lodge do not ;adequately allow for the creation of such a corridor. P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612-1248 970-925-1220 www.aspensnowmass.com In addition to the lift setback constraints, it would be impractical and undesirable to direct all returning ski traffic into a constrained corridor such as that which exists through Lift One Park, behind the Skiers Chalet restaurant, and through Willoughby Park. The limited ski -way width of 51 feet or less in this area would be unduly narrow and crowded to comfortably direct the volume of returning ski traffic to the bottom of such a portal, as well as difficult to groom and maintain a quality snow surface. Because of the setback requirements, narrow ski -back corridor, the terminal size of high speed quad lifts, circulation requirements for such lifts, return and repeat skiing access and convenience we have concluded that a lift connection through and lower terminal situated in this area is not an appropriate design alternative. Our preferred location, whether or not the Lift One Lodge project moves forward remains at the toe of the present ski slope generally in the area where the lift is proposed. This location provides adequate area to site the terminal, as well as its necessary circulation and queuing. It enhances return or repeat skiing and snowboarding on the lift, allows for efficient and convenient emergency service connection through a vehicular cul de sac at the top of Aspen Street, and provides close mountain proximity to skier services and amenities for guests right at the base of the mountain, not two blocks removed. We see these advantages as compelling design directives. There are likely to be questions that arise during the Planning and Zoning Commission review of this master plan regarding the interface with skiing and riding on Aspen Mountain. While this project is at the conceptual review stage, design and logistical refinements will occur as greater design scrutiny and detailing is undertaken. We feel confident that we can continue to work with the Applicant to make sure that the end result is an enhancement to the guest experience on Aspen Mountain that retains and meets all of the functional requirements of this mountain portal. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, David Corbin Vice President, Planning and Development Aspen Skiing Company cc: Bob Daniel aSOUTHPOINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 205 EAST DURANT AVENUE #SP ASPEN, CO81611 FEB 07 February 7, 2007 � 4 : �' Chris Bendon T Director of Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Ruth Kruger Chairperson, Planning and Zoning Commission Dear Ms. Kruger and Mr. Bendon, I am writing you on behalf of all of the owners and residents of the Southpoint Condominium in my capacity as president of the Board of Managers of the homeowner's association, regarding the request of the Historic Preservation Commission to move the Skier's Chalet Lodge building to the very northern edge of the current city -owned parking lot at Willoughby Park, right on Dean Street, and directly opposite the Southpoint building. This will be included as a part of the Lift One Lodge project that will shortly be going to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review. Please note that Dean Street is a very narrow street, less than 22 feet wide at present, and that the proposed Museum building will be 35 feet high at the ridge and 28 feet at the eaves, as high or higher than the Southpoint building. This placement will create a canyon -like feeling on Dean Street, turning it into a narrow, cold and dark alleyway. I urge the Commission to come and walk this site, because you will immediately see that this placement will eliminate the feeling of a park and open space currently enjoyed by Willoughby Park. We believe that the original plan of the Lift One Lodge developers was designed to maintain this park -like feeling for pedestrians on Dean Street. We fully understand the city's position that the maintenance of sunlight and mountain views for existing residents should not stand in the way of economically sound, bed - producing developments. We believe that the developers of Lift One Lodge have minimized the effect that their project will have on their neighbors, and have, in fact, originally accommodated the museum in a location that was much more aesthetically pleasing. They did this when they originally placed the building further up the hill in Willoughby Park, up from the present volleyball courts. It is our understanding that relocating the Skier's Chalet Lodge to a place directly on Dean Street was later proposed by the developers simply to accommodate a suggestion by the HPC, and that it was not their (the developer's) original choice. From our point of view, the narrowness of Dean Street makes this new proposed location, abutting directly on Dean Street, an unacceptable and unattractive imposition. With no setback from the sidewalk, the two buildings (museum and Southpoint) would create a narrow and shady alleyway. Furthermore, with this placement, the museum building will jut out a good 15 feet further than the Aztec Lodge, the only other building on the south side of that block of Dean Street. There is no similar situation in the neighborhood. Durant Street is some 60 feet wide and the distance between the buildings on either side of Durant is over 100 feet. The same is true at Cooper Street. If you come to view the situation on site, I know that you will immediately see the problem. The whole issue can be significantly mitigated —both for Southpoint and for the attractiveness of Dean Street —by simply moving the museum building farther up the hill in Willoughby Park; up above the volley ball courts, as the developers had originally planned. Please ensure that this matter is thoroughly reviewed and considered. We are available to discuss this matter and walk the site with you at any time. Sincerely, Carl F. Levy Cc: Board of Managers, Southpoint Condominium Asso. Historic Preservation Commission Lift One Lodge LLC, c/o Robert Schultz ON_ Loa6e-1 February 5, 2007 Ruth Kruger Chairman of the P & Z Board 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mrs. Kruger, I am the full time resident and co-owner of Southpoint Condominium 2B. I am writing to you regarding the plans for the moving of the new Ski Museum building south of Dean Street, between Monarch and Aspen Streets. I understand that the plan has been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and will shortly be going to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review. As you know, the plans call for the moving of the former Skiers' Chalet building to the site of Willoughby Park, opposite the Southpoint Condominium building. Apparently, at the request of the Historic Preservation Commission, the developer of the Lift One Lodge --who will be carrying out the re -positioning of the Skiers' Chalet building --has re- drawn the placement of the building from up the hill on Willoughby Park to being located right on the south side of a slightly widened Dean Street. Dean Street is a very narrow street, less than 22 feet wide at the present, and the Museum building will be 35 feet high at the ridge and 28 feet at the eaves. I urge the Commission to come to walk this site with the residents of Southpoint, because they will immediately see that this placement will eliminate the feeling of a park and open space currently enjoyed by Willoughby Park, and will turn Dean Street into a narrow, cold and dark alleyway. It will block the winter sun from many of the residents of Southpoint and will also eliminate the views of Aspen Mountain for many of the apartments at Southpoint. I would also point out that the developers of the Lift One Lodge must have recognized this situation when they originally placed the building further up the hill in Willoughby Park, up from the present volley ball courts. We understand, at Southpoint, that the placement of a 35 foot high building in Willoughby Park will inevitably affect the historic views of Aspen Mountain that Southpoint residents have enjoyed. But the narrowness of Dean Street makes the placement of this building, so that it directly abuts Dean Street, an unacceptable and unnecessary imposition. The two buildings will be no more than 50 feet apart, with only a narrow alleyway between them. In this placement, the museum building will jut out a good 15 feet further than the Aztec Lodge, the only other building on the south side of that block of Dean. There is no similar situation in the neighborhood. Durant Street is some 60 feet wide and the distance between the buildings on either side of Durant is over100 feet. The same is true at Cooper Street. If you come to view the situation on site, I know that you will immediately see the problem. OA The whole issue can be significantly mitigated —both for Southpoint and for the attractiveness of Dean Street —by simply moving the museum building farther up the hill in Willoughby Park; up above the volley ball courts, as the developers had originally planned. Please ensure that this matter is thoroughly reviewed and considered. We are available to discuss and walk this problem with you at any time. Sincerely, Elizabeth Ballinger Cc: BOD SouthPoint Condominiums Historic Preservation Commission Lift One Lodge Carol Farino 925-9509 Mary Liz Wilson, alt. Planning and Zoning Aspen, Co. 81611 P.O. Box 10421 Aspen, Colorado 81612 September 30, 2006 For many years there has been a plan to turn Dean Street into a pedestrian mall running along the toe of the slope of Aspen Mountain, east and west, with a "green space" park commemorating the historic location of the beginning of skiing in Aspen. Underground parking under the park. It appears this plan may soon be accomplished. The pedestrian mall will provide a much needed safe walking alternative to Durant St. The mall should enliven the west end of town, drawing it into the commercial core. I question the nature of the proposed "skiing museum". The State of Colorado has a ski museum as does Vail and other Colorado towns. The Aspen Historical Society has two museum buildings. The Aspen Historical Society already houses a nice collection of our local skiing history. Why is it necessary to have another museum building? The most important historic aspect of the proposed park is its location; the fact that on that spot is where Aspen first became a ski town. The old original lift, the old original run, have to date been preserved; the locationt is what is unique and cannot be displayed in all the other museums. That open space of the run is our history and is what we should have on that site; not a building, especially not a three story building! I have always envisioned a green park expanding out from and contiguous to the pedestrian mall. A peaceful spot for people to gather. Located below the base of lift 1 A, skiers would be invited to use the 1 A lift, distributing the load across the entire front of the mountain, not all congested at the gondola. The end of the day run, down the historic run, would be unique and wonderful! The approved restaurant in the building to be on the site of the old Chart House would then have people to draw into it's location. During the hearings on that "Chart House" replacement building, it was repeatedly stated that adding such restaurant activity and energy to that part of town is a city goal. No tall or dense trees should be planted. Ice and snow accumulation resulting from their shading is not a good safety feature for pedestrians or skiiers. Tree placement at the base of the "historic ski run" makes no sense, the original ski run would have lead to "town" i.e. a road, a walkway, bars, .... not into trees. Old photos of the bottom of the run show no trees; it's a museum, keep it accurate. I think it is a good idea to have an east to west pedestrian mall - for pedestrian safety as well as ambiance. I suppose it is a good idea to have a parking garage, as long as it looks nice; I hope Jim Blanning is not right as to the condition of that hill and it's potential to come sliding down on top of the town. I think a park commemorating Aspen's first ski lift in it's natural setting as a ski run is respectful "living history". I ask you not to build a big building. I ask you not to place a building, if you must build one, in the middle of this open space. I ask you not to plant large, full, dark trees. This arer, rhotild be an open, s::n�,y; inviting, green space park. It should expand Aspen's outdoor space for tourists and residence alike. To cut up this space and darken and enclose it u -1', rcrdler, the e n f VZ /.CST 3 C-- Ruth Kruger, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Madam Chairperson: 205 E. Durant Avenue, Apt. 2E Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 22, 2007 Re: Lift One Lodge Project I am writing you regarding the portion of the above project that relates to Willoughby Park, specifically the location of the Ski Museum building (formerly the Skiers Chalet Lodge building being moved to the Park). I understand this project will be coming before the Commission in the near future. I am a full-time resident of Aspen, and live in an owner -occupied unit in the SouthPoint condominium building. Also, I am the Secretary/Treasurer of our condo association. My unit is on the second floor above the corner of Aspen and Dean, facing Aspen Mountain. Some of the SouthPoint owners have worked with the developers of the Lift One Lodge Project from the early stage. As far as I know, all the owners involved were in concurrence with the developers on the placement of the Ski Museum in the Park, as well as the entrance to the underground garage. The Ski Museum location was basically where the volley ball courts are now located, and would be back against the large spruce trees. The original location would tend to minimize any negative effect on the mountain views of the owners living on the south side �of our building. In addition, and very important, it would result in the most ascetically pleasing Park, i.e., a placement of the building south of the new grass area (presently the asphalt parking lot) and a setback from Dean Street. It would not interfere with the original Lift One, which will be restored and located in its present position. One only needs to visit the site, or review the original plans to see that this is the obvious preferred location of the Museum. Moving the Museum to the middle of the Park and practically on Dean Street would place the building much closer to the original Lift One and detract from the whole setting. It is my understanding that the Aspen Historic Preservation Office (HPC) prefers that the Museum be located more in the center of the Park, and right across Dean Street from our building. Personally, I have heard no reasons for the move. The Museum will be a three-story building, which was one of the reasons for the original placement on or near the volley ball court location, in order to minimize the height problem by placing it further away from our building. Unless owners are given additional information that might provide some justification for this change in the location, I believe the current position of the HPC seems somewhat arbitrary and does not appear to serve any public interest. It certainly is to the detriment of SouthPoint owners, as well as creating a less pleasing park and layout of the property for the general public. Our building has 30 units, and is made up of a number of full-time Aspen residents, as well as a number of owners who use their unit for extended periods of time. There are a few short and long-term rentals, but it is primarily modest apartments that are homes to full-time residents, or truly second homes for other owners. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have in regard to my comments. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, cc: P & Z Members Hugh S. Hatcher Steve Skadron Brandon Marion John Rowland Brian Speck October 3, 2006 Mr. Dylan Johns P.O. Box 2493 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Dylan, I am writing to you because of my concern of the proposed Skiers Chalet / Aspen Ski Museum location. I have been an owner at Southpoint Condominiums for over two years and have invested heavily into the recent Southpoint remodel that has helped update and improve the overall appearance of that end of town. As an owner, I am gravely concerned that the proposed location of the new Aspen Ski Museum will significantly impact 15 of the owners' views of the mountain, the primary reason many of us bought at Southpoint. As an Aspen resident (and taxpayer), I strongly suggest that the original location of the volleyball courts for the Aspen Ski Museum be reconsidered as this is a good location and does not negatively impact the citizens of the community. I would ask that you put yourself in my shoes and understand that having made a large investment in Aspen real estate and into the betterment of the community that you relocate the proposed Aspen Ski Museum back to its original location. A new three story building and large trees do not seem fitting for an area that has such a wonderful view and been the surroundings of the old lift 1-A for so many years. Thank you very much for you consideration. Please do the right thing by the citizens and taxpayers of Aspen. Si cerely, Matti Bourgault President, Boogie's Retail, Inc. phone 970.925.6462 fax 970.920.1560 534 East Cooper Avenue Aspen Colorado 81611