HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit I_Public CommentASPEN OFFICE
625 East Hyman Aveime • Snile 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (970)925-1936
Facsimile (970) 925-3008
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. �J � cz)�
ATTORNEYS AT LAW I SINCE 1975
www.garfif eldbecht.com
May 9, 2016
AVERY S. NELSON
anelson(i4garfieldhecht.com
Via E-Mail to:
Applicant:
Norway Island, LLC
P.O. Box 12393
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Mr. Jeff Gorsuch (Jeff org such@mac.com)
Mr. Bryan Peterson (bryan@masonmorse.com)
Mr. James DeFrancia (idefranciaQhotmail.com)
and
Legal Representation for Applicants:
Holland & Hart, LLP
600 East Main Street, Suite 450
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attn: Alison Wente, Esq.
AEWente@hollandhart.com
Re: Gorsuch Haus Project Review Application dated March 29, 2016
Gentlemen:
As you may recall from previous correspondence, this law firm represents The Caribou
Condominium Association, Inc. ("Caribou"). We write in connection with the Project Review
Application dated March 29, 2016, submitted by Norway Island, LLC ("Applicant") for the
development of a proposed lodge, ski base and related improvements referred to as Gorsuch
Hans (the "Project"). As you are aware, Caribou's property (known as 701 S. Monarch Street) is
located east of and adjacent to the proposed development site of the Project.
Throughout the pre -application public outreach process, Caribou has continually
expressed concerns regarding certain aspects of the Project. Further, since the filing of the
application for the Project, Caribou has again informally discussed its concerns with Applicant.
'Holland & Hart is listed as the legal representative for Applicant. This letter is being sent to the attention of Alison
Wente, as she was an attorney at Holland & Hart previously involved on behalf of Applicant (and/or its development
partners).
1502287-3
® Printed on recycled paper
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Norway Island, LLC (Gorsuch Haus)
May 9, 2016
Page 2 of 4
We now write to formally express Caribou's objections in connection with specific aspects of the
Project, It is our sincere hope and belief that Applicant will seriously consider these concerns to
come to a mutual resolution without the need to incur further fees and involvement of attorneys
and other professionals. Caribou's concerns and objections may be addressed through alternative
options that minimize impact to Caribou without adversely affecting the development of the
Project.
Tree Removal:
Appendix C.2 "Existing and Proposed Development Overlay" and Appendix C.3
"Landscape Plan" in the Project application label various trees for removal. While many of the
trees marked for removal appear to be individual trees in scattered areas of the Project, there is a
significant grouping of trees marked for removal which are located along the common boundary
between Caribou's property and. the Project. These trees, many of which are non -deciduous,
provide substantial year-round screening of Caribou's property from neighbors to the west and
what will become the new ski base and a high -traffic area of the Project 2 The stark nature of the
removal of these trees is further shown at Appendix EA, Pages 1 and 2. Page 1 reflects existing
conditions and shows the thick grouping of trees located between Caribou's property and the
Project. Page 2, titled "Proposed Site Improvements," shows all of the existing trees removed. In
place of the existing trees is a staircase and retaining wall as discussed below. The vacancy left
by the removal of these trees is obvious from the face of the Project documents included in the
application.
Caribou strongly objects to the removal of these trees, which will seriously compromise
the tree cover and privacy of Caribou's owners. Specifically, the area of the Caribou property
currently screened by this grouping of trees is the pool area, Therefore, the removal of these trees
will render virtually nonexistent the privacy of Caribou's owners from an area of high usage
within the Project by locals and tourists alike. The Project application also appears to reflect
minimal to no mitigation in this area. In fact, the Landscape Plan (Appendix C.3) shows only one
"proposed tree" that will be added in place of the removed trees and which, as shown, is located
north of the existing grouping of trees and therefore would do almost nothing to mitigate the loss
of screening and privacy.
Page 40 of the Project application provides that a "final and detailed tree mitigation plan
will be submitted as part [of] the Detailed Project Review. Anticipated tree removal will include
the three cottonwoods [and] eight planted spruce trees along the property's northeastern
boundary and a handful of more minor trees." This appears to be the area adjacent to Caribou.
Please note that Caribou objects to the removal of these trees and requests that Applicant
consider alternative options for "Lot 3" of the Project where the snowcat turnaround is located
' The application provides that area will be used for, among other things, snowcat turnaround, ski return and
pedestrian access way to the lift plaza, and vehicular access to the mountain operations road,
1502287-3
® Printed on recycled paper
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Norway Island, LLC (Gorsuch Haus)
May 9, 2016
Page 3 of 4
and which would allow these trees to remain in place. Caribou also reserves all rights to further
object once a "final and detail" tree mitigation plan is submitted by Applicant.
Access, Stairway and Retaining Wall:
The Project application provides, "Caribou Condominium owners requested that their
access to the lift be maintained requiring a stairway to the skiway for their use...." Appendix E.3
"Planned Development/Subdivision Plat" at Page 4 shows a small staircase located near the
northeast corner of the Project's property (southwest corner of Caribou's property). That
staircase, off of Caribou's pool area, is where Applicant proposes to address Caribou's continued
access to the ski lift.
Caribou objects to the characterization of the stairway shown on Appendix E.3 as
responsive to their concerns regarding continued and unimpeded access to the ski lift. Rather, the
staircase as shown reflects Applicant's preferred resolution of the access issue but, in fact, does
not address Caribou's concerns regarding maintaining its existing access to the ski hill. Further,
the application also reflects the addition of a retaining wall along the boundary between Caribou
and the Project. It appears that both the addition of the staircase and the retaining wall are part of
the improvements "necessitating" the tree removal discussed above. Caribou objects to the
staircase shown in the southwest corner of its property and the addition of a retaining wall along
the western property line, which even appears to improperly cross over into Caribou's property
at its northernmost point. Caribou owners currently access the ski hill from the northwest corner
of their property and assert that such access could (and should) be maintained if the retaining
wall shown on Appendix E.3 is redesigned.
Sld Operations Access/Mountain Operations Road:
The Project application proposes to relocate an existing mountain operations road
currently located on the western side of the Project's property to the eastern side of the Project
(e.g., adjacent to Caribou's property). Page 71 of the Project application provides:
1502287-3
The Planned Development will include a perpetual vehicular access easement
across Lot 3 to provide access to Lot 4. This east -west corridor is envisioned as a
privately owned, publically accessible corridor connection South Aspen Street to
the slier and pedestrian access easement on the Mountain Queen property and
providing for ski operations loading; unloading and setup. This corridor will
transition with the seasons to provide a skiable surface and snowcat
access/turnaround area for event set up and take -down in the winter, when the ski
mountain is operating and a through route for pedestrians in all seasons, providing
an east west connection from South Aspen Street to Monarch Street. The eastern
portion of this corridor will accommodate return skiing access to Lift One Park,
® Primed an recycled paper
GARFIELD &HECHT, PC,
Norway Island, LLC (Gorsuch Haus)
May 9, 2016
Page 4 of 4
connecting skiers via an existing recreational use easement to Dean Street when
snow conditions allow. When the ski area is not in operation, the corridor will
serve as the SkiCo's ski operations road.
Based on our review of the application, the mountain operations road (in the summer)
and the snoweat turnaround and skier access (in the winter) will cross directly between the
Caribou property and the Project. Caribou has serious concerns regarding vehicular access to and
from this road and area of the Project. There is currently in existence a "Skier's and Pedestrian"
easement (pet Mountain Queen. condo map, Book 4, Page 489) lying between the Caribou
property to the south and the Mountain Queen property to the north (the "Mountain Queen
Easement"). Caribou requests written confirmation that the use of the Mountain Queen Easement
is not proposed to be expanded under the Project application (e.g., no public vehicular access
over the Mountain Queen Easement from Monarch Street to the Project's property and mountain
operations road).
Furthermore, Caribou objects to access to the mountain operations road from the western
side of the -Project for any public vehicular access. It is our current understanding that Applicant
has verbally represented to Caribou that only SkiCo will have vehicular access to this road, but
that is not entirely clear from the above -referenced section of the application. Moreover, there do
not appear to be any provisions for enforcement of such a restriction on access. Caribou requests
further information regarding Applicant's plans for ensuring vehicular access to the mountain
operations road is restricted to SldCo operations only.
Caribou believes these are solvable problems and'looks forward to working with you in
further addressing and resolving its concerns related to the Project, Caribou reiterates, however,
its intent to exercise any and all rights and remedies available to it in the event that an acceptable
resolution is not reached directly between Caribou and Applicant. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions or to discuss this matter in further detail.
Very truly yours,
G RFiEL &HECHT,P.C.
Avery S. Nelson
ee: Aspen Skiing Company/
Consenting Land Owner Mr. Dave Corbin dcorbin- aspensnounnass.Win)
1502287-3
Ciry of Aspen W James R. True, Esq. (Ani.'True@cityofa en.corri)
Ms. Jennifer Phelan (_ nnifer.Phclan cr cit fa ett.com
e printed oareeycled papa'
NORWAY ISLAND, LLC
June 6, 2016
James M. DeFrancia
iDeFranciaka LoweEmMrises.com
Jeffrey Gorsuch
jeffgorsuch n mac.com
Bryan Peterson
lean a masonmorse.com
Via email to:
Caribou Condominium Association, Inc.
c/o Avery S. Nelson, Esq., Counsel
Garfield & Hecht, PC
625 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
ANelson@GarfieldHecht.com
Re: May 9, 2016 Letter to Norway Island, LLC — Gorsuch Haus Project Review
Application dated March 29, 2016
Ms. Nelson:
Thank you for your correspondence of May 9, 2016 (copy attached). This letter
responds more fully to the concerns of the Caribou Condominium Association, Inc.
("Caribou"). While your letter addresses each of the HOA's concerns separately, they are all
interconnected and this northern portion of the property should be evaluated from each of
the interests and desired outcomes. The Caribou homeowners are certainly one of the parties
we are seeking to accommodate and we have met with the homeowners both early in the
process and throughout the design iterations to insure we are meeting their needs to the
greatest extent possible.
Retaining Wall: The need for a retaining wall along the east side of the Gorsuch
Hans project site is essential to the viability of the ski area operations at Aspen Mountain's
western portal. The existing topography in this area consists of steep slopes that are not
conducive to the community's request for return skiing or for ski area operations through
this corridor. The modest retaining walls in this area hold the grade to provide an
even/gently sloping surface to facilitate multiple demands including snow cat and summer
operations related to loading and unloading and event set up for racing, as well as providing
an emergency exit for on -mountain injuries and ambulance pickup. In addition, the Project
seeks to preserve the desired and documented historic ski way and recreation easement
between the two Lift One Lodge buildings, which connects to Dean Street. The gentle grade
in this area, afforded by the retaining walls, is important for slowing skiers accessing this ski -
way. While we have studied alternative solutions to the demands on this site, the retaining
wall is an essential element in the functioning of the ski area.
Access, Stairway and Tree Removal: Since meeting with the Caribou homeowners
in December the site plan has been amended to reflect the owners' interest in maintaining a
ramp to achieve a ski back to the lower two units and provide a stairway to gain the grade
and access to the lift from the pool courtyard. We understand the privacy and screening
afforded by these trees. However, we would like to better understand and consider the
access needs of the owners and work with the HOA to reach a solution that balances the
need for access with the desire to protect the trees and screen the pool courtyard from
public view.
A potential option would be to consolidate the egress and access elements to a single
point which would allow for the adjustment of the retaining wall and the preservation of
some of these trees (see Attachment 1, "Alternative"). This alternative would preserve three
of the trees anticipated for removal as identified in the March 291` submission (Attachment
2). This option would allow for pedestrian access to the ski -way but would not provide a
skiable ramp directly connecting the lower units and would therefore require those owners
to remove their skis at the property line and proceed on foot to their units for a short
distance. Additionally, we can work with the Caribou homeowners on landscaping strategies
along the property line which might include transplanting or replacing some of these trees to
the east of the retaining wall in order to maintain the screening effect of the existing trees.
This would allow landscape screening to be within the Caribou property, thus the privacy
and benefit of the trees would be under their control.
We would like to continue this conversation with the Caribou homeowners and sit
down with the site plan to explain the possibilities for maintaining some of the trees, or
potentially replacing or transplanting those that need to be removed, while working on a
landscape solution to achieve their collective interests.
2
Ski Operations Access / Mountain Operations Road: In response to the HOA's
concerns regarding the ski operations access road and vehicular access to this area between
the two properties, this roadway realignment will continue to be a private and gated
mountain access road. Vehicular access to the road will be restricted to Aspen Skiing
Company vehicles and will only be accessible from the western cul-de-sac. No vehicular
travel or improvements are anticipated for the pedestrian access easement between the
Mountain Queen and Caribou properties. However, some pedestrian improvements may be
constructed and a modest increase in summer pedestrian traffic might be experienced with
the increase in lodging in the neighborhood and other development along South Aspen
Street. In the wintertime, while some increase in the number of skiers and pedestrians at this
base is anticipated, the flow of skiers is not likely to have a significant impact on the
Caribou's privacy as most skiers will be intercepted by the plaza stairway and lift access well
in advance of reaching the edge of the Caribou property.
In closing, Norway Island is eager to continue our collaboration with the Caribou
HOA to achieve the optimal solution that satisfies the operational demands of the new ski
area base with the HOA's concerns for continued access to the lift and privacy provided by
the trees. We would like to set up a meeting to review the options in this area when it is
convenient for Caribou owners. Additionally, Norway Island has staked the project corners
according to the Staring Plan Legend (Attachment 3) which can help owners envision the
proposed building envelope in relation to their units. We are more than happy to meet with
the owners on -site to walk through the staking exercise.
Sincerely,
Norway Island, LLC
James DeFrancia
Jeffrey Gorsuch
Bryan Peterson
3
Attachments:
1. Alternative
2. March 29 h Submission
3. Staking Plan Legend
cc: Aspen Skiing Company, LLC Mr. David Corbin (dcorbin@asnensnowmass.com)
City of Aspen Mr. James R. True (Iim.True Ci o�fAspen.com)
Ms. Jennifer Phelan (lennifer.Phelan@,CityofAspen.com)
Holland & Hart LLP Mx. Thomas Todd (TTodd@HollandHart.com)
4
1
1
11 1
11
r �
1
1
1
1
1
wsm�
CAL/
P/
y y`
O' s
O O O OO f 00 Off_ !
O' O O l u
0-It
ii\c�
E CAL.
� 16" CAL.
� O
r`
Gorsuch Haus
Landscape Plan - Potential Alternative
Aspen,Colorado
® 7L7
0 10, 20 49
NORTH V-294'
June 02, 2016
DESIGNWORKSHOP
II'
air
i
tom:,
, I
O /
00 0 001
OO Off- O e
o ° 1
/ 0
\ 3000
iP P
CAL
1Q � 'CAL. �� \� /� \ ✓ice
.SAL \ 16" CAL.
10`P�
12" CAL/ O \
Gorsuch Maus
Landscape Plan - March 29th Submission
Aspen, Colorado
M 7L77
0 10, 20' 49
NORTH V=20'4'
June 02,2016
DESIGNWORKSHOP
Jennifer Phelan
From: Donald Gilbert <dcgilbert437@gmaii.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:24 AM
To: Cindy Klob
Cc: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: Gorsuch Development
Dear Ms.Klob
I write to you in opposition to the Gorsuch development proposal which now appears to be headed to a hearing before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. I don't have Individual addresses so will you kindly see that the members
have an opportunity to read my letter.
I write from the perspective of someone who has been skiing and hiking in Aspen for nearly forty years. I live in
Connecticut but fly out four to five times a year, often with children and now grandchildren. I don't have to elaborate on
the effort this involves but we think of Aspen as our second home, always look forward to coming here; the town, the
mountain and our many long time friendships.
We don't have to put up with the challenges of getting here, snow is the same everywhere and there are places far
more convenient to get to. But nowhere have we found the feeling and look, the vibrancy and spirit of what a ski town
should be. I see this slowly changing; big box -like structures ( the Art Museum and Little Nell Residences come to mind)
and now Aspen is on the verge of completely girdling their magnificent mountain with yet another over the top
structure. And for what; a few more rooms marring the view of townsfolk and visitors, cutting off the last vestige of
direct access to skiers ( mostly local ) all to the benefit of a couple of developers, promising a further erosion of the
qualities that make this town so special.
This is a time when the men and women who are elected to weigh the long term good for the many vs. the short term
benefits to a few need to take a stand and the place to start is not to allow business interests to manipulate long
standing zoning regulations, complicate ski access or allow any of the other inconveniences that the Gorsuch proposal
introduces.
For the good of everyone, stop this project now.
Don Gilbert
New Canaan, Connecticut.
Jennifer Phelan
From:
Michael Mizen <mrmizen1@gmail.com> on behalf of Peggi Mizen <m.mizen@mizen.com>
Sent:
Friday, June 24, 2016 1:25 PM
To:
Jennifer Phelan
Subject:
Point of view -Gorsuch Haus
Dear Deputy Director:
As a property owner in Aspen, I am very concerned about the proposed Gorsuch Haus development. After reviewing their most recent
documents my objections are:
1- Changing the zoning from conservation to ski.
2- Visual impairment -the "up mountain view" on the West side of Aspen Mtn would consist of a massive (68,000 sq ft ! )
man made structure- not open space.
3- Increase of traffic, noise and general congestion on an already hazardous South Aspen St.
I believe the City leaders should explore the idea of Lift One Lodge developing the new public base lift area instead of allowing the
Gorsuch Haus proposal to continue.
Peggi Mizen
Aspen
Jennifer Phelan
From: Michael R Mizen-Live Oak <m.mizen@mizen.com>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 6:33 AM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: Gorsuch Haus Project... my point of view
Dear Deputy Director Phelan,
You will be asked to consider a proposal next month. As a courtesy please find a copy of my thoughts
submitted to both local papers.
"Development on South Aspen Street is complete with the building of Lift One Lodge and One Aspen..
Provided are the following:
-Rooms for rent
-Commercial space
-New utilities
-A rebuilt albeit narrower South Aspen Street
-Underground parking for both Lift One Lodge guests and the general public.
The Gorsuch Project chooses to view the above as "insufficient" offering their plan as a "solution" to the
redevelopment of South Aspen Street and the trigger Aspen Ski Company "requires" before rebuilding Lift IA.
Importantly the scope of The Gorsuch Project will overtax the new transportation scheme and restrict views
from Main Street as well as access to lift IA.
Categorically this can be resolved by not allowing any zoning change."
Thank You for your service.
Michael R. Mizen
Mizen & Associates, LLC
Lakewood Ohio USA
Technology Based Training for Education, Information and Simulation
Retired Member -Apple Consultants Network
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA
)OHNSON &VELASQUEZE
June 27, 2016
VIA EMAIL AND HAND DFt.IVFIty
Jennifer Phelan
Deputy Director
Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, 3 d Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Gorsuch Haus Application
Dear Jennifer:
J. Bart Johnson
970.544.4607
johnson@wcrlegal.com
Our firm represents Lill. One Lodge Aspen LLC, which is the owner of the Lift One
Lodge property located along South Aspen Street in the City of Aspen. As you know, Lift One
Lodge was approved as a subdivision(PUD pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 28, Series of
2011, as recently amended by a minor amendment approved by Planning and Zoning
Commission Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016.
The approval of Lift One Lodge was the result of a long and collaborative process
between the original applicant, the project's neighbors, the City, and the Aspen community at -
large. The overall plan for the project --which is literally designed around two public parks --
reflects a strong community desire to maintain a close physical and visual connection between
the development along South Aspen Street and Aspen Mountain, all while remaining grounded
in Aspen's skiing history. Most every aspect of the Lift One Project is informed in some manner
by these overarching goals.
The pending Gorsuch I -Taus application thumbs its nose at all the community goals
embodied in the Lift One Lodge project and is incompatible with the Lift One Project and the
surrounding neighborhood in myriad ways.
While it may be true the west side of Aspen Mountain needs a new ski lift, it does not
necessarily follow and simply is not true that it also needs a lodge to go with that lift. The
proposed site of the Gorsuch 1-Iaus is currently zoned Conservation I'or a reason — it's a sensitive
site at the boundary of where the City transforms from urban to ski mountain. The Conservation
zone district is intended to "contain urban development." See LUC § 26.710.220. It marks
where urban character is supposed to stop and the ski mountain is supposed to start. The
applicants watt to change this fundamental demarcation —they want to move the "beach" and
then build a big hotel right in the middle of it. There is no justification for such a dramatic
change to the existing land use pattern in this part of Aspen. Norway Island, LLC does not own
13503 EVENTEENT11 STREET SU11E 450 DENVEER COLOR ADC 80202 m 720-351-4700 r 720 351-4745
.120 fAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 M 970-544-7006 P 866-a92-0861 WCRLEGAL.COM
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 2
the property; it merely has it under contract based on the speculative notion that it can convince
the City to make a sea -change rezoning. There is no compelling reason for the City to do so.
Even if one assumes for the sake of argument that the far end of South Aspen Street on
the slopes of Aspen Mountain is appropriate for rezoning and large-scale development, then the
Gorsuch Haus application deserves rigorous scrutiny under the Aspen. Land Use Code. The
proposal has been carefully crafted to sidestep and subvert various Land Use Code provisions
relating to fundamental development parameters such as building height, floor area ratio,
affordable housing, density and the spirit of Referendum 1 approved by Aspen voters in 2015
(now Section 13.14 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter).
Ski Area Base Zoning Not Appropriate
The Gorsuch Haus property is currently located in the Conservation zone district. The
applicants propose to rezone the entire site to the Ski Area Base zone district. Their basic
argument for this rezoning is that it is "necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of Lift IA"
because it will allow all the needed permitted uses and will accommodate the height of the
existing ski lift towers. These issues are red herrings. First, a new Lift I can be built without a
wholesale rezoning of the site and without building a new hotel to go with it. The Aspen Ski
Company has received approval from the United States Forest Service to construct the lift in
time for the 2017 FIS World Cup races, if it chooses to do so. And the height of the lift towers,
if it's an issue at all, could be addressed by a variety of land use tools short of a wholesale
rezoning of the entire property. There is no reason this site cannot and should not remain in the
Conservation zone district and a new lift be built, leaving the remainder of the site as ski area
and open mountain just as it has been for decades.
If, for the sake of argument, one assumes that development of some type of new lodge
structure at the base of the new lift is warranted, then the project will need Planned Development
approval regardless of the underlying zone district, and all issues related to "allowed land uses,
layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the project, including all deviations from zone district
allowances and limitations" can be established through the Planned Development process. See
LUC § 26.445.030. In other words, rezoning to the Ski Area Base zone district is not
"necessary" in anyway for the Gorsuch Hans project.
Pursuant to Section 26.310.090.A of the Land Use Code, a rezoning is required to be
compatible with the surrounding zone districts. The Gorsuch Haus property is surrounded to the
east, west and north by Lodge zoning. If any rezoning is to occur to accommodate the Gorsuch
Haus plans, then the more appropriate and least disruptive approach to rezoning the property for
lodge uses would be to rezone the northern portion of the site where actual vertical development
will occur into the Lodge zone district, retain Conservation zoning for the larger portion to south
on the ski hill, and overlay the entire site with a Planned Development approval to address
necessary deviations to the allowed uses and dimensional requirements.
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 3
We submit that the real reasons the applicants want to rezone the property to Ski Area
Base zone district are: (a) the Ski Area Base zone district contains no dimensional limitations, as
repeated often in the Gorsuch Haus application; and (b) to avoid. drawing attention to their
undermining of the spirit of Referendum 1 adopted by the City's voters just last year because
they are not applying for any variances. As you know, this Charter provision requires voter
authorization of certain land use approvals that, among other things, exceed zoning limitations
for allowable floor area or maximum height. This requirement applies to all of the non -
Conservation zone districts located in the downtown area of Aspen, and the clear, well -
publicized intent of this provisions is to ensure that future development in and around downtown
Aspen is not granted special variances without voter approval. But, importantly, the Ski Area
Base zone district is not included in the list of zone districts subject to potential voter referral.
Why? Because the Ski Area Base zoning has no dimensional limits at all and, plus, there is no
Ski Area Base zoning in the downtown area of Aspen. This zoning exists in only one place and
for one particular project.
The Ski Area Base zone district was created specifically and expressly for the Aspen
Highlands Village project, which the City annexed in 2000 as a fully entitled Planned Unit
Development originally approved by Pitkin County in 1998. The creation of the Ski Area Base
zone district occurred as part of the overall Aspen Highlands Village annexation and was
adopted pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2000, with a recommendation of
approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to its Resolution No. 28, Series of
2000. According to the meeting minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
held on July 18, 2000, the purpose of the Ski Area Base zone district was "to create a new zone
district to apply to the Aspen Highlands Village property.... a multi -use area with a complex of
8 buildings containing ski -related uses." Likewise, the minutes from the City Council meeting of
September 11, 2000 state that "to accommodate these uses [at the Highlands village area], staff
proposed a code amendment to create a new zone district." The recitals for Ordinance No. 25,
Series of 2000, state "the City of Aspen recently annexed property into its city boundaries which
needs an additional zoning district which shall be applied to the newly acquired properties."
South Aspen Street is not like Aspen Highlands Village, and we think most Aspenites
would agree that it should not aspire to be like Aspen Highlands Village. The Gorsuch Haus is
proposed as a single mixed -use lodge, not a "village" of 8 buildings spread across several acres.
The Ski Area Base zone district may be appropriate for a big new master planned base area, at
Buttermilk for example, but it is neither necessary nor appropriate for a single building on South
Aspen Street. The fact that the Ski Area Base zone district contains no dimensional limitations
on building height, floor area or setbacks makes it completely inappropriate for the Gorsuch
Haus site.
If the City is inclined toward allowing a new lodge in what is currently a Conservation
area, then we suggest the City and the applicants look at the Gondola Plaza area at the base of
Aspen Mountain to get some guidance on a more appropriate approach to zoning the Gorsuch
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 4
Haus property. The plaza and gondola facilities adjacent to the Little Nell are zoned
Conservation with a PD overlay, while the surrounding development parcels are zoned with
more conventional downtown area zoning such as Lodge, Commercial Lodge, and Commercial
Core (with some PD overlay as appropriate). There is no good reason to depart from this basic
pattern. If any lodging development is to be approved, then most of the Gorsuch Haus property
should still remain in the Conservation zone district and the lower (northern) portion of the
property on which a lodge is planned to be built should be rezoned to the Lodge zone district, all
with a PD overlay.
Gerrymandered Lot Configuration
The proposed configurations and dimensions for the four lots to be created for the
Gorsuch Haus project bear only a scant relationship to the actual proposed development. The
boundaries of proposed Lot 1 on the north and east sides of the project cut arbitrarily through the
middle of proposed stairways, retaining walls, patios, and plaza areas while randomly reaching
out to grab a portion of the skier queuing area below the new lift. Meanwhile Lots 2 and 3 seem
configured simply to catch the leftovers on the north and south sides of Lot 1 within the main
development envelope for the project. This configuration appears haphazard at first glance, and
it seems very unlikely that ownership of the project will ever be split along the designated lot
lines (which is the fundamental purpose of subdivision to begin with). But, as explained below,
the gerrymandered lot lines were obviously created with great care and thought for one
purpose —to walk a careful line between Net Lot Area and Gross Lot Area for the purpose of
getting density high (requiring a "small" Gross Lot Area) while maximizing Floor Area Ratio
(requiring a "big" Net Lot Area).
While the Gorsuch Haus application does not specifically reference the Lodge zone
district by name, the project has clearly been designed to comply, to a point, with many of its
dimensional requirements. And several sections of the application refer to the Lodge zone
district dimensional standards without expressly identifying them as such. The applicants
apparently believe that the City may consider the project's dimensional data in the context of that
which is allowed in the neighboring Lodge zone district as the Ski Area Base district contains no
dimensional requirements.
Lot 1, which contains the proposed lodge building and then a random assortment of parts
of other areas of the project, has been specifically sized to permit use of the Lodge district's
enhanced/incentivized height and floor area provisions. See LUC § 26.710.190.D. These
enhancements require a minimum lodge unit density of one unit per 500 square feet of Gross Lot
Area, which may be increased to one unit per 550 square feet subject to Planning and Zoning
Commission approval. Lot 1, with its strange configuration, contains 44,550 square feet of
Gross Lot Area, which results in a lodge unit density of exactly one unit per 550 square feet
(44,550 sq. ft. / 81 keys = 550 sq. ft.). Under the Lodge zone district standards, meeting this
density threshold would qualify the project for a maximum building height of 36 feet (which
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 5
may be increased to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review) and a maximum Floor Area
Ratio of 2.5:1.
But at the same time, Lot 1 has also been configured so as to permit the lodge's proposed
cumulative floor area. After adjustment for slopes greater than 20 percent and the exclusion of
its vacated right -of ways, Lot I's Net Lot Area for floor area calculation purposes is
approximately 27,113 square feet. The proposed lodge on Lot 1 will contain a cumulative floor
area of approximately 67,781 square feet, which represents a floor area ratio of exactly 2.5:1,
which, as explained above, would be the maximum allowed in the Lodge zone district assuming
a project complies with the enhanced density standards.
But what if Lot 1 was not gerrymandered and instead was configured in a manner that
made more sense in terms of the actual development plan? Lots 1, 2 and 3 form essentially one
development envelope and, when it comes to calculating the project's public amenity space, the
applicants not surprisingly ask that Lots 1, 2 and 3 all be looked at in the aggregate as one parcel.
If the area of Lots 2 and 3 were included in Lot 1, the resulting density would be approximately
one unit per 966 square feet (78,265 sq. ft. of Gross Lot Area / 81 keys = 966 sq. ft.), which is
well below the minimum requirement of one unit per 550 square feet to meet the Lodge district
enhancement thresholds. Put another way, looked at more realistically, the Gorsuch Haus project
is not nearly as "dense" as the applicants are representing.
Based on the applicants' reliance on the Lodge zone district as a baseline for their
proposed dimensional requirements, the implications of this lack of actual density are significant:
Maximum Height: Without receiving a maximum height incentive for being a
sufficiently dense project, the Gorsuch Haus would be faced with a maximum
building height of 28 feet. See LUC § 26.710.190.D.8.c. The Gorsuch Haus
application is asking for 49 feet, which is already 9 feet higher than the maximum
of 40 feet they could obtain even with meeting the density enhancement
threshold. And, what's more, the actual height of the project based on the
elevations submitted with their application show sections of the building with 5
and 6 levels that would seem to be in the range of 60 and 70 feet in height in
places.
Floor Area Ratio: Without receiving an FAR incentive for being sufficiently
dense, the Gorsuch Haus would be faced with a maximum FAR of 1: 1. See LUC
§ 26.710.190.Dll.b. The combined Net Lot Area of proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 is
49,052 square feet (27,112 + 17,599 + 4,341), which under an FAR of 1:1 would
result in a total permitted building floor area of 49,052 square feet. This is almost
20,000 square feet less than the 67,781 square feet planned for Gorsuch Hans.
Affordable Housing under GMOS: The applicant has made a claim under the
applicable GMQS provisions for reduced affordable housing mitigation based on
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 6
meeting the density enhancement standards. This allows them to make a case for
mitigating for only 36.01% of the employees that will be generated by the project.
But if the City looks past the charade of the project's claimed high density, then
this reduced affordable housing mitigation will be eliminated and the applicants'
minimum Affordable Housing obligation would increase to 60% of the employees
generated. See LUC § 26.470.070.8.b. It's worth noting that the Lift One Lodge
has agreed to mitigate for 100% of the employees it is generating.
Site Plan Incompatibility
During their public outreach exercise, the Gorsuch Haus applicants met with the Lift One
Lodge team. Meetings occurred on August 27, September 9, and October 29, 2015. The
Gorsuch Haus application characterizes this process as involving "continued design
collaboration" and "address[ing] the relationship between the two projects" and "respon[ding] to
feedback from Lift One Lodge and other stakeholders." The Gorsuch Haus team claims they
"made significant changes to the Gorsuch Haus design in response to" the concerns of the Lift
One Lodge team. The Lift One Lodge team has a different view.
Based on the legitimate concerns raised by Lift One Lodge and the paltry response by the
Gorsuch Haus team, the Lift One Lodge team does not believe the public outreach meetings by
Gorsuch Haus represented a genuine effort to hear and address a neighbor's concerns, but were
rather a superficial exercise conducted to check an application requirement off their list. The
Gorsuch Haus team has not addressed materially any of the concerns voiced by Lift One Lodge.
In fact, much of the time in meetings was spent by the Gorsuch Haus team trying to get Lift One
Lodge to redesign its already approved project. The entire exercise seems to have been one of
disingenuousness.
As Gorsuch Haus admits in its application, Lift One Lodge is concerned, among other
things, about accessibility to Lift IA, having breathing room between the projects, maintaining
return skier access to the Dean Street area, and maintaining upslope views of the mountain. One
item the Gorsuch Haus application never mentions is the provision in the Lift One Lodge
approvals for a surface/platter lift to move skiers from Willoughby Park at the north end of the
Lift One Lodge site to the bottom of Lift 1A.
None of the Lift One Lodge concerns have been meaningfully addressed in the pending
Gorsuch Haus application. Below is a list of concerns Lift One Lodge has with the proposed
project:
Though it is never pointed out in the application, the Gorsuch Haus proposal is to
move the bottom of Lift IA approximately 150 feet south up Aspen Mountain.
This is depicted on Exhibit A enclosed with this letter. The Gorsuch Haus team
claims in various parts of their application that the bottom of the lift will be as low
"as possible" on the mountain. What they mean is that it will be as low as
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 7
possible while still making room for oversized development on the site. Were it
not for the size and location of their building, the lift could easily be farther to the
north.
The distance to the new Lift IA, combined with the grade change, will require a
significant walk, in ski or snowboard boots, for skiers/riders who are not Gorsuch
Haus guests. The plans included in the Gorsuch Haus application show
approximately 45 stair steps that a skier/rider would need to climb while walking
about 250 feet to get from the South Aspen Street cul-de-sac to the base of the
new Lift ]A. And this assumes that the skier/rider can get to the South Aspen
Street cul-de-sac by some means. For comparison, the walk from Durant Avenue
to the gondola requires a climb of 27 steps while walking about 200 feet.
The location, orientation and size of the proposed Gorsuch Haus building would
create a physical, visual and psychological barrier between Lift IA and the
community. The proposed building turns its back in the form of huge facades to
the town and creates a barrier around the bottom of Lift IA. If a visitor did not
already know where Lift IA was, how would they ever find it? The Land Use
Code requires that buildings in a Planned Development be "oriented [and] sited to
reflect the neighborhood context". See LUC § 26.445.050.C.3. Gorsuch Haus
does not satisfy this standard.
The easterly extension of the north end of the Gorsuch Haus building will create a
complete visual barrier to the mountain as viewed from Willoughby Park, Lift
One Park and the ski corridor located on the Lift One Lodge site. Exhibit B
enclosed with this letter depicts this effect. Rather than a view up the mountain,
all visitors will see is the back of a big hotel. The preservation of this view
corridor was fundamental to the Lift One Lodge approval process and site plan
design. Lift One Lodge is preserving the historic Lift 1 improvements, but with
Gorsuch Haus built these historic assets will lose any apparent connection with
the mountain and will be cut off both physically and visually from the mountain.
The Land Use Code requires that a project preserve "structures or features of the
site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to
the identity of the town." See LUC § 26.445.050.C.2. Gorsuch Haus does not
satisfy this standard.
The skier return corridor between the Gorsuch Haus and the Mountain Queen
Condominiums down toward the Lift One Lodge will be only about 30 feet wide,
will be shared with snow cats, and will be bounded by large retaining walls of
undetermined size on the east, west and north. This plan layout is depicted on
Exhibit C of this letter and Exhibit D is a massing study of the potential retaining
walls. Skiers trying to find their way back to the Lift One Lodge site and beyond
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 8
will face a labyrinth -like experience to get around the Gorsuch Haus project, with
the path to the Lift One Lodge ski corridor being shielded from view and hard to
locate. See Exhibit E of this letter for a depiction of a skier's view from on the
mountain.
The Lift One Lodge approval contemplates the installation of a platter/surface lift
to move skiers from the Dean Street area, up through the Lift One Lodge ski
corridor to the bottom of Lift IA. Lift One Lodge is required to place $600,000 in
escrow for the benefit of the City to help fund the cost of constructing this platter
lift. This lift would extend through the publicly owned areas of the Lift One
Lodge project and provide a public transit alternative for skier access to Lift IA.
The Gorsuch Haus completely ignores the concept of such a lift and would render
it impossible to build. The Land Use Code requires that a Planned Development
improve transit facilities. See LUC § 26.445.050,F, Gorsuch Haus does not
satisfy this standard.
There is no accommodation for any public skier parking at the site. By
comparison, the Lift One Lodge has agreed to provide 50 public parking spaces in
its parking garage (along with public ski lockers in its building). Lift One Lodge
should not bear the sole burden of accommodating public skier parking in this
area.
The interface of the Gorsuch Haus development with the south end of the Lift
One Lodge is dominated by two proposed east -west retaining walls of uncertain
height, along with a proposed bus stop and trash receptacle immediately adjacent
to the outdoor patio area at the southwest corner of the Lift One Lodge building,
Not only are these uses and retaining walls incompatible with the Lift One Lodge
project, but the construction of the retaining walls would likely conflict with the
water and other utility lines that are and will be located in the Hill Street right-of-
way that forms the south boundary of the Lift One Lodge property.
• The various renderings and other materials within the application that refer to the
Lift One Lodge project use outdated plans. The current Lift One Lodge plans are
those approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Resolution
No. 2, Series of 2016, this past spring.
• The proposed snow cat turnaround is just feet from the east building of the Lift
One Lodge project and will create unpleasant noise and diesel fume odors for Lift
One Lodge guests and the other neighbors.
• The summer access road for the mountain will run adjacent to the south boundary
of the Lift One Lodge project right in front outdoor patio and deck areas. The
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 9
noise, dust and fumes from maintenance trucks and equipment will not be
compatible with the Lift One Lodge uses.
• The Gorsuch Haus applicants refer several times to wanting to provide a "rubber
tire" solution for public access to the site, and yet the application provides for an
under -sized cul-de-sac and drop off area in which buses, service and trash
vehicles (trying to back into the loading dock area), unit owners with their own
cars, hotel guests in rental cars, taxis and shuttles, and just regular skiers trying to
find a parking spot will all be competing for space and then trying to turn around.
• The loading dock and trash pickup area for Gorsuch Haus will be located right on
the South Aspen Street cul-de-sac facing directly at the outdoor restaurant space
on the southwest side of Lift One Lodge. Outdoor diners at the Lift One Lodge
will have the experience of dining at a loading dock and trash pickup area with
large commercial overhead doors facing the public street. By comparison, the
Lift One Lodge loading dock and trash area are located under the building away
from public view and public spaces. Gorsuch Haus should be held to the same
standard.
• The entire South Aspen Street fagade of the Gorsuch Haus project does not relate
in any positive way to the open commercial fagade of the Lift One Lodge.
In summary, the Gorsuch Haus project has been designed almost as if the Lift One Lodge
project did not exist or at least does not merit any significant consideration in the design of
Gorsuch Haus.
Additional Considerations
8040 Greenline. Much of the proposed Gorsuch Haus project falls within the City's 8040
Greenline area. Approval of Gorsuch Haus as proposed would render the 8040 Greenline
regulations essentially meaningless. The Project falls well short of complying with a number of
the 8040 Greenline standards:
• Gorsuch Haus will have a significant adverse impact on the air quality of the City.
By ignoring the surface/platter lift that would take skiers from the Dean Street
area up to Lift IA, the project will significantly increase the number of skiers who
use wheeled transportation to get up South Aspen Street. Gorsuch Haus'
proposed "rubber tire" solution to accommodate these skiers is a non -solution.
One way or another —whether by buses, shuttles or cars making drop -offs —it
means significant vehicular traffic on South Aspen Street creating additional
pollution of Aspen's air.
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 10
• The Gorsuch Hans will not preserve open space or preserve the mountain as a
scenic resource, The Gorsuch Hans property is currently zoned Conservation and
provides a longstanding view corridor along the historic Lift 1 lift line up Aspen
Mountain —a view corridor that Lift One Lodge has been designed to preserve,
along with the historic lift itself. Gorsuch Haus will literally erect a huge wall
obstructing this view corridor and will place a huge building in the middle of the
8040 Greenline zone.
• The building height and bulk are not minimized and Gorsuch Hans will not blend
into the open character of the mountain. Gorsuch Hans mocks the 8040 Greenline
objective of preserving the open character of the mountain. Its mass, height, and
location are all being maximized and are an affront to the character of the
mountain.
Not an "Exceptional Development" for Multi -Year Development Allotment. The GMQS
needs of Gorsuch Haus exceed the annual allocations that are available for lodging rooms. Thus,
the applicants argue that Gorsuch Haus should be considered an "exceptional development" that
qualifies for a multi -year allotment. Gorsuch Haus falls short of meeting the "exceptional"
standards of the Land Use Code in several respects:
• The Gorsuch Haus project will not meet minimum affordable housing standards,
much less exceed them. As explained above in this letter, the Gorsuch Haus
application has relied on a gerrymandered and arbitrary lot configuration to
artificially increase its claimed "density" and then make a claim for special
treatment for affordable housing purposes. If looked at in a more clear-eyed
manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, the Gorsuch
Haus' affordable housing requirement would be much higher.
• Gorsuch Hans is incompatible with the surrounding properties and undermines the
efforts made with the Lift One Lodge project to preserve the connection between
historic Lift 1 and Aspen Mountain. If Gorsuch Haus is developed as planned, the
lower slopes of Aspen Mountain will no longer be visible from the bottom of the
historic lift. Instead, visitors will see only the imposing fagade of Gorsuch Hans.
• Gorsuch Haus, rather than maximize public transit usage and minimize reliance
on the automobile, will do the opposite. There is no public bus route to the end of
South Aspen Street, and the Gorsuch Hans application offers only vague ideas
that such a route may be possible. With Gorsuch Haus blocking the possibility of
installing a platter/surface lift through Lift One Park to the base of the new Lift
IA, the more likely result will be significantly increased day skier drop-off and
pick-up by passenger vehicles at the South Aspen Street cul-de-sac.
Jennifer Phelan
June 27, 2016
Page 11
Failure to Satisfy Mountain Base Character Area Standards. For many of the reasons
already detailed in this letter, the proposed Gorsuch 1Iaus project does not meet the standards of
the City's Mountain Base Character Area. The standards it rails to satisfy include: (a)
maintaining views to the mountain and other natural features and respecting scenic vistas; (b)
maintaining an adequate balance between public and private spaces and avoiding excessive
privatization; (c) providing a human scale and reducing the apparent scale of larger development;
and (d) maintaining a direct visual and physical connection between sites.
The proposed Gorsuch Haus creates what can only be perceived as a private lilt area
environment with only a begrudging nod to the idea of public access to the ski lift and the slopes
beyond. The project completely ignores the substantial effort by both Lift One Lodge and the
City in the development of the Lift One Lodge site plan to preserve the historic ski corridor and
its relationship to Aspen Mountain. This is not consistent with the spirit of Aspen to which the
applicants repeatedly refer in their application and it is certainly not consistent with, or supported
by, the Aspen Land Use Code.
Sincerely,
J. Bart Jo mson
for
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA
JOHNSON & VELASQucz LLP
Enclosures
cc: James R. "True, Esq.
Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC
Guerin Glass Architects
(A0075654/1)
EXHIBIT A
Plan View of Relocated Base of Lift 1A with Scaled Distance from Existing Lift IA
[see following page]
Mountain
queen
I-
r+a--
GORSUCH
HAUS
xer
WVx
9
e
4X
Caribou
F -`
idominiu ms
X Existing Trees
to be Removed
+® Proposed Trees
G 0 R S U C H H A U S
Existing and Proposed Development Overlay
Aspen, CO 81611
P
rOPerfy (ine
\ Shado
JMountawin
Condominiums
\ \7
.Scale: 1" = 20'
0 20 aU
80 O
EXHIBIT B
View of Gorsuch Haus from Lift One Park
Lsee following page]
EXHIBIT C
Plan View of Gorsuch Hans Adjacent to Lift One Lodge
[see following page]
--�. World Cup
Finish
J ,
1 /
_ 1 /
1 /
1 I
1 I
I
v I
11 �
1 1
II 1
1 1
II 1
1
II 1
1 1
1
e' 1�
t1 1
1 1
T. 1
Mountain -�
Queen
Condominiums Vi a i,n i
_ 1
Lift
1A
1 fir.
GORSUCH
HAUS
00 o ab'i
^o 0 0
I
Lift One
/ Lodge / 4
I
—
Lift One /\.
Lodge
G O R S U C H H A U S
Mutli-modal Level of Service Site Plan -TIA Exhibit
Aspen, CO 81611
Scale: 1" = 20'
/
0 20 40
Shadow
Mountain
Condominiums
/ meeem WDI nI I c I
]HItG'. FIies nce:47;6
tl
ao O
EXHIBIT D
Massing Study of Retaining Walls
[see following page]
0
3
i.
A�—�
1.60,
I 1 1
73 =) �
o o (
-r
m
C:
cn
0
(D
0
EXHIBIT E
Skier's View Down Slope Toward Lift One Lodge
[see following page]
j
j
0-
3
cD
m
o
_.
/�m2.
-0\A§
(D
CD
Cr
/
/
/§
°
A§
$
$
f
/
CD
.]
.]
j
ASPEN
Hyman venue E GARFIELD & HECHT P C G25 Lust HpnauAvenue • Suite 201 �
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone(970) 925-193G ATTORNEYS AT LAW I SINCE 1975
Facsimile (970) 925-3008
Ww .garfieldhechtxom
June 27, 2016
AVERY S. NELSON
anelson(d,earfieldhecht.com
Via E-Mail to:
Jennifer Phelan
Deputy Director
Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, 3" Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Gorsuch Haus Project Review Application dated March 29, 2016
Dear Jennifer:
As you know, we represent The Caribou Condominium Association, Inc. ("Caribou").
Caribou's property is located at 701 S. Monarch, adjacent to the proposed development known as
the Gorsuch Hans (the "Project"). An application for development of the Project was submitted
to your office on March 29, 2016, by Norway Island, LLC (the "Applicant").
Since first learning of the conceptual idea of the Project, Caribou has had a number of
concerns. After the application was formally submitted in late March, Caribou memorialized a
number of its major concerns in a letter to the Applicant dated May 9, 2016. The Applicant
responded to Caribou's on June 6, 2016. You were copied on both of those letters, copies of
which enclosed herewith. Caribou now writes you directly to express and reiterate its growing
concerns and objections to the Project, especially in light of the fact that its concerns have not
been addressed by the Applicant.
As an initial matter, Caribou is aware of growing negative public sentiment toward the
Project and recent attention it has received in the press regarding overarching fundamental
concerns and objections related to the Project. Although Caribou's correspondence to date has
focused on some specific objections thereto, Caribou also shares in the public opinion of many
locals and visitors alike in opposition to the overall character and scope of the Project. An
incredible example of the drastic nature of this proposed development is the request for rezoning
from Conservation to Ski Area Base. The only other example of Ski Area Base zoning in the
entire City is a small area of the Aspen Highlands PUD, which zoning was approved as part of a
greater development scheme for the then -recently annexed (and therefore un-zoned) Aspen
Highlands base area which also included zoning for conservation, moderate and low density
1531874-2
Printed on recycled paper
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Jennifer Phelan/City of Aspen
June 27, 2016
Page 2 of 5
residential, lodge/tourist residential, residential multi -family, and planned unit development
districts.
Here, the long -existing Conservation zoning of the Project's parcel provides a clear guide
to development policy (and restriction thereof) on the west side of Aspen Mountain. Changing
the current Conservation zoning to a much less restrictive Ski Area Base district with no
dimensional limitations would simply allow the Applicant to circumvent required land use
procedures, including, tellingly; Referendum i requiring any variance request to be submitted to
a public vote. Such re -zoning flies in the face of the spirit of development in the City
(particularly and area like the base of Aspen Mountain) and should not be approved.
Specific Concerns:
Caribou's letter of May 9, 2016, expressed serious concerns related to three specific
elements of the Project: (i) proposed removal of a large grouping of mature trees on the boundary
between Caribou's property and the Project, (ii) construction of retaining wall(s) along Caribou's
common property boundary with the Project, which block Caribou owners' historic access to the
Aspen Mountain ski area and Lift IA; and (iii) relocation of the existing mountain operations
road to an area immediately adjacent to Caribou's property.
While the Applicant's June 6, 2016, response letter states that the Applicant has
previously met with Caribou's representatives "to insure [Applicant] is meeting [Caribou's]
needs to the greatest extent possible," the Applicant has continued to design the Project in a way
that benefits the Applicant and ignores the fundamental objections of Caribou. The Applicant's
meetings with Caribou's representatives have been mere lip service in an effort to quiet
Caribou's owners' concerns and to represent that the Applicant has met its public outreach
obligations. The June 6, 2016, letter continues the history of the Applicant's so-called
".solutions" to Caribou's concerns and includes one proposed alternative to the tree removal and
retainage that is unsatisfactory. Further, Caribou's concerns regarding the new location of the
mountain operations road continue to grow in light of Caribou's more complete understanding of
the intended Ilse for that road in the area between Caribou's property and the Project.
Tree Removal, Retainage, and Access:
The alternatives Caribou has been presented with thus far regarding the proposed tree
removal and retaining wall construction can be summarized as follows: (i) Option 1 is to remove
almost every single tree between Caribou's property and the Project and to construct two
separate retaining walls in the same vicinity'; or (ii) Option 2, which retains three additional trees
(marked for removal in Option 1) and construction of one continuous retaining wall beginning at
' The Applicant asserts that retainage in this area is "essential" to s1d area operations, including an "even/gentle
sloping surface to facilitate... snow cat... operations"
1531874-2
® Nwed on requlad paper
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Jennifer Phelan/City of Aspen
June 27, 2016
Page 3 of 5
the southwest corner of Caribou's property and running north to the mid -point of Caribou's
property and thence westerly for some distance. The difference between the two options, as
Caribou understands from the Applicant's perspective, is that Option 1 proposes to give
Caribou's two unit owners on the northern end of the Caribou property access to the mountain
between the two retaining walls, and, in the latter, the two owners at the northern end of the
Caribou property would have to walk across the Caribou property, through the pool area and to a
staircase that the Applicant depicts in its development plans to be built in the southwest comer of
Caribou's property as the sole access point to the mountain for all Caribou owners.
Neither option is acceptable. In both scenarios, nearly the entirety of the tree cover
between Caribou and the Project is marked for removal. Further, in neither Option 1 nor Option
2 is the existing access of any Caribou owner maintained. Currently, and historically, the
northernmost units of the Caribou property access the mountain directly from their patios and by
walking up the mountain toward Lift IA. The four other owners access the mountain from a path
located at the north side of the pool area. As a new access point for all owners, the Applicant
proposes to build a staircase in the southwest comer of Caribou's property. That area already
appears to have steep grade, and therefore the staircase itself is what, at least in part, necessitates
tree removal and the retaining wall. Caribou asserts that all owners' existing and historic access
can and should be maintained if the Applicant considers acceptable alternatives which would
negate the need for tree removal and construction of the retaining wall(s).
Two weeks ago, representatives of Caribou met with two representatives of the City of
Aspen Forestry Department, including Ben Carlsen. Mr. Carlsen expressed serious misgivings
concerning removal of the trees between Caribou's property and the Project. Further, Mr.
Carlsen's knowledge and experience in ski operations made him of the opinion that the proposed
area of ski return and snow cat turnaround is unnecessarily large for the proposed uses.
Therefore, the purportedly "essential" nature of the tree removal and the construction of the
retaining walls is called into question.
Moreover, it is our understanding that a detailed landscaping and retainage plan has not
even been submitted to the City. Therefore, Caribou requests that such a plan be submitted and
reserves its rights to re -assert its objections when a detailed landscaping and retainage plan is
made available, Caribou may hire its own engineer, as necessary, to analyze and refute the
Applicant's position that the current design iteration is "essential" or somehow necessary for the
Project's mountain operations.
Mountain Operations Road:
It appears that the major Project detail necessitating the tree removal and retainage is to
accommodate an unnecessarily large area for ski return, snow cat turnaround and other mountain
operations. The expansion of this area for such uses raises additional concerns regarding
1531874-2
® Printed on recycled paper
GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C.
Jennifer Phelan/Uty of Aspen
June 27, 2016
Page 4 of 5
increased levels of traffic, noise and other nuisance, including light pollution and emissions from
operations vehicles turning the corner to head up the mountain at the edge of the Caribou
property. The existing area has, for many years, provided more than adequate room for skiers to
return to town and utilize the existing "ski way and recreation easement." Therefore, the
proposed expansiveness of the base in this location is arguably "necessitated" by the relocation
of the mountain operations road, including snow cat turnaround during winter months. The
Applicant's June 6, 2016, letter highlights the reality that this road will likely see heavy traffic
that will cause a nuisance to neighboring properties like Caribou, including loading and
unloading of vehicles and event set-up for racing. The fact that the Applicant has represented that
the road will continue to be private and gated does little to assuage Caribou's concerns if, in
reality, SkiCo operations that will be permitted on this road will see an exponential increase in
connection with the overall new development of the area. For example, any events throughout
the year, including racing, that qualify as SkiCo operations, will arguably be permissible on this
"restricted" road. Caribou objects to such an increase in mountain operations and use of the road
for an expansive list of permitted uses under the umbrella of "mountain operations." Caribou
requests further specificity as to what "mountain operations" encompasses. The difference
between mountain operations for emergency access for injuries, lift maintenance, and other
operations integral to the operation of the ski area differ greatly from SkiCo-sponsored
commercial events such as racing, weddings, and recreational activities. Caribou objects to the
relocation of the road for ski area operations andto the extent that the new operations road will
see continuous use throughout the year for events that are not integral to the maintenance and
operation of the ski area.
Caribou appreciates your consideration of its concerns in your review of the Project
application. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have or to discuss this
matter in further detail.
Very truly yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Avery S. Nelson
cc: Applicant Norway Island, LLC (Mr. Jeff Gorsuch,
ieffgorsuch@,mae.com; Mr. Bryan Peterson,
bryanna,ntasomnorse.com; Mr. James DeFrancia,
i defrancia�3a,loweenterprises.com)
Counsel
for Applicant Holland & Hart, LLP (Thomas J. Todd, Esq.;
ttodMhollandhart.com)
1531874 2
® Printed on recycled pap.
GARFIELD &HECHT, EC,
Jennifer Phelan/City of Aspen
June 27,2016
Page 5 of 5
Aspen Skiing Company/
Consenting Land Owner Mr, Dave Corbin (deorbin as ensnowmass.com)
City of Aspen Mr. James R. True, Esq. (lim.True@6!yofaspen.com)
Mr. Ben Carlsen (Ben.Carlsen@—cityofaspen.com
Counsel for Caribou Garfield & Hecht, P.C. (Christopher D. Bryan, Esq.,
cbryan@,,garfieldhecht.com)
I
I'
i
i
i
f
i
I
i
1531874-2
® Printed on recycled paper
Jennifer Phelan
From: Cindy Klob
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: FW: Aspen zoning regulations
Please see the public comment submitted below.
Cindy Klob
;Records Manager ! City Clerk 1970.429.2686
of Aspen 1 130 S. Galena ! Aspen, CO 81611
mwmaspenpltkin.corn
From: Briana L. Deschambault[mailto:bldescha@augustanacare.org] On Behalf Of Timothy H. Tucker
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:38 AM
To: Cindy Klob <cindy.klob@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Aspen zoning regulations
Good morning,
I thought I would copy you on this letter that I have sent to a couple of editorials in the Aspen area. I have been visiting
Aspen annually for upwards of 50 years, my family and I consider it our second home. Please feel free to let me know if
you would like further input or would like to connect.
"One of the most attractive things about Aspen is that it really does have zoning regulations in place. However
imperfect they are, Aspen's zoning regs keep rampant development from spoiling the look and feel of a
wonderful mountain town. That, after all, is what makes Aspen unique among American ski towns. So it's very
disturbing to learn that the City might permit a zoning change to allow the oversized Gorsuch Haus hotel to be
high up in the middle of an existing, long-established ski run near the 1A lift.
Beyond defacing the hillside, and significantly constricting the ski run, if that hotel does get built, it would put a
great deal of additional stress on one of the steepest streets in town. There will have to be a lot of additional
truck traffic needed to service the hotel and its restaurant. Plus, of course, additional car traffic to drop off
skiers and bring hotel guests up and down from town. The so-called "rubber tired" solution to which the
developers have referred is really nothing more than a bad joke!
It's beyond belief that Aspen, the poster child for Conservation, would allow its long-established zoning
designation of Conservation to be abandoned merely to accommodate this ill -thought out, rushed development
plan."
Thanks for your time,
Tim Tucker
Timothy Tucker
President and CEO
Augustana Care
W
Jennifer Phelan
Deputy Director of Planing
City of Aspen
Dear Jennifer,
We want you to know that the Shadow Mountain Town Homes Association shares many of the
concerns and objections set forth in the letter that Bart Johnson sent to you on behalf of Lift One
Lodge on June 27, 2016.
Specifically we are gravely concerned about the following:
• Incompatibility: The Gorsuch Haus (GH) application is incompatible with the South Aspen Street
neighborhood. As proposed, it will loom up from the mountain as seen from the town. It is far too
massive. It will severely constrict the skiable slope. Rather than agree to a change of zoning to
accommodate GH, we believe Aspen should respect its own, well conceived, long-established zoning
guidelines and honor the current zoning - Conservation - by denyjug a zoning change.
• Violation of Principles: It is our belief that the GH proposal violates not only the stated intent of
the Aspen Land Use Code; it also is asking the City to repudiate the spirit of Referendum I, passed
by voters last year. We believe this is inherently wrong.
• Barriers: Construction of GH, were it to be allowed, would create both a hugh physical and a
psychological barrier between the mountain and the town. We think that not having such a barrier is
one of the things that distinguishes us in a very real way from places like Vail.
• There is No Necessary Hotel -Lift Link: The GH applicants have falsely attempted to inextricably
link a new lift with their proposed hotel. In no way is this true. There is absolutely no integral
relationship between the two. It is only a hotel, such as is proposed by GH, that the current zoning
forbids. We endorse the prohibition of a large hotel high up on the slope. The proposed hotel clearly
violates the idea of protecting land and preserving natural conditions.
• New Lift: A'Need' or a'Want'?: The West side of the mountain does not "need" a new lift that is
roughly the same length as the current lift. Its increased speed will be insignificant. It would be nice
to have. But preference is clearly not the same as "need". The only entity that may "need" a new lift
is the Aspen Skiing Company. A new lift has already been approved by the Forest Service and is
satisfactory to SkiCo, making GH's claim of 'rescuing 1A' disingenuous at best.
• Difficult Access: We are concerned that the proposed new lift's starting point is significantly more
difficult for skiers to reach than the current lift minus the hotel. In our conversations with the GH team
we were never made aware of the fact that the new lift's starting point would need to be 150 feet
further up the hill merely to accommodate the hotel's footprint. Nor were we ever informed of the
approximately 45 stair steps that everyone coming from lower on the mountain would have to climb
in getting to the new lift. That amounts to a substantial added inconvenience for just about everyone.
Except, of course, for GH guests.
• Surface Access Lift: GH led us to believe the long -discussed possibility of a surface/platter pull to
permit skier access to lower terminal of lift 1A was a non -starter due to resistance by LOL; it now
appears that such a lift is a possibility, and, moreover is encour ged by LOL.
We believe that in fact the surface lift was misrepresented to us by the GH team as a non starter
because it doesn't fit in with GH plans. As we understand it, Gorsuch Haus has utilized the potential
terminus of a platter lift area for a large building.
In fact, it is important to the neighborhood, and indeed, to the entire town in that it would help to
reduce traffic on steep, newly narrowed Aspen street expected to be generated by the new lodging
that has already earned authorization.
• Pollution + Traffic: We understand that the heightened level of noise, air pollution, parking and
traffic problems that the GH project will create will be felt by all in the surrounding area; it will be
especially unpleasant for those nearest the GH site.
• Disingenuousness Consult with Neighbors: The GH team did approach us. But not as
established -in -place -neighbors whose stewardship deserves respect. They did not materially modify
their design in terms of height, mass and proximity as requested to meet our needs. They did not,
and have not yet, properly addressed important issues like traffic on South Aspen Street.
We have, from the beginning, repeatedly pressed GH to erect story poles so all stakeholders could
better visualize the magnitude of the project GH proposes. In the course of several meetings, GH
agreed to do this. But so far this has not materialized. We can only conclude that this reluctance is
deliberate. We respectfully suggest that the commission demand the erection of story poles before
making any recommendations.
We believe that the meetings with us was a "superficial exercise" to satisfy an applicant requirement.
There was lots of "telling" on their part, but little "listening" and still less "doing".
• Privatization of Skiing?: The suggestion that the GH proposal looks suspiciously like an attempt
to 'privatize' skiing on the West side of the mountain for the exclusive use of their guests has a strong
ring of truth to it that is extremely troubling. Our homeowners Association, which has been in
existence for over half a century, stands firmly against such a tendency. We feel any attempt to
privatize the West side of Aspen Mountain is totally unacceptable.
• Moral Obligation to Consult Electorate: The Shadow Mountain Town Homes Association
believes that if the GH proposal for a hotel on the slope is accepted in any form, that the City has a
moral obligation to put the issue to the electorate for a general vote.
Although this is not required by Referendum 1 because the property is not within one of the
applicable zone districts, we believe it is the'right thin to do' given the magnitude of the GH
proposal, and its potentially irreversible negative impact on the Town.
Yours Truly
Karen Hartman - President,
Board of Managers
Shadow Mountain Town Homes Association