Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit N_Public CommentI t Ayanan *.ime -; GARFIELD .& ECHT P C t,25 East rtyman A��eiu�c • Suitc 201 J Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925-1936 ATTORNEYS ,A T LAW I S I.N C E 1 9 7 5 Facsimile (970),925-3008 Wwmgarfieldhecht.com May 9, 2016 AVERY S. NELSON anelson Owuariieldhecht.com Via E-Mail to: Applicant: Norway Island, LLC P.O. Box 123.93 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Mr. Jeff Gorsuch (jeffi orsuch cr,tnac.com) Mr. Bryan Peterson (br an ,masonmorse;com). Mr. James'DeFrancia Odefrancia2chotmail.coni) and Legal Representation for Applicant': Holland&: Hart, LLP 600 EastMain Street, Suite 450 Aspen; Colorado 81611 Attn: Alison Wente, Esq. AEWente@hollandhart.com 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 291, 2016, submitted by Norway Island; LLC ("Applicant") for the development of a. proposed lodge, ski base and related improvements referred to as Gorsuch Haus (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 siteofthe.Project. Throughout the pre -application public outreach process, Caribou has continually expressed concerns regarding certain aspects of the Project, Turther, since the filing of the application. for the Project, Caribou has again informally discussed its concerns with Applicant. "Holland & Hargis listed as the legal representative for Applicant. This letter is being sentto the attention of Alison Wente, as she was an attorney at Holland & Hart previously invoived.on behalf of Applicant (and/or its developinent partners). 1502287.-3 ® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C, Norway Island, LLC, (G.orsuch flaus) May 9, 2016 Page 2 of 4 We now write to. formally .express Caribou's objections in connection with specific aspects of the i `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 U `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 arid. 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 P.roject.2 The stark nature of the removal of these trees is further shown 'at Appendix E.4, Pages 1 and 2. Page 1 reflects existing conditions and shows the thick grouping of trees located ' between Caribou's property and the Prbject. 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 oftrees and'tlierefore would do. almost nothing to mitigate the loss of sere and privacy; Page 40 of`the Project application; provides that a "final and detailed tree mitigation plan will be.submitted as part [ofj 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. z 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. Norwaylsland,'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 "Pianned 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 > .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 9.3. is redesigned. Slu 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: 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 tAspen .Street to the skier 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, whenthe ski mountain is operating and a through. ioute.for pedestrians in all seasons, providing an east west connection from South. As Street to Monarch Street. The eastern portion of this corridor will accommodate return skiing access to Lift One Park, 1102287-3 (9,Pd ed on recycled paper' GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C. Norway Island, LLC (Gorsuch Hans) 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. Rased 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" easetnent (per Mountain Queen condo_. map; Book. 4, Page 489) lying between the. Caribou property to the south and. the Mbuntair., 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 fioni the -western side of the,P oject for E(ny up blic 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. SkiCo operations only. Carih6u believes these are solvable problems and'looks forward to working with youin 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 inatter in further detail.. Very truly yours; G itEIEL Avery S. Nelson cc: Aspen Siding Company/ Consenting Land Owner Mr. Dave Corbin (deorbni:s . eiis�io«Tiiiass.cbin) 1502287-3 CitS of Aspen Mr, James it. True, Esq. (lirn. ruetcbcityofav_en_cQni} Ms. Jennifer Phelan (Jennifer.Phelan cl orasLa�r.cui.:i) Printed on. recycled paper` NORWAY ISLAND, LLC Julie 6, 2016 James M. DeFrancia IDeFrancia&LoweEntetprises.corn Jeffrey Gorsuch jeffgorsuchgmac.com Bryan Peterson bryan�masonmors e.com Via email to; Caribou Condorliinium Association, Inc. c/o Avery S. Nelson, Esq., Counsel Garfield & Hecht, PC 625 E. Hvman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 ANelson amGarfieldl lecht.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. C'Caribou"). While your letter addresses each of the I 10A's concerns separatety, 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 art seel<ing to accommodate and Svc 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 ining Wall: The need for a retaining wall along the cast'side of the Gorsuch Hans project site Is essential to the viability of the skiarea operationsat Aspen Mountain's western portal: The existing topography in this area consist" of steep Slopes that are not conducive to the commurifty's request for return skiing or for sld area operations through this corridor. The modest retaining walls M" this area hold the grade to provide an even/gently sloping surface to facilitate multiple demands including snow catand sur=cj operations related to loading and unloading and event: set Lip 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 sld way and recreation easement between'the two Lif:One Lodge buildings, which connects to Dean Street. The gentle grade in this area, afforded by tlne :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 essenitial eleiize at in the. functioning of the ski area. Access, Stairway and Tree Removal: Since meeting.I'vith therCaribou 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 dies'e 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 theretaining 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 29d' submission (Attachment 2). This option. would allow for pedestrian access to the -ski -way but would not provide a skiable ramp directly connecting the lowerunits 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 wail 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 FIOA'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 Sluing Company vehicles and will only be accessible from the western cul-dc-sac. No vehicular travel. of improvements are anticipated for the pedestrian access easement Between the Mountain Queen and Caribou properties. However, some pedestrian improwinents rr ay be constructed .and a modest increase in surn.mer 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 ofskiers and pedestrians at this base is anticipated, the flow of shiers 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 NQA's concerns. for continued, access to the lift and privacy provided by the trees. We would;hkc to set up a meeting to review the options in this area when it:is convenient for Caribou owners, Additionally .Not%vay Island has staked the project corners according to the Staling 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, LLLC James D617rancia Jeffrey Gorsuch Bryan Teterson 3 Attachments 1. Alternative 2. March 29`� Submission 3. Stalung Plan Legend cc: Aspen Skiing Company;.LLC: Mr. David Corbin(dcorbinCaspenstio"Vtilass.cotrt) City of Aspen Mr. James R. True {Jitn.True &'ityoEAspen.corg) Ms. Jennifer Phelan (JenniferThelan@yCityzoEAspen.cotn) Holland & Hart LLP Mr. Thomas Todd (TTodd@flollandHart.com) 4 Gorsuch Haus Landscape Plan - Potential Alternative Aspen, Colorado 16" CAL. 177 0 1 'to'0' 2U NORTH 1"=29-0" .June 02, 2016 DESIGNWORKSLIOP Gorsuch Haus Landscape Plan - March. 29th Submission Aspen, Col ofado `16" CAL. 20' 40' NORTH 1"=20'-0 June 02, 2016 DESIGNWORKSHOP Jennifer Phelan From: Donald.Gilbert <dcgilbert437@gmail.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 beheaded 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 longtime 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 longterm 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 P From: Michael Mizen < mrm izen 1 @gmail. corn> 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- Increaseof traffic, noise and general congestion on an already hazardous South Aspen St: Ibelieve 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 MainStreet 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 1 WARS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNS -ON &VELAsQuEzv June 27, 2016 VIAKmtttt, AND HAND Di:;t.tV ERN Jennifer Phelan Deputy Director Aspen Coniinu►iity .Developme.i7tDepeirtrr►ent 130 S. Galena Street„ d Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Gorsuch. Halts Application Dear Jennifer: J. Bart Johnson 970.544.4602 johnson0awcriegal.com Our firm represents Li'i:t One Lodge:Aspen L.LC, which is the Owner Of tile l,.iTt One Lodge property located along South, Aspen Street in:tlie City of Ashen. As you know, Liift One Lodge was approved as a subdivision/PUD. pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011, as recently amended lay a :,mi►ior amendment approved by Planning and Zoning Commission Resolutio►i No. 2, Series 0F2016. The approval of, Lift One Lodge was tile. result of a long and collaborative process between the original applicant, the project's neighbors, the City, and the Aspen coinnnutitjy at - large. The ovcrall plan for the project --which is literally designed around two public parks -- reflects a strong community desire to maintain a close physical and visualconnectionbetween the development along South Aspen Street and Aspen Mountain, all \Yhilc remaining groundedin Aspen's .skiing history. every aspect of the Lift One l'rrtject is informed in some manner by these overarching The pending Gorsuch Flaus application thumbs its nose at all the community goads embodied in the: Ilift One Lodge project and i.s .incompatible. with the Lift One 1'relject and the surroutiding ►ieigliborliood in myriad ways. While it may be true the: west side of Aspen.TVlountain needs a new ski lilt, it does not necessarily follow and simply is not true that it also needs a lodge to go with theft lid `file proposed site.ol'the Gorsuch liaus is currently zoned Conservation (br a reason.— it's a sensitive site at the boundary of where the City transforms from urban to ski mountain, The Consef-ve tion zone district is intended to "contain urban development" See LUC ya' 20.71ia;220. It marks Where urban character is supposed to, stop and the slri tltountain is supposed to start. The applicants Nvant to change this 1. uadamental demarcation —they want to trove '(he "beach" and then build a big -hotel right. in the middle of it. There. is no justil1catio►i for such a dramatic change to the existing land use pattern in this Bart of'Aspen. Norway Island, L LC does not own ._ _ 1'� D SEXIENTF 1iH ,iTft 1.. ; Cif. 450 USENVE a COLORADO m 720 35 .7f;,) F +JC 351 17 1 igjt) r.lSl Pd,il.l jTREE, Sft)iE'T10 MWEM COLOtZADO 91 61.1 hi.Or()544-.700'6. z 6<+G ic',...O;ibl %YCRLEGAL.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 l 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 1A" becauseit will allow' all the needed permitted uses and will accommodate the height of the existing ski lifttowers. These issues are red herrings. First, a new Lift IA can be built withouta 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. lf, 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 any way for the Gorsuch Haus. 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 June27, 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 27,20.16 Page 4 Haus property. The plaza and gondola facilities adjacent to the Little Nell are zoned Conservation with. 'a PO 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 Iodging 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 theproject. 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 explainedbelow, 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: dim. ensional 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 § 26710.190.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 (441550 sq. ft. / 81 keys = 5.50 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 I 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 varca 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 aproject 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 = 96.6 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 § 26.716.190.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 L UC § 26.710.190 D1 Lb. 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 Haus. ® Affordable Housing under QM S: 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 L.UC § 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 relationshipbetween the two projects" and'"respon[ding] to feedback from Lift One Lodge and other stakeholders." The Gorsuch Hausteam claims they "made' significant changes to the Gorsuch Haus design ;in response V' 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 I .approximately 150 feet south up Aspen Mountain. This is depicted on Exhibit enclosed with this letter. Thee 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 IA. 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 I 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 M 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. 6 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 ofthe .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 spotwill all be competing for space and then trying to turnaround. ® 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 ofthe 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 8046 Greenline standards. - Gorsuch Haus will have a significant adverse impact on the air quality of the City. By ignoring the surface/platter lift thatwould take skiers from .the Dean Street area up to Lift: IA, the project will significantly increaseahe number of skiers who use :wheeled transportation. to get up South ..Aspen Street. Gorsuch Klaus' proposed "rubber tire" solution to accommodate these skiers is a non -solution. One way oranother—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. JenniferPhelan June 27, 2016. ;Page 10 The Gorsuch Haus will not preserve open space or preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. The Gorsuch Haus property is currently zoned Conservation and provides a longstanding view corridor along the historic Lift I lift line up Aspen 1Mountain—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 Haus will not blend into the open character of the mountain. Gorsuch Haus 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. Nor.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 Willnot 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. o Gorsuch Haus is incompatible with the surrounding properties and undermines the efforts made with the Lift One Lodge project to preserve the connection between .historic Lift l 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 Haus. 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 Haus application offers only: vague ideas that such.a route may te.possible. With Gorsuch Haus blocking the possibility of installing a platter/surface lift through Lift One Park to the base of the new Lift I A� 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 I I Failure to Satisy Mountain Base Character Area Standards. For many of the reasons already detailed in this letter; the proposed Gorsuch llaus project does not meet the standards of the City's Mountain Base Character Area. The standards it I'ails to satisfy include: (,.I) maintaining views to the niOuntain am ether natural features and respeciinscenic 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),maintain►ng a direct visual and physical connection between sites.. The proposed Gorsuch l:laus creates what can only be perceived as a private lift :area environment with only a begrudging; nod to the itkea ofpublic 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 hilt One -Lodge site plan to preserve the historic ski corridor and its relationship. to Aspen -MOLIntain. ' 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! J. Bart Johnson i'or WAAs CA4411BEL:L RIVERA JokiNSON & V)I'LASQLlt-,z LLP Enclosures cc: James R, True, Esq. Lift OneLodge Aspen- LLC Guerin Glass Architects JAC0756541 l). EXHIBIT A Plan View of Relocated Base of Lift 1 A with Scaled Distance: from Existing Lift 1 A. [see following page] Caribou 01 -Condo min lurnsj`7, - ---- ------ Lift One' Lodge NN 'VSV ar X Existing Trees to be Removed 0 Proposed Trees G 0 RI 5 U C H H A U S Existing and Proposed Development Overlay Aspen, CO 81611 z Poo,ty z [one 0 0 ,J tau? o .,A�b M 41 M J 0 M z 0 < r > J ij ORSUCH HAUSI , - --------- J D L Shadow 1 Mountain Condominiums, A rim . ..... Lift 0" _ ­-- 17191 91N) Lodge. Stale: I" = 20' 0 20 40 80 EXHIBIT B View of Gorsuch Haus from Lift One Park [see following page] :3 =r N (D CL 3� 3' Q� © N Eil CD PW cn IF CD Q �Lrr �. E o rn � cn cQ CD CD c^ i J CL rAN aka E 9 VVV i i 1 N ss l 1 � d EXHIBIT C Plan View of Gorsuch Haus Adjacent to Lift One Lodge [see following page] 6ry World cap Finish Z. 7 t t r � t I I i t 1 ! ti 1 r Lift f t !� 1 - Mountain{` !� Queen i. 1q ! Condominiums \ , ttr S c lin t6 M i<q 1 AsN►oMt r Lift One f Lodge' / Q i f Ik. Wness factor: i I _---_ tYlMtn9 Pacltrtca' 77.6 tt U." Pi Fl+dc ctmca:27,8 ft GO R S U C H H A US Scale: l"=20' Mutli-modal level of Service Site Plan - TIA Exhibit Aspen, CO 81611 0 20 40 80 EXHIBIT D Massing Study of Retaining Walls [see following page] ■7 EXHIBIT E Skier's View Down Slope Toward Lift One Lodge [see following page] I' "' ASPEN or, FfcF 625 East Hyman Avenue • Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephore (970) 925-1936 Facsimile (970) 925-3003 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I SINCE 1975. www.gartkidhecht.co n Julie 27,.2..016 AvERY S. NELSON anelson(&garfieldheeht.eom Virg E-Mail to: Jennifer Phelan Deputy' Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Gorsuch Baus 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. Monarah, adjacent to the proposed development known as the Gorsuch ldaus (the "Project"). An application for development of the Project was submitted to your office on March 29, 201,6, 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 tight 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. Ali incredible example of the drastic nature of this proposed development is the request for.rezoning from Conservation to. Ski Area Rase: 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 (arid therefore 'un-zoned) Aspen Hightuds base area which also included zoning for conservation, moderate and low density. 1531V4-2 Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD &HECHT, P,C, Jennifer-.Phelan/City of Aspen Juice 27, 2016. Page 2 of 5 residential, lodgehourist residential, residential multi -family, and planned unit development districts. 1Jere, 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 1 requiring any variance request tobe, 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 away 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. `l'he. 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 iu. light of Caribou's more complete understanding of the intended'usb 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 contiuuous.retaining wall beginning at t The. Applicant asserts that retainage: in this area is "essential" to ski area operations, including an "even/gentle sloping surface to facilitate... snow cat..: operations." I531874-2 ® Printed (in recycled paper GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Jennifer Phelan Oty of Aspen June 27,-2016 Page 3 of 5 the southwest corder of Caribou's property and running north to the and -point of Caribou's property and thencewesterly for some distance. The difference between the two options, as Caribou understands from the Applicant's perspective, is :that Option l 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 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 corner 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 lacceptable 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 laiowledge 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 i.ts objections when a detailed landscaping and retainage. plan is inane 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 skireturn, snow':cat turnaround and other mountain operations. `Tlie expansion of this. area for such uses raises additional concerns regarding 1531874-2 eprinted on recycled.paper i GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Jennifer Phelan/City of. Aspen Time 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. morethan 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 i. 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 I reality; S1ciCo operations that willbe permitted on this road, will see an exponential increase in I 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. Caribouobjects to such an increase in mountain operations and use of the road for an expansive list of permitted uses under the umbrella of "mountains 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 rite with any questions you may have or to discuss this matter in further detail. Very truly yours, cc: Applicant Counsel for: Applicant -1531974-2 GARFIELD & HF.cHT, P.C. Avery S. Nelson Norwayf land, LLC (Mr. Jeff Gorsuch, jeffgorsuch@mac.com; Mr. Bryan Peterson, Bryan@ji asonmorse.com; Mi. James DeFrancia, Lefrancia�}a loweenteMdses:com) Holland &.Hart, LLP (Thomas I Todd, Esq.; ttodda@,hollandhart. corm ®Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD &HECHT, RC. Jennifer Phelan/City of Aspen June 27, 2016' Page S of 5 Aspen Skiing Company/ Consenting Land Uwiier Mr. Dave Corbin (&c)rbin aspensnowmass.com) City of Aspen Mr. James R. True, Esq. (Jim.TrueCrckityofaspen.com) Mr.. Ben Carlsen (Ben:Carlsen cityofaspen.com) Counsel for Caribou Garfield & Hecht, P.C. (Christopher D. Bryan, Esq., cbryan(a� gLarfi eldhecht: com) 1531874.2 ® Nated on recpeled 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 I City Clerk .1 970.429.2686 City of Aspen 1130 S. Galena I Aspen; CO 81611 ~;aspenpitkin.com From: Briana L. Deschambault[mailto:bldescha@augustanacare.orgj 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 4 ALIgWtana Ca _. Timothy Tucker President and CEO Augustana Care DS Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director of Planing City of Aspen .Dear Jennifer, We want you to know that the Shadow Mountain Town Home's 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 aboutthe 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 denying a zoning change. Violation of Principles: It is our belief that the GH proposal violates not onlythe 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 1 A'disingenuous at.best.. • Difficult Access: We. are. concerned that the<proposed new lifts, starting point is significantly more difficult for skiers to reach than the current liftminus`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 hotels footprint. Nor were weever informed of the approximately 45 stair steps. that everygne 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 unto 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 enegurage d.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 Jndeed, 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.G'H 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 G.H 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 halt 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 fora 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 thing 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 Jennifer Phelan From: steve stunda <sstunda@gmail.com>, Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 2:23 PM ' To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: Gorsuch Haus hotel project I am writing you this email to state my support for the above captioned project. It is my opinion that it adds needed lodging , improves that side of the mountain , and will provide better access to the mountain with a public lift. I feel that the hotel is properly sized at 80 rooms and as a "use completes the neighborhood with a lodging component which is different .from the fractional Lift One project. Lastly , I am -led to believe that the applicant is not seeking any variances for parking or employee housing. This is a worthy project that I urge Council to embrace and approve. 'Steve Stunda 1 .Jennifer Phelan Subject: FW: Happy 4th nd Gorsuch Haus letter .'From: christopher davenport f mailto:chris@steepskiine.coml 'Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 3:06 PM .7o: Jessica Garrow<jessica.garrow@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Happy 4th nd Gorsuch Haus letter !Hi Jessica, i hope your having a wonderful holiday. Unfortunately I am missing the 4th at home as I'm in New Zealand at the moment. Regardless I wanted to send you a letter I wrote and sent to our City Council regarding the Gorsuch Haus development and my support of it. It's my hope that you might read it and share it with your staff. It's my opinion that this project is hugely important to our future and vitality as a legendary ski town, and one with a thoughtful and sound economic future. t With kindest regards, :Chris Davenport Dear Aspen City Council, I'm writing to express my support for Gorsuch Haus. We all love our amazing mountain town. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find a more passionate mountain community out there. So when it comes to the topic of growth and development it's understandable that people get nervous about direction, and size, and looks and everything else surrounding projects like Gorsuch Haus: Heck back in the mid 80's people complained about the new Little Nell Hotel. But there is no question that Aspen needs to continue'to look to the future. We are a world class ski town, and we need to keep it that way. Especially in the face of stiff competition out there in the market. Most of you know Jeff Gorsuch. He is a long time friend of Aspen, a true skier at heart, a dedicated community member and family man who has contributed endlessly to Aspen's nonprofits, especially the Aspen Valley Ski & Snowboard Club and Aspen Education Foundation. He and his long-time local partners have a created a plan i ;for a hotel that would bring back the life to the Lift 1 A neighborhopd, which we all agree is long overdue. So let's talk about the Lift 1A, or "Ruthies" side of Ajax. Honestly its my favorite lift on the mountain. For over 50 years it has carried locals, visitors, and the fastest racers in the world up its slopes. There are some days in the winter when I will just go ski 5 or 10 laps on IA and call it a day. It's great training. I love skiing Roch Run to Super 8 to Lazy 8- ripping Corkscrew to Norway- or just laying over the skinny skis down Spring Pitch and Strawpile, channeling my inner Ted Ligety (which doesn't exist) And the views of our town on the way back up are a constant reminder to me of how lucky I am to live here. But I is tired and will be replaced. The FIS have been on our case for years to replace it so that the lift and its base area are in line with the world -class image of their World Cup events. I don't blame them at all as they are right. But I also commend the SkiCo f holding out and sticking to their guns- waiting for a solid and reputable development team and plan to come into place. Gorsuch Haus is that plan, and the I side of the mountain is going to be better than ever- for us our kids, the visitors that fuel our economy, and the international racers that have skied our slopes since There is some sad and dishonest misinformation being spread by a hired gun- a Denver PR firm representing another development below the Gorsuch Haus. It's shameful and certainly not in line with the our community's ideals. What do these Denver PR folks really know about Aspen and what the town needs?Launching a campaign to smear your neighbor on Facebook, with cold calls to community members, and with downright false letters in the paper is despicable. They say the 1A lift will be `privatized'- well yes, it is,'our resort is owned by a family, they own the company that owns the lifts- so I guess that respect they are correct.... but what these spreaders of propaganda want you to believe is that Gorsuch Haus is building the lift for the benefit of their guests only- which is false and a joke. Don't believe this crap people. This is a SkiCo lift and SkiCo slopes, as it always has been. It's there for all of us to enjoy. And I will continue to shred my favorite runs over there with my friends and my family. This includes Norway, a run that will still ski great but will have a new traverse out right at its bottom to get back to the lift. My wife, a proud 25 year ski patroller on,Ajax, even gets to enjoy a new ski patrol locker room out of the deal. Thanks Gorsuch Haus. As a ski racer with ski racing sons and someone who realizes how important World Cup and high level ski racing is to Aspen's future, I hope that this project keeps FIS skiing and other races on Aspen Mountain. For the first time in history the USA will host the World Cup Finals, in Aspen next March 11-17. I'll be there commentating the action as I always do, and the world will be watching live TV as the men and women racers come flying down one of the toughest and most epic courses on the World Cup circuit. To continue the legacy of international competition in Aspen beyond 2017, we need this project to succeed. As an ambassador of all things Aspen/Snowmass, I know that we need high quality hot beds in Aspen to stay Or competitive with the rest of the world. )f course we do not need endless development, just smart development. What we need are well conceived and thoughtful projects that can help Aspen thrive year round. We are a ski town, and we need a new lift with a ski-in/ski out hotel at the base of Ajax. Gorsuch Haus is the right project, backed by the right people, to help secure Aspen's future. Sincerely, Chris Davenport chris davenpprt davenport mountainsport inc 171 Hunter Creek Rd Aspen, CO 81611 chris@steepskiing.com www.ch risdaven port. corn . Twitter/I nstag ram- .Steepski i ng FB- http://www.facebook.com/ChrisDavengort (7. Cindy Mob From: Briana L Deschambault <bidescha@augustanacare.org> on behalf of.Timothy H. Tucker <thtucker@augustanacare.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:38 AM To: Cindy Klob 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 So 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. I "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! Its 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 Augusta na Care - Timothy Tucker President and CEO Augustana Care 1007 East 14th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55404 Direct: 612-238-5201 Mobile: 612-248-0083, ':indy Klob From: Gail Otte <gdotte@hotmail.com> Sent Sunday, July 3, 2016 1:48 PM To: Cindy Klob Subject: Lift 1 A Area Comments for the P & Z Dear Cindy, I was told to send to you to please forward on to the P & Z Commission Members. Dear P & Z Commission Members - I am unable to attend the July 5th meeting and wanted to pass along some comments. I have lived here for the past 30+ years and we keep losing Aspen's "character". We are not able to see Aspen Mountain in many of the downtown area due to the massive out of scale buildings that have been approved while many of the year round voting residents of this town did not want these "view blocking buildings". We do not need MORE people (cars) in town. The hotels/lodges are NOT Full. (look at Desimetric reports). We are busy ---but never 100% no room at the inn. Aspen Daily news article states that during certain times of the year (Christmas/4th of July) we have 1.8 million gallons of wastewater putting the number of people in town at 15,000- (05,714. I also have seen reports of car's 20,000+ a day coming in/out of town. (if everyone were to flush their toilet at once -what would happen??). The quality of life in a town of a population of 6,000 is not so quality. Yes there are trade-offs in life ---but I do not know anyone living here who just LOVES, the traffic, congestion, construction --year round, streets blocked off; construction vehicles overtaking the town ---buying up blocks of parking. We tell people to stay out of their cars ---but then bring in a town of guests who DRIVE here or 2nd Homeowners or friends or fractional visitors who DRIVE here. The Residences at Little Nell got approved and that WAS a Conservation zoned space ... we can't take the current out of scale buildings away -but we can stop the new ones that keep coming up for approval or tone them down for the character of the area. I am assuming you have seen the staff memo ---but just added it in as a link. I have read a letter to the editor in today's paper (Sunday, July 3rd) from Michael grown ---he highlights some info from staff memo. https,.//Iifticiorall.fi les.wordpress.com/2016/06/city-of-aspen-staff-memo-on-gorsuch-hous-6-30-16.pdf please also note the below link: showing how massive and out of character this project is --- When will the "powers that be" realize that the citizens do NOT want these large projects ---there will just be more petitions, Referendums. Oil' https://liftlaforall.wordDress.com/renderings/ Rende rings gs liftl aforall.wordpress.com It's important that the community understand the massive scale of Gorsuch Haus, as we believe its size has been downplayed. The two images below were taken from their application, available o... https://liftlafore I l.wordpress.com/contact/ Top 5 Concerns with Gorsuch Haus liftl aforall.wordpress.com This is just a short excerpt for the contact page. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kind Regards; Gail Otte Aspen, Colorado (1 Jennifer Phelan From: J V Prunskis <jvp.illinoispain@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:43 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: Karen Hartman; Steve Skadron Subject: I first came to Aspen in 1976 and bought in Shadow Dear Ms. Phelan and Planning and Zoning Commission members, was prepared to give oral testimony and waited from 4:30 until 7:15 today at the meeting to do so. I regret I was not allowed to give such testimony. I will not be in Aspen during subsequent hearings. I first came to Aspen in 1976 and bought in Shadow Mountain about 10 years ago. I am against Gorsuch Haus as proposed. Defining Conservation zoning - when you buy a property with Conservation zoning adjacent, you do not expect a hotel. Turn around cul de sac will be noisy, polluted car exhaust,back up beeps, congestion, raises traffic on Aspen St. and once again noisy and is in front window -of Shadow Mountain Townhomes. Absolutely do not agree with having a regular bus route(regardless of the size the bus) coming regularly to the hotel at the top Aspen Street. Suggest: 1, closed subgrade vehicular access with internal garage entrance invisible from the street or 2.only emergency vehicular access with parking remote at bottom of the hill with transportation of guests, workers, food, supplies etc. via a gondola, tram, funicular etc. There should be no personal or commercial cars or trucks allowed on or outside Gorsuch Haus premises. Story poles are up and show excessive height and mass especially as it relates to Shadow Mountain. Must have structure consistent with Lodge zoning as maximal size. Commercial liquor serving establishments with late night hours would create excessive noise to current neighbors I have not heard the support of Skico of this project. 10 year vesting too long. 3 years as per state law should be max limit. Sincerely, J Prunskis John V. Prunskis Jennifer Phelan From: Randall Eis <randalleis@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 12:10 AM To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: Randy Eis Subject: Gorsuch Haus Developement Ms. Phelan I would like to go on the record supporting the project in general. I think it is a well thought out and solid development in the tradition of historic lodging in Aspen. I like it. As a Paramedic with both Aspen Mountain Ski Patrol and Aspen Ambulance District I want to see the developers maintain or improve on the Toboggan and Ambulance evacuation of patients. Also access for snowcat and snowmobiles should be maintained. The developers have addressed these issues so far but I will keep an eye on this as it moves through the process and if it gets built as Highlands plans did not deliver the access that was promised originally when finally built. Thanks Randall Eis Jennifer Phelan From: Jessica Garrow Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 2:56 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: FW: Yes on Gorsuchhaus Comment for the next P&Z meeting. Jessica Garrow, AICP City of Aspen Community Development Director 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2780 (office) 970.319.9799 (cell) vvww.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: this message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on -urrent zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Adam Frisch Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 8:34 AM To: Mel <melron347@gmail.com> Cc: Jessica Garrow<jessica.garrow@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Re: Yes on Gorsuchhaus Thanks Mel - With a live application, I am very limited in my comments on the project, but thank you for reaching out. -a From: Mel <melron347@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:31 PM To: "adam b. frisch" <adam.frisch@citvofaspen.com>, Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@citvofaspen.com>, Steven Skadron <steve.skadron@citvofaspen.com>, Art Daily <art.daily@citvofaspen.com>, Bert Myrin <bert.mvrin@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Yes on Gorsuchhaus L een reading both sides of this, fast becoming a contentious, issue that you will have to decide on. opinion this project is a long overdue, well needed, reasonable approach to upgrading this area of our lovely City. only hope that you folks will see this position as well and vote for the project. ks, onick 1 Gorsuch Haus: Good Objectives But Bad Plan My family and I have owned property and been skiing in Aspen for over 50 years (4 generations). We have seen lots of changes (some good, some bad) but Aspen is still one of our all-time favorite places. Given my long time here and love for Aspen, I feel that the current Gorsuch Haus proposal has some good objectives (fostering FIS and other ski racing and improving access to and use of the west side of Aspen Mountain), but is a very bad plan. As the city staffs own analysis has stated, the current proposal is very massive and very high. It is out of scale with the site and would block views of the mountain. It would also reduce access to the lift for everyone except the people living there. For all those reasons, this is not a good plan. Let me offer 2 alternatives. First, the town could meet the ski racing and mountain access objectives by (1) having Skico put in a new lift (since they benefit from greater worldwide recognition), (2) enhancing access to the lift via some form of connection to Dean Street and/or a better connection to S. Aspen Street, (3) cleaning up the area around the lift and providing racing amenities on a temporary or permanent basis. Doing those 3 things, combined with the positive visual impact of the 2 new developments going in at the top of S. Aspen St. (which will be a huge improvement over how the area has looked for the last 5-10 years) would certainly satisfy FIS and make that side of Aspen Mountain more accessible and more attractive to all Aspen residents and visitors. If the town and its citizens wanted more development around the lift (and/or getting money from a developer was the only way that Skico would build a new lift), then I would urge the town to require Gorsuch Haus to comply with Lodge zoning. Lodge zoning would be required anywhere else in town and would result in a much less massive and lower development that would much better fit the site. Lodge zoning would also allow the development to be designed and sited to improve access to the lift (locating the lift lower and, ideally, providing a connection to Dean St.). In addition, Lodge zoning would provide the opportunity to much better deal with the other issues identified and raised by city staff (size of cul-de-sac/ drop off area/ linkage to S. Aspen St., width of ski runs/ return to the lift, views of the mountain, pedestrian and disability access, additional on -site employee housing, etc.) So, in closing, while I am all in favor of keeping FIS and improving access to and use of the west side of Aspen Mountain, let's do it in a smart way. Let's do it in a way that doesn't reduce access, and doesn't create a massive / out of scale development: Bill Seelbach, Cleveland, Ohio Lift One Condominium Association 131 East Durant Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 i 2016 Gi i�Y Ck i- VEN COM M UNi f 1DEWL N s Date: January 18, 2016 To: Members of the Aspen City Council and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission In Re: ski access: Shadow Mountain L.i't - Willoughby Park We have been closely following the development proposals for the east side of South Aspen Street which include the "Lift One Lodge", the proposed Gorsuch hotel, and the related remodeling of the existing ski lift by the Aspen Ski Company. We have participated in a supportive manner in the now approved PUP project for the "Lift One Lodge" and have attended public presentations and consulted privately with Norway Island concerning that project. We appreciate your insistence that projects must protect and benefit the public interest. This includes the City of Aspen, the residents and guests in the proximate neighborhoods, and the general public. We support your approach to the development of the east side of South Aspen Street; but we believe that there are two concomitant and critical elements that must be protected: Ski Corridor. We believe that the Council must protect and preserve the existing and long standing ski corridor between Lift 1A (Shadow Mountain Lift) and Willoughby Park; and Upload System. We believe that the Council should insist upon the provision of a surface lift (or some other method) to facilitate the elevation of skiers and pedestrians from Willoughby Park to Lift 1A (Shadow Mountain lift) or its relocation. Let us briefly explain our thinking. 1) Ski Corridor. The efficacy and benefits of the ski corridor plainly are well understood by the Council as well as by the residents and guests in Aspen. We are delighted that Council has included maintenance and preservation of the corridor in the Lift One Lodge PUD it approved. The corridor has been in continuous public use for more than 69 years (since 1946). We urge the Council not to surrender this valuable and effective public easement. Not only is the corridor an iconic piece of Aspen skiing, but, as Council understands, it benefits the City in general by providing an alternative way off of the mountain without the downhill walk from Lift 1A, by affording easier access for residents and renters in west Aspen and by providing relief from crowding at the Gondola base. The narrowing of Aspen Street near its top, allowed as part of the Lift One Lodge PUD, creates a greater need for preservation of the corridor as a safe means for skiers to exit the mountain and reach town. The developments and the resulting vehicular traffic will make it all the more difficult to safely walk down Aspen Street in boots, while carrying skis. 2) Upload System. The possibility of, and the indication of need for, a method of moving skiers (along with guests and employees of the uphill developments) up to the lift is also included in the approved Lift One lodge PUD. We urge the Council to make it a requirement. Many of the reasons for preservation of the ski corridor also apply to the need for an upload system. 1. It would produce a reduction in vehicular traffic while safely separating pedestrian/skier movement from the diminished vehicle traffic that might remain. 2. It brings about greater use of Lift 1A, relieving crowding on the east side of.the mountain. Provides much broader public access to the original world class ski facility in Aspen, restoring the.grandaur of °Americas Downhill": Ruthies, Aztec, Spring Pitch, Strawpile. In short; an upload system will increase the safety of skiers and pedestrians and will facilitate and enable greater use of the new lift while providing residents and guests in west Aspen an effective and attractive alternative to access the mountain. Thankyipu for your consideration. Sincerely submitted, Roane Lacy, Jr., President Lift one Condominium Association 131 E. Durant Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Endorsements: We, the undersigned agree with the recommendations to the City of Aspen expressed In this letter. James DeFrancia For Norway island, LLC David Ellis, President Tirgber Ridge Corporation FcqtRL�I V14ALPAte� The Dancing Bear i1v" �S i L4 rur5 Richard Eddy, President Pines lodge Development Galen Bright, President for South Point Condominium Assn. Lift One From: Maureen Poschman<maureen@promocommunications.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:10 PM To: iiftone@rof.net; Roane Lacy Subject: Lift one letter - Jim DeFrancia for Norway Island LLC Attachments: 1DF Signature and Initials.doc Mary and Roane, Here is Jim DeFrancia's electronic signature. This may be used for the letter to the editor/City about the 1A access. The signature Line should read: Jim DeFrancia for Norway Island L.L.C. Thanks. Maureen In A. J_.L k-k-z� ennifer Phelan from: Toni Kronberg <ton i.waterbab ies@g Tail, com> Sent: To: Friday, July 15, 2016 1115 AM brian.pettet@pitkincounty.com; Randy Ready; ralph.tripani@parsons.com; Chuck Peterso� John Krueger; John Kinney; dcorbin@aspensnowmass.com; Jim True; Jessica Garrow; Jennifer Phelan; Kathy Strickland Cc: Steve Skadron; Bert Myrin; Adam Frisch; Ann Mullins; Art Daily; rachel.richards@pitkincounty.com; michael.owsley@pitkincounty.com; steve.child@pitkincounty.com-, george.newman@pitkincounty.com; Patti Clapper; Jon Peacock; mbutler@tosv.com; bsirkus@tosv,com; tgoode@tosv.com; bmadsen@tosv.com; Clint Kinney; Steve Barwick Subject: Fwd:.Two RED HOT Buttons this Summer (Kathy Strickland - please forward this email to the following City of Aspen P & Z Members -thank Lq On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Toni Kronberg <toni waterbabiesQgmail.com> wrote: 0Dear Editor, Lift 1A & Entrance to Aspen. Lift IA - From what I can tell - the most important part of the Gorsuch application to the Community at the moment - is - About Bringing Lift I further down the Mountain. Due to your paper's intensive reporting - we now know most of the History and what the current application is before P & Z. The exciting part is about what is to happen in the future. The City staff, in their recent review recommended that Gorsuch - in order to be approved - Restudy their site plan to locate the ski lift tower lower on the site AND to connect the Ski Lift to a Platter lift from DEAN STREET.AND to restudy the footprint of the building so skier access is not closed off from Aspen Street AND to reconsider the skier return's with its narrow dimensions and retaining walls on Norway. Can't wait until the P&Z Public Hearing meeting on Tuesday, July 19 @ 4:30 pm in City Hall to learn more about how Gorsuch is going to come into compliance with the Staff s recommendation for approval. Entrance to Aspen - Yup! It is going to get Kickstarted this Thursday, July 21 A 4pm in Aspen City Hall at a Public Meeting when Pitkin County's Brian Petit and Aspen's Randy Ready ask the Elected Officials Transportation Committee comprised of your elected officials in Pitkin County, Aspen & Snowmass for funding to look at alternatives other than the rubber -tired solution such as ,light rail or an aerial connection between Brush Creek Intercept Lot & Aspen. What's your opinion? Please come to the Meetings and if not, write a Letter to the Editor, or contact your Elected Official in Pitkin County, Snowmass and/or Aspen.to voice your opinions on Two of Aspen's. Hot Buttons. Jennifer Phelan From: Gary Moore <gwmoorejrl @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 8:15 AM To: Adam Frisch; Art Daily; Ann Mullins; Bert Myrin; Jessica Garrow; Jennifer Phelan Subject: Gorsuch Haus Comments for Consideration Dear Esteemed Council & Planning Commission Members, You may have seen the guest commentary that I contributed to Aspen Daily News from Wednesday, July 13th. In the event you did not I wanted to pass it along directly to you for your considerations. I understand and fully appreciate that, given that this is a live project before the town, there isn't much if any feedback that you could provide - outside of what is discussed at the planning meetings. Most unfortunately I will not be able to attend the planning meeting on July 19th due to long standing engagements that have me away from Aspen this week. Your thought and consideration on the key points would be most appreciated. Sincerely, Gary Moore -------GUEST COMMENTARY FROM ASPEN DAILY NEWS----- DGorsuch Haus: Big buildings do not equal vibrancy Guest commentary By Gary Moore Roger Marolt captured the emotional town we live in best in his June 24 Aspen Tides column on Gorsuch Haus: "It's wishful thinking to believe we don't fight emotional battles through our political processes — I wish I could always be logical, but I think I'm not," lie wrote. I think this could be said for most of us. Rightfully so, I is where it all began. It's the last slice of locals' heaven where we all go to avoid the long gondola lines on powde $days or to just take a ride down (or rather, up) nostalgia lane. However, emotion can become dangerous with togic thrown out the window. Let's set %emotion aside and talk facts for a moment. The current zoning for the land where Gorsuch Haus is planned is Conservation. As defined in Aspen's land use code, "The purpose of the Conservation (C) Zone District is to provide areas of low density development to !e.nhance public recreation, conserve natural resources and to contain urban development." (Cv dication seeks a modification from "Conservation" to "Ski Area Base." Conveniently, this.zoning allows for a huge 49-foot-high building extending more than 300 feet up the hill and spanning the of the existing 1 A collection area. There no way to spin this — it would be a massive block of concrete which will appear larger than it actually is due to it's prominent position at the highest point of any development in Aspen. The city`s planning and zoning commission rightfully requested three-dimensional modeling as the mass is something few seem to be concerned with, save the commission, thankfully. The forest Service has approved the IA chairlift improvement. Aspen Skiing Co.. can improve the lift at any time with or without a hotel. No doubt the easiest route financially is to sell the land and use that cash to improve the lift. However, the best solutions aren't always'the easiest to solve financially. I don't personally know Jeff Gorsuch yet it is abundantly clear that he is very passionate about Aspen, ski racing, the World Cup and extremely well respected in the community. His heart is in the right place and his intentions are good, even if grandiose for such a massive zoning change and building. His influence in the community is clear, so much so that through his strong friendships and involvement in the racing community there is resounding support without an understanding of the facts with the project. Chris Davenport's July 5 column in the Aspen Daily News was spot on in recognizing the importance of the legacy of ski racing, as well as facilities to support ski racing at the local and highest level. However, this will not create vibrancy, save the one week of World Cup. The vibrancy for mountain access, apres ski and dining is set in stone around the gondola and town core. This is where everything breaks down with this project. All of us will continue to walk up to 1 A with a smile on Sjur face but our visitors will not. So call it what you want, a privatized lift or a lift for the locals the fact is only locals and guests in the new developments will ride IA. The result, I predict, will be a nominal increase in the 3 percent of skiers that currently ride IA. The "rubber tire" solution from Rubey Park to 1A is nice for guests and residents at IA but our visitors certainly aren't going to take a shuttle to I when they can walk a short distance to the gondola. A showcase area for racing, an AVSC room and a patrol facility are all badly needed, but will not create vibrancy with our visitors. The hotel will struggle with low annual occupancy competing with plenty, of well - established high end hotels and others on the way. Study the occupancy patterns throughout town and it is quickly evident why every city council for years has pushed for more affordable lodging options. Too bad Mark Hunt's Conoco station development didn't engage Gorsuch for public relations or we would be getting an affordable lodge so badly needed, which council approved only to be voted down — a battle lost on the PR field. The proposed'restaurant will be a revolving door of operators or run by the hotel at a loss creating further financial burden. Eighty-one keys do not support a restaurant, particularly given so many other world -class dining options. I would love to be wrong about all this but the fact is development in resort towns is extremely challenging with very narrow margins for success. The risk to the community is that we end up with gigantic buildings without vibrancy. We see this at Aspen Highlands and Snowmass. While it is true that Aspen is different, 1 A is not the core and a high end hotel will not create vibrancy — it will just serve those hotel guests at struggling occupancy rates, particularly in the summer months. isn't it worth studying all the options for redevelopment within the master plan and zoning? Don't we owe it to ourselves as a community to work through the potential other financial solutions that will give our town what xe need a I area that supports locals and world class ski racing? In the interests of disclosure, I own and live in a condo adjacent to the proposed Gorsuch Haus. Unlike some others that have written in with concerns, I purchased recently knowing 1 A is being developed, and exactly for that reason (plus the roll -out -of -bed access to IA). As a career -long resort developer I know that a rising tide raises all ships so I stand to gain no matter what happens. But this isn't about personal gain, it is about getting it right. We have one chance so let's focus on the facts and not the emotional hype. s �Pl . 3 `. Dear Commissioners, A Thank you for your due diligence in review of the Gorsuch Haus proposal. I hope that this project continues to receive the scrutiny that our citizens expect and deserve. I am concerned with the size and location of the project. Here. are some of my questions that I hope will be further analyzed and answered through upcoming public hearings. As described by City of Aspen staff in their memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 5, 2016, "the location of the lodge building essentially privatizes the lift". Possibly this was a light comment, but if there is a legal basis, it opens a very concerning precedent. How will Aspen Ski Company work with Gorsuch Haus to maintain lift safety and operations? Could Gorsuch Haus restrict public usage of the lift and/or terrain? Can we require -,the developers to make to the plan to facilitate lift access for the community? How will we keep them from any future privatizing of the lift once their development is built and operational? How will Gorsuch Haus create adequate space for World Cup events, including the finish area? It looks very diminished in the current plans. We should not lose that valuable asset to our town. By far my biggest concern is that allowing a drastic zoning change for Gorsuch Haus would open the floodgates for other oversized proposals. As I understand it, the footprint is a factor of 11.6 over current zoning. Why is anyone considering this for even a second??? The promoters shouldn't receive special treatment based on their influence in the community. ` I look forward to participating in future hearings. Thanks again for your commitment to our community. Sincerely, Annette Keller To: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commissioners via Ms Cindy Klob cindy klob(a-)cityofaspen.com cc: Jennifer Phelan Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Phelan Jennifer phelan(a cityofaspen.com Re: Revised Gorsuch Haus Plans Dear Commissioners: Gorsuch Haus (GH) representatives, Jim Defrancia, Richard Shaw, Jesse Young, and Cheryl Barto met August 10, 2016 with owners of Shadow Mountain Townhomes to share their revised plans in light of the feedback they received from you and the City of Aspen Planning Department during the July public meetings. GH has made some minor changes to their plan in an effort to address the following concerns expressed by the zoning commission: privatization of the lift, inadequacy of the turn -around and in-hospitability to the public. Our owners were very disappointed that the developer had made only minor adjustments to their plans. Most importantly, they appear to have totally unaddressed critical comments by yourselves as well as by other concerned citizens about the excessive mass and height of their proposed building. As we understand the revised plan, there is little change in the footprint and I no change in the height of their building. ��- It appears to us that they have returned to the table with few of the substantive changes that were brought up at the last meeting. We hope you will demand that the developers specifically address the very constructive suggestions and questions put by Deputy Director Phelan in her original memo. . We continue to believe that the current zoning of the area as Conservation was and is the most appropriate for the Lift 1A area; we believe that it should positively not be changed to SKI which would allow the applicant to press for the overdevelopment that was, contained in his original plan. While we would prefer the current zoning to stand as is, if city officials and citizens believe that further development at that site is desirable then we strongly believe that any rezoning should be to Lodge so that there are established guidelines for the developer and the project is more in line with the surrounding neighborhood. Yours truly, Karen Hartman — President Board of Managers Shadow Mountain Townhomes Association 7A Jennifer Phelan FW: 1A comments - Please pass on to P&Z members From: Patrick Sagal f mailto:patricl<sagal@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mitzi Rapkin <mitzi.rapl<in@cityofaspen.com> Subject: 1A comments - Please pass on to P&Z members P&Z, I find that the recent Gorsuch Haus changes are insufficient. The Gorsuch Haus plan seems to be based on an inappropriate model for the site, a hotel of oversized mass and scale with moderate 400 sq. ft. rooms. 0 My perspective is that the hotel that is highest up Aspen Mtn and has the best views should be a five star boutique hotel with the most expensive and largest rooms... the crowning glory of understated opulence in Aspen. F r an appropriate development at 1A... ggest the most expensive boutique hotel in Aspen, TI f the mass of the current design, that would be financially successful with high room rates and exclusivity, like back when the Kennedys came every winter and stayed up at 1A ! At the gondola plaza, the sun goes behind Shadow Mtn in the winter at 2pm. I have personally stood there with Mike Kaplan and watched it go down. No one sits outside at the gondola plaza apres ski in midwinter. At the base of 1A, it gets COLD AND DARK EARLIER. The masses will NOT party apres ski at 1A in the cold and dark in the winter (or summer)! Claiming a hotel will stimulate year round public vitality at 1A is patent nonsense. 1A is a location for quiet exclusivity from which people 'come down to town' in the evenings. The main reason we people suffered hiking up the hill to the restaurant near 1A in the distant past was because it had CHEAP food and beer, like the Red Onion or Cooper St Pier. Don't be fooled, with currently over 60 restaurants in Aspen (and easily accessible), that will never happen again. Patrick Sagal Aspen resident V I.A. Phelan Alexander Biel <alex@alexbiel.com> Monday, September 12, 2016 2:07 AM Jennifer Phelan Jessica Garrow; Cindy Klob ect: A Letter Concerning Gorsuch Haus's Response to your Comments -Dear Jessica, Dear Jennifer, ;There follows an email that I have sent today to the editors of both the Times and the Daily News. ;Thank you both for representing the public interest in reviewing the GH application! `Sincerely, ;Alex Biel Dear Ms. Klob, would you kindly distribute my email to the P&Z commisioners. Thanks in advance! Alex Biel i ------------------------------------------------- 'Put Gorsuch'Haus on a Shorter Leash [t has been enormously encouraging to see that Aspen's Community Development Department has made it clear ;that the initial application by the Gorsuch Haus folks is unacceptable as.presented. In particular, the mass and height were identified by Com Dev staff as areas of concern. ;However, developers being, well, developers, Gorsuch partner Bryan Peterson's response as published in both :Aspen papers last week was pretty underwhelming. :Does Peterson really believe that making their oversized hotel 7 percent smaller properly address the issue of mass? Let's ,get real; seven percent is a bad joke! And what about the outrageous height of just under 50 feet for which the developers plead? Remember, these guys are trying to build their monument to themselves right smack dab in the middle of Aspen's ski run! Currently, the height limit is half that -- 25' -- for the current zoning ("Conservation"). Even if the land were re- zoned to "Lodging", the limit would only rise to 28'. Putting a 50 foot building on flat land would be egregious in itself; but to stick it high up on, a hillside is an insult to our sensibilities. [ think the comments of Com Dev were thoughtful and well reasoned and deserve serious consideration rather than'token' responses. :But here's the paint: the ludicrous 'reach -for -the -sky' approach of these developers ought to be a very good reason to absolutely NOT give them the 'license to deface the mountain' that they would enjoy if they somehow won the right to having the land zoned SKI! `vim P82 I VI.A. ennifer Phelan �! From: Clark Smyth <clarksmyth@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:03 PM I To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: Jessica Garrow; Cindy Klob Subject: ;f A letter about Grouch Haus rezoning I >> SKI BASE AREA ZONING IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR GORSUCH HAUS �>> >> The zoning that Gorsuch Haus is asking for amounts to "spot zoning" since it would be the only property in the Lift One neighborhood allowed such great density. >> Also, the developers have compared their project to other base areas such as Little Nell, Aspen Highlands or Tiehack. ,I> j >> Wasn't the purpose of the zoning for those areas to: >> 1. Have easy public lift access? >> 2. Have a plaza area that welcomes all skiers? >> 3. Have the surrounding lodging and commercial properties not protrude by locating them to the side and below and not located in THE MIDDLE OF THE SKI SLOPE? >> 4. Have parking and/or mass transit easily accessible that is not a privately owned trolley? >> 5. Have the base area where you do not have to walk or drive up partially on a 10% grade? I >> � >> At the Little Nell base the buildings do not protrude fifty feet above the slope, but are built into. the side of the hill. ven the Aspen Alps which expanded up the hill is only two stories and does not obstruct the ski,slope. >> At Highlands, from the top of the escalator you have a view of the slopes and lift with the Ritz -Carleton off to the side. >> Ski area zoning should be about "arriving". The Gorsuch Haus proposal with the new relocated lift fail on every I consideration. of what the other base areas provide. >> I recommend that the Planning and Zoning Board reject the present modified proposal. >> Clark Smyth i'>> Boulder, CO i ,/ ',J nifer Phelan Steve Skadron Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:41 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: Fwd: Gorsuch Haus revised proposal POV ! ;For public record: Steven Skadron !'Mayor, City of Aspen Begin forwarded message: From: Michael Mizell <m.mizen(a)mizen.com> Date: September 15, 2016 at 8:39:32 PM MDT To: <Steve.Skadronna cityofaspen.com> i Subject: Gorsuch Haus revised proposal POV Mayor Skadron. Just an FYI... Thanks • A copy of a letter submitted regarding Gorsuch Haus revised proposal. Dear Deputy Director Phelan: It is my understanding that in their last presentation the developers of Gorsuch Haus agreed to revise their initial proposal in line with the thoughtful and, in my opinion extremely reasonable, guidance provided by you and the rest of the Community Development staff. However, the revisions that I have reviewed from the developers have fallen far short of what Community Development called for. I believe that the extremely disappointing Gorsuch response demonstrates a lack of acceptance of your recommendations. Indeed, Gorsuch Haus appears not to comprehend your responsibility to the citizens of the City of Aspen. As a consequence I find a number of important issues not at all resolved by the current revisions suggested by Gorsuch Haus: 1-Size matters! The revised mass of the project attempts to resolve initial objections but still remains totally unacceptable. Gorsuch Haus would have the Citizens of Aspen believe that a 7 percent reduction in the mass of their outsized hotel will pull the wool over people's eyes; I certainly hope not! I find a seven percent reduction in mass would not even be detectable, let alone meaningful. 0 Furthermore, it doesn't appear that the Gorsuch Haus have even attempted to address* the offensive height of their proposal. A Why? 1 2-History can repeat itself on Aspen Mountain... The potential hazards of the extremely deep excavation that will be required for both a new lift as well as whatever footprint Gorsuch Haus winds up with has not been properly addressed. Exacerbating the need to. dig very deep there is also the 'little matter' of the planned 50 car private garage to be built under the hotel. It seems to me that Gorsuch should be required to provide substantial evidence that a deep dig in the middle of the I slope will not endanger the stability of the area. But of course that alone would not be sufficient. The City should demand that financial safeguards are in place to hold Gorsuch's neighbors harmless in the event that their ultra deep dig does destabilize the property of their neighbors and/or adjacent property owned by the City itself. Recall this has happened before. 3-"We are all equal but perhaps some of us are more equal..." I remain concerned about the concept of "vesting." The code specifies 3 years yet Gorsuch Haus requests 5 years or even more. What right do these people have to ask the City to 'bend the rules' just for them? Recent experience with the former owners of the Lift One Lodge has not been good. The extension of the latter's permits resulted in those developers letting buildings like the Skier's Chalet become unsightly derelicts due to an extended period of disuse and lack of maintenance. Neglected property becomes derelict property... which in turn becomes an eyesore. Long vesting periods are more likely to encourage this behavior. And the town is forced to live with the results. Shameful because the framework exists to prevent this! It is unfortunate that the P&Z Commission, as a whole, has to,review proposals that appear to intentionally choose to ignore published guidelines simply because developers like Gorsuch Haus want to increase their profits. Thank You Michael R Mizen Lakewood Ohio 11 Vic?: nifer Phelan m: Cindy Klob ;i5ent; Monday, September 19, 2016 8:30 AM x ,?: To: Jennifer Phelan F ° Subject: FW: Gorsuch Haus Jen — Please let me know if I need to distribute this letter. Thanks, Cindy A Cindy Klob Records Manager I City Clerk 1970.429.2686 City of Aspen 1 130 S. Galena I Aspen, CO 81611 www.aspenpitkin.com ........... . .. ........... __ _... ....... ............ ........... _____._ .. _ . .............. .......... _..... . _. .... ._.......__.._..._ From: Jaleh [mailto:jalehw@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 11:34 AM To: Cindy Klob <cindy.klob@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Gorsuch Haus Hello Everyone! Thank you for advocating for the long term viability of the lift 1A area. I live in the corner of Aspen and Durant. I will not be a shuttle to this lift and then take three lifts let up to the top of the mountain. I will be doing the same as I am doing now, which is walk to the dola_and take a 15 minute ride. to the -top., unless. -they come up with a better idea_ to et to lift 1A, t`at area will not be revitalized, IMO! Also, we already have SO much traffic in this area and, yet, they want to add to that ... that is unbelievable. I know Jeff Gorsuch is a long time local of Aspen... doesn't he know that the area around lift 1A is the most difficult to ski? Most visitors to this town take the gondola up and stay on top of the mountain, they don't ski Corkscrew/Norway/Slalom Hill/Norway ... only locals ski that area and in order to get locals to use lift 1A, they need to make it more fun and easier to get up there. I hopelyou do not approve this project as it is now. Thanks.:; Jaleh White. 152 E Durant 970 618 3357 r� l 1 800 S. Mill Street #306 Tel: 970-925-1904 Aspen, CO 33444 Mob: 954-439-2775 September 16, 2016 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall, Aspen, CO Via email Subject: Gorsuch Haus Dear Commission Members, I am writing as a property owner in the neighborhood surrounding lift 1A. As almost everyone would agree, the current state of lift 1A, including the experience of accessing the lift is not representative of the 'best of Aspen'. The immediate area surrounding the lift is desperately in need of an upgrade and an identity. As we have closely followed the debate over the Gorsuch Haus design, it is apparent that the town as a whole has widely diverse ideas what the ultimate building should look like and how it should function. The current condition of the space is unacceptable if the intent is to be a world class destination. As a planning commission, the key question might be "what is the best use of that space for the entire community"? There are probably three viable answers, (1) A destination hotel; (2) An extremely high end condo complex; or (3) A city owned park Each answer has it's own challenges and obstacles, including financing and the cooperation of Skico. If a hotel is the best use of space, then that hotel has to be an economically viable entity, lest it fail and leave a great 'white elephant' on our slope. With that in mind, the planning commission has a complex and unenviable task to consider not just the size and shape of the building, but also consider what is necessary for the successful operation of the site. It may require compromise to allow what works best in that space to survive and thrive. We have been very impressed that the developers of the Gorsuch Haus have made an effort to include their neighbors surrounding lift 1A in discussions as to what we hope to see from their development. Their willingness to listen and accommodate our requests is a refreshing surprise. It is clear from our discussions and their redesign of the site that they are interested in preserving and protecting what is near and dear to skiers. We are extremely supportive of their efforts to accommodate the community's requests while designing on a very difficult site. Another topic of debate has been access up to the lift itself. Having trekked up the hill to our complex, for several years, we can certainly understand the issue, but without the contribution c� of all the other property owners down slope, an extension of the lift is simply a pipe dream. We applaud Gorsuch Haus' redesign that allows for that. possibility in the future. While there have . been some negative comments regarding a skier shuttle, we believe that the shuttle would be much more valuable to the neighborhood than simply ski access. Gorsuch Haus envisions a shuttle that makes a loop from Durant Ave to the lift, making stops at key locations along the way. This "loop" provides a regular means of transport up the hill, not just for skiers, but for anyone that wants to get to the community along Summit street. This is a huge benefit for the neighborhood. Gorsuch Haus also heard our concerns regarding skier access from Summit street and assured us of an improved skier access to the lift from Summit. In summary, we believe that the hotel, restaurant and new lift will be an important addition to our community. It will revitalize the entire neighborhood and provide a completely new and different experience for our guests. We see this as a very important positive addition to the Aspen experience. Sincerely, Michael Crabb Jennifer Phelan . From: Sent: To: Subject: Cindy Klob Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:03 PM Jennifer Phelan FW: Planning for Grouch Haus Jen, Please see the public comment below. Thanks, Cindy Klob Records Manager City Clerk 1970.429.2686 City of Aspen 1.130 S. Galena I Aspen, CO 81611 www.aspenpitkin.com -----Original Message ----- From: Sandy Johnson [mailto:skjdesign@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:01 PM To: Cindy Klob <cindy.klob@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Planning for Grouch Haus I would like to comment on the Gorsuch Haus process... I think Jeff and Brian started out with a good idea... to built a nice reasonable sized hotel and enliven the 1A side to th mountain, for the town and for the International ski races. Now it has gone wrong! The developers have gotten involved, and taken over! They are using Jeff's name (and he's not really a long time local) to make this project about making money, not about a needed amenity for the town. I agreed that a hotel is needed in that location this is the wrong plan for that hotel! It's too big, too large in scale and mass, too high up the mountain, too high at the top, too far towards Shadow Mt. condos, and does not adequately address convenient, reasonable skier access! It is no longer an amenity and something the community could be proud of, but rather it will be a huge eyesore with inaccessibly to that lift! It will not encourage use of that side of the mountain. I really object to the idea that they could re -zone from conservation! and not to lodging, which would be appropriate description of the use, but to ski, with hardly any restrictions. Please consider these facts and turn this proposal down! Make them do what they originally said they envisioned for the benefit of the community. Bigger is not better!! (except for the developers, when they sell out to a bigger buyer!) Thank you, Sandy & Peter Johnson 1 'Jennifer Phelan From: Davis Stone <dstoned@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM !To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: Jessica Garrow; Steve Skadron; cbarabe@aspensnowmass.com; Cindy Klob Subject: Lift One Good morning, I am sure that you have seen or heard plenty of suggestions about Lift One. Here is another: see photos The moving walkways don't have to go in a straight line. They could start at Dean street, go up to Lift One Lodge (for an exit), go up to Gorsuch Haus (for an exit) and then proceed to near base of lift IA. The walkways could be designed to only move when someone needs access. They could be activated winter, summer 24/7/365. Both Gorsuch and Lift One Lodge guest could use them year round to access our town core. I think they would eliminate some car or bus trips by guests staying at the lodges. The pictured walkways take about 16 feet on the inside of tunnel. I am guessing that it could be done in 12 feet if you make the center walkway narrower. Capital cost could be shared by Gorsuch, Lift One Lodge and SkiCo. Your parking required for the two lodges might change. Yearly maintenance could be shared by above but with the City picking up the electric bill. In some ways, this is what the City has been asking for - a cooperative approach with all four entities sharing some of the pain and some of the benefits. I am guessing that the tunnel could fit in the existing Lift 1 right-of-way. What do you think of this? Stone Davis PS: Ms. Klob, Please distribute to P&Z commissioners. Jennifer Phelan From: Michael Mizen <mrmizen1 @gmail.com> on behalf of Michael Mizen <m.mizen@mizen.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 8:24 PM To: Jessica Garrow; Jennifer Phelan; Cindy Klob Subject: South Aspen Street- Contribution from property owner Seelbach/Mizen ... 809 S Aspen Street #15 For your reference... I am also sending this to Council as an advisory. Miss Kolb -please forward this to P&Z when convenient. Thanks (Michael R Mizen y l have interpreted the Gorsuch Haus Application Para phrasing "There are no alternatives other than our rubber tire strategy " please accept my suggestion for consideration by all developers/interested parities, and citizens of Aspen Colorado. Vote that the city of Medora North Dakota seemed to have a .similar people moving need and installed a device ,photo taken Sept 8, 2016) to move theater goers to its "Medora Musical Theater. "For perspective the week hefore this picture was taken 2700 individuals took part in this event. While the nameplate is Montgomery Elevator the parent company is Kone. Technically I do not know if'this works for South Aspen Street but Medora North Dakota seems to proposer with this arrangement. Why not Aspen? Others more mechanically than 1 can weigh in on this approach. ('Thank You Vichael R. Mizen Michael R. Mizen Lakewood Ohio USA Jennifer Phelan From: Davis Stone <dstoned@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:55 AM To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: Jessica Garrow; Steve Skadron; Cindy Klob; cbarabe@aspensnowmass.com Subject: Moving walkway One more thought: The distance from Ruby Park bus stop to lower end of moving walkway on Dean street is probably no further than to the gondola and the elevation at lower end of walkway might be lower than the gondola. Stone Davis Sent from my Wad