HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain.A76892
City of Aspen
Pre-Application Conference Summary
j::>~
Planner
I~q~
Date
Project \
Applicant s Repre entatlve
Representative's Phone
Owner'sName 5AV.D>NNP+I
<.',
o
- J>w\\l!
f>V . \ Vo\..1I
L,&.N~ B-'f.f' J>.. "'11<0,
S I> \ . 1E G M et-\ 0 <:> eo. ...."'" f :J
ol-\~ U::>l-ilaP10J>l'ill) -r~'\.'f ,&..~t>~13. \? ~).lr"~ ''''' 11-111,J>fl"U~lo...\ .
The"applicant has bccn fcqucsted to respond to the following items and provide the following
reports:
..,.....
Land Use Code Seellon
2~~'7~qo( ,
Z 1./ - J - 110 \
.
COllllllenls
ColJ42Mil)..,L PUb
CoJ-llE::f1W'L 17.1".\IIEv.j oF=- 1"'&)(, .A~l:>VV\FN-r(
t
."
~,
. .
The review is: (P&Z only) (ee on\I~)1 (P&Z and ee~
Public He,lring: L(yes) 1 (no) .
Deposit for the Applica.tion Review: 'ZJOO
Rcfcrral agency nat f.:es: \ 100 + 2("'0" 1\.0
TOTALlJEI'OSIT Z~l;C
(Additional hours are billed at a rate of $163/hr.)
I
Rererral Agencies
~O\)5.I'H(,;1
~C:I,,4=P'A tJl7.
PN:k~ .
c;r~r
.~..:\10 E.~
'W l.Jt" .
AU;'!> ~g.Le:ure_10
To Al'ply Sublilil lhe Following Inl'orllllll;un:
Proof of ownership.
Signed fec agreelllcnt.
Applicmll's namc. addrcss a.:t1 telephonc nUlllher in a Ielter signcd by thc applicant
which also stalcs the nallll" ..ddress ami telephone number of thc reprcsentative.
Total dcposit for revicw of thc application $ 2&f;3o
?,s:J copics of thc cl'mpletc application packet allll maps.
Summary letter explaining the requcst (cxisting conditions and proposed uses), including
strcet addrcss and legal description of thc property.
An 8 1/2" hy II" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
SHe plan shall include properly boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical
features (drainilgeways, streams, rivers, etc.) I
~1"'El'tT c..o~ 5eb(1CJo.\~ ANt> S\l!Sk\>!>\ol"\ ~\I?EV\eN'I<' fbL-
CoNUF~\)'L P~\>J 1"B>/..1' ~lJ\'E.H1~ ,AI--\!> l?~lllrJll. 'PUP!
'\'vl> ,S t\"E- -fl-,lo._
These items need 10 be sulJmilled if circled:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10.
m
c.
d.
Lisl or adjacent property owners wilhin 300 feel of the subject property wilh addresses.
Site photos.
Proof of legal access 10 the parcel.
Histori~ Preservalion Commission reviewlapproval.
Post-it" Fax Note
7671
# of ..
pages
Phone #
Fax # q zo - q$lC>
.-
","',q.'
\ ,/
,
---,:-:':i
-'
~
, "
.,,-:
CASELOAD" SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 9/30/92
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
d737 -/8J.-8'S" -oollo()~ A78-92
STAFF MEMBER: DM
Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Mountain
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership/Perry Harvev
Applicant Address: 600 E. Cooper Avenue. suite 200 925-4272
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Representative Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place
Aspen. CO 81611 5-8080
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
----
FEES: PLANNING $ 1976.00 # APPS RECEIVED 10
ENGINEER $ 225.00 # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $ 140.00
. TOTAL $ 2341. 00
CC Meeting Date
APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: -2L-
PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
PUBLIC HEARING: GESJ NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF
P&Z Meeting Date 12-/'6
DRC Meeting Date
111,-
I
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
city Attorney Parks Dept. School District
V-- City Engineer v Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
~ Housing Dir. V- Fire Marshal CDOT
V Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board
V Envir. Hl th. ACSD Other
I~ Zoning Energy Center Other
DATE REFERRED:~ INITIALS: 91,V DUE: IYI2--
======================================================== =======
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
_ city Atty
_ Housing
_ city Engineer
_ open Space
_Zoning _Env. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
,.
h>,
n
--:..,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health Department
Zoning Administration
Aspen Fire Protection District
Building Inspector
Diane Moore, Planning Office
Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-85-0011005
October 15, 1992
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Savanah Limited
Partnership,
Please return your comments to me no later than November 12, 1992,
The Design Review Committee will be meeting on November 5, 1992, at 3:00 p,m" 1st floor
City Council Chambers,
Thank you.
~\
r,
r4
\., .-',
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
. 130 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
October 15, 1992
Joe Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, co 81611
Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1
Case A78-92
Dear Joe,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned
application. We have determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, December 8, 1992
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you
please contact me within .3 working days of the date of this letter. After
that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or
tabling of the application will onLY be allowed for unavoidable technical
problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you
that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the
Planning Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners
within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign prior to the public
hearing, on or before November 28, 1992. Please submit a photograph of the
posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior
to the public hearing.
All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review Committee
(DRC). The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which meet with Planning
and the applicant early in the process to discuss the application. This case
is scheduled for November 5, 1992 at 3:00 p.m., City Hall, city Council
Chambers.
If you have any questions, please call Diane Moore, the planner assigned to
your case.
Sincerely,
~~
Suzanne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
~ . ~~, 1~J.--.! .rrJ ~ ~~ ~~i~cdinn
/{j;~ r~'~~~;~:i ~ - ',,!lPU-mohN
(Al0. [\,0\ ,~:.~\,lJDS~fi;1:'Plfvl1'1~~O~DUM .
cPtP{lr-Jwj 0 ~}I. \r#JV cJf~' ~ (; ~ i~
\~ 'TO: /~Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
~
~
'.
'P'
..~
SUBJECT:
Aspen Mountain Subdivision - ?UD ~~ndment for Lots 1, 3
and 5; Subdivision of Lot 1;~~~ SUbdivision Exemption
for Condominiumization of Blue Spruce Building
DATE:
~mbe~ 1, 1992
/l.Iv\ "" I )0(46
-7'
~
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to
the conditions stated at the end of the memo.
APPLICANT: Savannah Limited Partnership, represented by Joe
Wells and Perry Harvey.
LOCATION: The Aspen Mountain Subdivision is located at the base of
Aspen Mountain, south of Durant Avenue, between Galena~tnd Monarch~r.
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is hri~~ constructed on Lot 1. Lot 3 is the
Top of Mill siteHJ;> Lot 5 currently contains the Grand Aspen Hotel.
ZONING:
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) W~-h. p0l) ~oy_
~
APPLICANT'S REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests
a PUD Amendment to transfer all 22 hotel units approved for the
second and third floor of the Blue Spruce Building to the planned
re-development of the Grand Aspen Hotel. This will leave a total
of 257 hotel units within the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and allow for a
total of 72 hotel units to be built when the Grand Aspen Hotel is
re-developed. In exchange, the applicant requests that 6 of the 47
residential units planned for Lots 3 and 5 be transferred to the
Blue Spruce Building. These will be the only residential units
built in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.
The applicant also requests subdivision approval to create a new
Lot lA of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. Lot lA will contain only
that portion of Lot 1 north of Dean Street (the Blue Spruce
Building). The subdivision will enable the applicant to establish
a "Common Interest Ownership Community" (formerly known as a
condominium) for the proposed residential units in the project.
The applicant is reserving its rights under Colorado's recent
Common Interest Ownership Act, but requests condominiumization to
create separate fee ownership for the residential units.
PROCESS: PUD Amendments are approved pursuant to the terms and
provisions of Final PUD Review, provided that the proposed change
is consistent with or an enhancement of the Final Development Plan.
If the proposed change is not consistent with the Final Development
Plan, the amendment is subject to both Conceptual and Final review.
/
Final PUD !\requires a recommendation by P&Z and fina~ action by
Council, at which time an amended PUD Agreement J.S adopted.
Subdivision and condominiumization require a recommendation by P&Z
and final action by Council, done concurre~tly with Final PUD.
I~ pjrocessing of a GMQS amendment and re-scoring of the project is not
necessary to implement this proJil~sal. The applicant does not
propose any significant changes tOAapproved design features, public
facilities, or other commitments made in obtaining the GMQS
allotments. The allotments which are being transferred between
Lots 1 and 5 have previously been approved for both lots and were
evaluated during the original GMQS competition based primarily on
commitments made for the entire PUD, which remain unchanged.
1>\
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Following is a summary of the comments received
by the Planning Office from referral agencies. Complete copies of
the o~iginal memos may be found in Attachment "A".
Enqineerinq:
- A condominium map and plat must be submitted, meeting the
requirements of Section 24-7-1004.0 of the Municipal Code. When
the parking calculation for the residential units is determined,
the spaces should be designated on the plat or in the condominium_
documents.
Environmental Health:
- Water supply and sewage disposal lines are in place, with
adequate capacity to serve the project.
- New woodburning fireplaces are prohibited in the metro area. Two
gas-log fireplaces allowed for the building are already allocated.
~r.Gas appliances are allowed in the residential units, but are not
addressed in the application.
STAFF COMMENTS: ~ This project requires multiple approvals.
Eeview criteria ~ identified for each application type.
1. PUD Amendment - As noted above, PUD Amendments are reviewed
according to the terms and provisions of Final PUD Review, Section
24-7-903 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The Commission and Council
are authorizedr ,.'hel. 1: s'lielo'ing "tlle alhsl'l.dmen"t "to insure that the
development will be compatible with current community conditions",
to apply " new community pOlicies or regulations which have been
implemented since the original approval" and to take into
consideration "changing community circumstances as they affect the
project's original representations and commitments".
For the Commission members to adequately review this proposal, it
is first necessary to provide background information as to the
PUD's evolution, summarized in the following table and discussion.
2
History:
The Aspen Mountain Subdivision Jias initially submitted by John
Roberts in 1983 for PUD review~~to obtain lodge and residential
GMQS allotments. Final PUD approval was granted in 1985 for a
project containing a total of 447 hotel units (275 replacement and
172 GMQS units) and 54 residential units (42 replacement and 12
GMQS units), spread across 5 lots.
Development of the 447 hotel units was to occur as "Hotel Phase I",
to contain not more than 300 hotel units and 14 residential units
on what has become the Ritz-Carlton site, and "Hotel Phase II", on
the Grand Aspen site, to contain not more than 190 hotel units and "A
14 residential units, :p:ro'.iaIilQ taB -",,,,,],,iMtion .of the two phases ~
would not exceed 447 hotel and 14 residential units. The remaining
40 residential units were planned for Summit Place, Top of Mill
(which only received Conceptual PUD approval) and Galena Place.
Following the acquisition of the property by Hadid Aspen Holdings,
a PUD Amendment application was submitted for Lot 1, the Ritz-
Carlton, in Januaryp+1988. During its review by P&Z and city
Council, consideration was also given to the development program
for Lots 3 and 5. One result of this review process was an offer
by the applicant to drop 105 hotel units from the development
program, in order to secure approval for a 292 unit hotel on Lot 1.
During the review process, the applicant transferred all of the
residential units permitted on Lot 1 to Lots 3 and ~. ~ The
principal reason for this transfer was thatk~liminati~ Othep(
square footage resulted in a significant reduction in the size of
the hotel, allowing a break to be made to the building's mass along
Mill Street. The record does not indicat~there were any policy
discussions which found residential units i appropriate for Lot 1.
That
The amended PUD which emerged from the 1988 review permitted 292
hotel units and 0 residential units in the Ritz-Carlton, and 50
hotel units and 47 residential units in the re-development of the
Grand Aspen/development of Top of Mill property.
since 1988, two Insubstantial PUD Amendments have been processed by
the staff, which have had the effect of eliminating 13 hotel units
from the Ritz-Carlton. The applicant did not ask to have these
units transferred to other lots within the PUD; instead, they were
actually dropped from the total unit count. At the present time,
til. ~nr e-. 279 hotel units are allowed on Lot 1, while 50 hotel
units are allowed on Lot 5, for a total of 329 hotel units.
The applicant's proposal would amend these totals to 257 and 72
hotel units respectively, with the total PUD still containing 329
hotel units. The proposal would also transfer 6 residential units
to Lot 1, leaving 41 residential units to be built on Lots 3 and 5.
The applicant represents there will be no exterior modifications to
4
the Blue Spruce Building due to the change in planned use from
hotel to residential units.
Review criteria:
The PUD review criteria includeS several general planning
requirements, followed by a number of more specific standards which
are most applicable to development of vacant land. The criteria
are reviewed below, as applicable to this project.
1a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the Aspen Mountain base
area for "Recreation/Accommodations" land use. This area is
intended as the principal location for visitor oriented uses in the
Aspen Area. The property's Land Use Plan designation was one of
several arguments in f~Of the project's original PUD approval.
Since the 1988 Lapprovdl, major changes in community land use policy \( WI~
are embodied t.J~n the! Aspen Area Community Plan, which recently ~ r'
received a P&Z recommendation of approval. While the Plan does not~~~
contain any major policy shifts for the base area, it does include ~~.
an analysis of remaining lodge buildout in the Aspen Area. The ~~.~
I / analysis indicates that within the Aspen Base Neighborhood Planning p.i~ 1JJl<I:P'
bQSe(l 'Z Area, only approximately 72-82 new lodge units and 50-80 visitor urJ-~-J:
oY\ :!pNil\b' oriented residential units remain to be built. These totals fJf':~
~ ~nclude the units vet to be built within the Aspen Mountain PUD. ,~~'~I
v1~ Since there are so few remaining lodge and residential units to be
, built within the base area, it is important that future visitor-
~~ oriented units be located in the most convenient locations. The
7';1 Blue Spruce site is located across from Rubey Park, along a major
~'~~'rtransportation corridor, within walking distance of the ski lifts
-~kl \I. and Aspen's commercial core. It is a particularly appropriate
~.J.- ~ location for relatively higher intensity visitor use (as is the
~~ Grand Aspen site). Therefore, while transfer of 22 hotel units to
M :..~~, the Grand Aspen site would be consistent with community planning,
\-\f.:~~ the use of the Blue Spruce site for residential use could be less
)1' so, particularly if the units are to be sold to individuals who
keep them out of the rental pool.
t Consistent with the purpose of the L/TR zone district, we suggest
~ K it be required that the residential units be managed in conjunction
~^\. ~"~OJl" with the hotel and rented for use by visitors, as the Code would
'J5 (}'J< Y require if these were lodge, rather than residential condominiums.
\l.,- ",If. . !(y" There is already a corridor over Dean Street connecting the hotel
o-:~ ~',;, d!J-~ and Blue Spruce Building, which should facilitate the unified
~~ Q~\ management of the two buildings
, '\~11-\'
1b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character
of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
5
./
, ,. '.." .,,,.,,~ . ;,,~, ";w,ih,~;;( "l ':.,." :,'.:;. C"., .. . ., ,
The character of eX:Lst:Lng lahd lises ui the surround:Lng area :LS
principally visitor accommodations, tourist serving commercial
uses, and recreation facilities. The proposed residential use of
the Blue Spruce Building would be most consistent with surrounding
uses if the units are used for short term accommodations.
~J~
j'
The First Amended PUD Agreement stipulates that there shall be four
accessory retail spaces on the main floor of the Blue Spruce
Building, which shall not be combined to create larger spaces.
Permitted uses in these spaces are limited to the following and
similar uses: ~"" V';~:> 010 1\0/ Vlcl.lJe to <Jc:> (I) +-t?is
0Ju.<l- I do ~'1 .... u
* Hotel operator souvenir store
* Beau ho
* lorist sho
* G:L shop
* Sundry shop
* Car rental and
* Ski and sports
* Ski rental and
travel desk
activity center
repair shop
The purpose of these limits was to avoid the spread of commercial
core type uses into the lodge district. The uses were to remain
accessory to the hotel operation and not become principal
commercial operations attracting clients from throughout Town.
, To maintain the accessory status of the units, the applicant states
~ that the retail spaces on the entry level of the Blue Spruce
Building will be designated as a separate condominium unit, which ~~p
~ will remain in the same ownership as the rest of the hotel. This /.)_,,,""'~
\~ ' commitment should be formalized as a covenant, suitable for cpr'
fl.:;;) ",,,y'recordation, and acceptable in form and content to the city
~,. Attorney. W- r l)-tIMJ prrpuf{ t1tl~ ~ jY ~
~~ ~ Another relevant issue to consider is the impact of reducing t~~~
/ #l hotel unit count in the Ritz-Carlton on its planned character.
f~~\. Throughout the prior reviews of the hotel on Lot 1, the applicant ~~+
~vv stated the importance of having a unit count of approximately 300 'O'-"-~
rooms, to insure that a bloc.k of rooms would be available within
the hotel for conference participants. The applicant now proposes
to reduce the size of the hotel to ~ 257 units. A principal
purpose behind the original PUD was to have this be one hotel in \'oMr
Aspen large enough to adequately support conference facilities. Ml1\~r
The applicant should document that its experience in booking the JfPJ.t "11'; .
hotel demonstrates that conference participants can be adequately ~~ ~~
accommodated within the reduced unit count. ~~I
'2.'> !va)
1c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future ~D~
development of the surrounding area. ~D
The principal future development within the surrounding area will
be the redevelopment of the Grand Aspen Hotel. When the First
Amended PUD Agreement was drafted in 1988, two key limitations were
written for the future development of this site, embodied in
Council Resolution 88-11 and the First Amended PUD Agreement.
These limitations were:
6
?WL ,,~t
~j\Avr
~~~
1-
())(O.,~
o ~
* Development on Lots 3 5 would riot exceed 115,000 sq. ft. ~~~
* The applicant would neve request additional residential GMQS /~~
Because the unit count proposed for Lots 3 and 5 is proposed to ~
Chang::,::m::"a:r:::::::et:h:a:::S:s:' :::t:t':n: 5~O~=d as " ~
limitations upon the new development program.
1d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the
extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
The applicant was awarded sufficient GMQS allotments and
replacement credits during the initial approval to address all
proposed development within the PUD. In fact, the applicant has
actually given back 118 of the 172 lodge development allotments
originally granted to the project, only retaining 54 allotments.
2/3/4. Density/Land Use/Dimensional Limits
"""':-\~ The proposed amendment should have no impact on any of these
,,~-\<. aspects of the proposed PUD, as the residential units are proposed
~~ within an approved building, and provided the staff recommendation
\..\ ,h with respect to limiting Lots 3 and 5 to no more than 115,000
\S$:~ square feet of development is followed.
5. Off-Street Parking
The First Amended PUD Agreement required the applicant to provide
a minimum of 220 subsurface parking spaces within Lot 1, along with
10 permanent service vehicle berths or guest loading spaces at
street level, in front of the hotel. An insubstantial plat and PUD
amendment which eliminated 11 hotel rooms was approved by staff in
October, 1992. This amendment permitted reduction of the parking
requirement to 217 subsurface parking spaces and 7 street level
spaces, (in order to allow for a fire lane) corresponding to the
actual number of parking spaces now installed on Lot 1.
The First Amended PUD Agreement also requires the applicant to
maintain a total of 129 subgrade and street level parking spaces on
the Grand Aspen and Ice Rink. Included in this total were 13
spaces on the north side of Dean Street. However, one condition of
the approval of the Aspen winter Garden in Ordinance 12, series of
1992 was the provision of a vehicle drop off area on Dean street,
which is expected to eliminate 3 of the spaces. The loss of these
spaces and the addition of the drop off area should be indicated in
the revised parking commitment, which should read as follows:
7
~
{' r;;'\~
~~_ (Av\Va'( ~ ~
~SJ if \#~ ~ 11Dqfc6 /
Requirement
Flfst AlIiei1ded
PUD Agreement
proposed
Revision
Lot 1 and 1A
Subgrade
Guest/service loading
220
10
217
7
subtotal, Lots 1 & 1A
230
224
Lot 5 and 6
Subgrade
Surface lots
Surface, north Dean
Guest/service loading
Angle, south Dean
28 28
73 73
13 10
6 7
9 9
129 127
359 351
Subtotal, Lots 5 & 6
Total, Lots 1, lA, 5 & 6
The applicant argues that the parking provided on Lot 1 actually
exceeds that which is required for the hotel as built, and the
proposed residential units. This conclusion reflects the parking
standards developed in a 1984 parking study done for the original
PUD, which established parking factors of .66 spaces per lodge room
at 90% occupancy (plus factors for food, beveraqe and conference
space), 1 space per residential unit for one and two bedroom units
and 2 spaces per residential unit for three and four bedroom units.
The staff has concluded that the 1984 study has been rendered
obsolete by the significant community transportation planning
efforts in 1987, resulting in the Transportation Element, and those
in 1990 - 1992, in conjunction with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
One conclusion of these efforts is that while the community does
not want to build excess off-street parking to attract automobiles,
there should be adequate off-street parking to offer realistic
options to the more limited on-street parking opportunities.
Since the hotel parking garage has already been built based on the
1984 study, it would be unreasonable to come back at this time and
require the applicant to meet the parking requirement for the hotel
units (at 1 space per unit, 257 spaces would be required on Lot 1) .
It is reasonable, however, to require parking for the residential
bedrooms to be accommodated at 1 space per bedroom, since there is
actually an excess of 7 spaces built in the garage, if the factors
in the 1984 study are applied. There would have been 12 spaces
required using the 1984 study, while 18 spaces are required by the
Code. 6 of the 7 excess spaces built in the garage should be
designated to fulfill the Code's residential parking requirement.
~ CJJifl V)~
//~~
cu(Z~
.>~
It is also appropriate to put the applicant on notice that when
redevelopment of Lots 3 and 5 occurs, applicable Municipal Code
parking standards shall be met, unless the applicant demonstrates
from an updated parking study, or through transit-type incentives
provided to the community, thai parking standards should be varied.
6/7/8/9/10. Open space/LandscaPi~~/ArChitecture/Lighting/Clustering
The proposed amendments should have no impact on these aspects of
the PUD, as the residential units are proposed within an approved
building, and the plan for Lots 3 and 5 is still forthcoming.
11. Public Facilities
The proposed amendment should have no impact on infrastructural
facilities or employee housing requirements, since there is no net
change to the number of units in the PUD.
The applicant argues, however, that there will be a net reduction
in the number of employees generated as a result of the amendment.
KD~ Since there is no net change in the number of hotel or residential
!'~ units proposed in the overall PUD, staff finds that there will be
~ . no net change in employees generated by the proposal.
oIr\~;I~ We conclude that the applicant has made two mistakes in applying
t~~~, the project's approved employee housing calculation formula.
~l" First, the applicant requests credit for the housing associated
with 203 replacement lodge units, when in fact only 120 such units
:;::(t:; have been demolished to date (the 155 units at the Grand Aspen .
~ /~ Hotel are still standing). Second, the applicant seeks credit~'n
1,fJ":. the formula for the full reduced hotel unit count when, as
~~'V v condition of the recent Insubstantial PUD Amendments, the applic
?~ agreed not to request such credit for the 13 eliminated units. If
~ these two mistakes were corrected, there would be virtually no net
~o} ~ change in employees generated by the Ritz-Carlton.
I\~/
~/' Moreover, it is moot to argue whether the current hotel program
theoretically generates fewer employees than suggested by the
formula. The hotel's housing obligation should remain as stated in
the First Amended PUD agreement, and should only be modified
through the audit, for the following reasons.
The First Amended PUD Agreement obligates the applicant to provide
housing for at least 198.5 employees generated by development of
Lot 1, and the applicant maintains its commitment to house these
employees. The Agreement specifically indicates this number was an
inducement offered by the applicant to obtain approval for the PUD,
and may exceed the project's technical housing requirement, based
on the formula used by the applicant and accepted by the City.
Credit for housing the 198.5 employees was obtained as follows:
9
Project
Employee Housing Credit
Alpina Haus Conversion 46.0 employees
Copper Horse Conversion 43.0 employees
Hunter Longhouse 69.0 employees
Grand Aspen Conversion 3.5 employees
ute City Place 37.0 employees
~\fI'I '\ Total 198.5 employees
t.~ The First Amended pun Agreement also requires an audit to be
~\I' performed two years after the hotel has been in operation, to
P determine whether more employees are working at the hotel than
originally anticipated. The pun Agreement establishes a formula
for increased housing production if additional employees are
\)( generated, but does not establish a mechanism to give the applicant
\\~ a credit if fewer employees are generated than have already been
~-~ provided housing.
f
. \'J '
!
cO
V bl5'
The net housing obligation for redevelopment of the Grand Aspen
Hotel is required by the First Amended pun Agreement to be
established during the approval process for that component of the
pun. That housing requirement should address, at a minimum, the
employees generated by the 72 hotel units, and any applicable (}.fl~{ff
housing requirements for the 33 replacement residential units. ~Jiit
We recommend the housing obligations contained in the First Amended-ff~
pun Agreement remain as stated and not be changed by this proposal.
i!0
,
c(l~ rrM-'9!h
The current development schedule for Lots 1, 3 and 5 was set by
Ordinance 26, Series of 1991, and then was recently amended. fer ~Re
I~ ~; . l~clrk. Th~scheQ.ule sets the following deadlinei: I
' tt "is~ci \ 2- Lf q 2-
Certificate of occupancy - Ritz-Carlton Hotel 19/1!9~
3. Development Schedule
Certificate of occupancy - Ice Rink/Pafk
Demolition permit - Grand Aspen Hotel
Building permit issuance - Top of Mill
Building permit issuance - Hotel Phase II
Certificate of occupancy - Top of Mill
10/1/93
10/1/95
10/1/95
10/1/96 _
6/1/97
Certificate of occupancy - Hotel Phase II '5( Ii
;'::,0lYY\rmii P1A-CZ I T
The applicant I s current plans with respect to the~lue Spruce /.
Building are to finish the first floor retail space ~ and to /0
construct the stairs and elevator core for the second and third /
10
~
floors, leaving the interior finishes of the residential units for
a later date. .~~. "p: ~Q<:'c:h~~~klce:;::'S?1'>&Z"",,,,,,,,,,,,<!::ei_.
CP!mci-f; ~J..-~tate ct w:;.....er~-endment-te tl,e
e'cFnst'l:-rrCUon ~edu~~ -
'Ae.Jl.
'-\,0"'''' ~
".......,A-J
""'^'-
~he' B}Ji.ldi7lg I}).S-~t~co~s t~.. Joll()\:I'j,ng-eol1dtt.i,ollS . rt;~_Ci~~(L'2
.{.o-tne cOlfls.trUctd..e-n sc~dUie aunend1iient :_--" L..... - <.......- ..--
"",\\ ~ 2. Subdivision - The applicant proposes to create a separate lot
~~~ of 15,078 square feet, however the L/TR minimum lot size of 1,000
""'-<<-"1, sq. ft. per bedroom requires 18,000 sq. ft. for 18 bedrooms. Since
(\JV,!'" this will create a nonconformity, subdivision is not permitted,
pursuant to section 24-7-1004 A.3 of the Municipal Code.
5;' 3. Condominiumization - The applicant requests condominiumization
~Ao~~pproval for the residential units, pursuant to section 24-7-1007
;:Si%J7 r'l A.1 of the Municipal Code.
r(\ ~~\ The applicant I s responses to the standards of section 24-7-1007 A.1
~ \""J are as follows:
(,U 60 iL\ a. There are no existing tenants who must be given written notice
l7~ of the sale of their unit.
of Ai (\!j!Y'cJ/
v\:^^iC(\ ~1Ii b. Residential units in the L/TR zone district may be leased
V" 0 without limitation. The applicant represents that these units will
be managed through the hotel or other management entity.
2' elL.
c. If the project has already provided affordable housing
pursuant to section 8-106 E.5, then an affordable housing impact
fee is not required to condominiumize the units. section 8-106 E.5
is the affordable housing requirement applied to residential units
which compete for allotments in the Growth Management Quota System.
The units proposed for condominiumization are replacement units,
not units which competed for an allotment. The replacement units
in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision were, however, required to
partially mitigate their affordable impacts. In fact, the
applicant's 198.5 employee housing obligation includes a 29
employee obligation associated with the replacement units.
~\\~
r '~(}.{'
0I'~
'k~ A review of the methodology used in the original 1985 PUD Agreement
~, indicates, however, that the applicant was only required to provide
~replacement housing for 16 employees who lived within 5 of the 42
demolished residential units in the PUD, plus hotel 13 employees
who were to have been housed in Hans Cantrup's Aspen Inn Expansion,
which was never completed. The remaining 37 previously demolished
housing units ve never had an housin mitigation
attached to their replacement. Therefore, we conclude e
apP11cant only has 5 "credits" to use toward the affordable housing
impact fee for residential condominiumization.
11 We h~ a~
_l(2 /l€0~tr- ,~_~# ~:.-,/
-Y (' ~ ' 'S- ~ '" /0 ~"'tf~
i>? ~V Vr?/-t..s ~
The 42 replacement units are intended to be used as follows:
6 units in Blue Spruce Buildingj
3 units in Summit Placej and
33 units in Hotel Phase II.
8 residential units obtained via GMQS allocations are also to be
built in Hotel Phase II.
The applicant should designate whether to credit 5 of the 6 units
proposed for the Blue Spruce Building with an exemption from the
affordable housing impact fee and to pay the fee for the remaining
unit, or whether the credits will be retained towards the other
projects in the PUD.
d. The applicant agrees to make the building available for the
required fire, health and safety inspection. Since the building is
newly constructed, pursuant to City codes, this requirement would
appear to be little more than a technicality.
~~~,~ ~STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
~.,,,,,, the PUD Amendment for Lots 1, 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain
~t-",..:>L SUbdivision, Subdivision of Lot 1 to create a new Lot lA, and
\<> t..,.... Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization of the Blue Spruce
4~~wL Building, with the following conditions:
\";
1. Following City Council appr~ the applicant shall submit a
revised final plat which ~therequirements of section 24-7-
1004. D of the Municipal" Code and which documents all changes
approved by this PUD Amendment. The applicant shall designate on
the plat 18 spaces within the parking structure which are assigned
to the 6 residential units.
2. Prior to City Council review, the applicant shall submit a
revised PUD agreement which documents all changes approved by this
PUD Amendment.
3. The applicant shall document, to the satisfaction of P&Z, that
its experience in booking the hotel demonstrates that conference
participants can be adequately accommodated within the reduced unit
count.
4. Future development on Lots 3 and 5 shall not exceed 115,000
sq. ft., consistent with the requirements of city Council
Resolution 88-11 and the terms of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision
First Amended PUD Agreement.
. \~r\-
5. The applJ.cant shall agree to J!le'\fer '\.equeS't---futur-e-.-rccGid",rr1:ial
G~lluLlllents which wOuld :t'ncr~s~ the total number of
residential units within the PUD beyond the currently approyed,42
replacement units and 12 GMQS units. fu.fufl.<- [(siM,tc\ EfY\05 (lLl~
J~tJ bz di?w)rtlotJ
12
6. The applicant is hereby put on notice that redevelopment of
Lots 3 and 5 of the PUD will be required to meet applicable
Municipal Code parking standards, unless the applicant demonstrates
from a current parking study or through transit-type incentives
provided to the community, that parking standards should be varied.
7. The applicant shall prepare
recordation, and acceptable in form
Attorney, stating that:
covenants, suitable
and content to the
for
City
a.
The retail and other accessory spaces on the entry
of the Blue Spruce Building will be designated
separate condominium unit, and remain in the
ownership as the rest of the hotel; and
b. The condominium residential units will be managed through
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel or other suitable management
organization, and will be made available for rental to
the general tourist market.
level
as a
same
8. The applicant shall, at the time of recordation of the amended
plat, pay an affordable housing impact fee of $8,050 per unit, or
shall designate credits for up to 5 of the 6 planned/units, based
on the replacement housing provided for 5 previoushY demolished
units, and pay the fee for all units for which there(is no credit.
_~~\IJY'~lcc} ~ ~ ~~~pt tA%W~ ~Qz,\il~~J
~05e.~ \'Ilot\6Y\ ~
13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning
SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain Subdivision -
3 and 5, Subdivision of Lot 1,
for Condominiumization of
DATE: December 1, 1992
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of
the conditions stated at the end of the memo.
APPLICANT: Savannah Limited Partnership, represented by Joe Wells
and Perry Harvey.
LOCATION: The Aspen Mountain Subdivision is located at the base
of Aspen Mountain, south of Durant Avenue, between Galena and
Monarch. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is being constructed on Lot 1.
Lot 3 is the Top of Mill site. Lot 5 currently contains the Grand
Aspen Hotel.
ZONING: Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests
a PUD Amendment to transfer all 22 hotel units approved for the
second and third floor of the Blue Spruce Building to the planned
re-development of the Grand Aspen Hotel. This will leave a total
of 257 hotel units within the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and allow for a
total of 72 hotel units to be built when the Grand Aspen Hotel is
re-developed. In exchange, the applicant requests that 6 of the
47 residential units planned for Lots 3 and 5 be transferred to the
Blue Spruce Building. These will be the only residential units
built in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.
The applicant also requests subdivision approval to create a new
Lot lA of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. Lot lA will contain only
that portion of Lot 1 north of Dean Street (the Blue Spruce
Building). The subdivision will enable the applicant to establish
a "Common Interest Ownership Community" (formerly known as a
condominium) for the proposed residential units in the project.
The applicant is reserving its rights under Colorado's recent
Common Interest Ownership Act, but requests condominiumization to
create separate fee ownership for the residential units.
PROCESS: PUD Amendments area approved pursuant to the terms and
provisions of Final PUD Review, provided that the proposed change
is consistent with or an enhancement of the Final Development Plan.
1
If the proposed change is not consistent with the Final Development
Plan, the amendment is subject to both Conceptual and Final review.
Final PUD requires a recommendation by P&Z and final action by
Council, at which time an amended PUD Agreement is adopted.
Subdivision and condominiumization require a recommendation by P&Z
and final action by Council, done concurrently with Final PUD.
Processing of GMQS amendment and re-scoring of the project is not
necessary to implement this proposal. The applicant does not
propose any significant changes to approved design features, public
facilities, or other commitments made in obtaining the GMQS
allotments. The allotments which are being transferred between
Lots 1 and 5 have previously been approved for both lots and were
evaluated during the original GMQS competition based primarily on
commitments made for the entire PUD, which remain unchanged.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Following is a summary of the comments received
by the Planning Office from referral agencies. Complete copies of
the original memos may be found in Attachment "A".
Enqineerinq:
- A condominium map and plat must be submitted,
requirements of section 24-7-1004.D of the Municipal
the parking calculation for the residential units is
the spaces should be designated on the plat or in the
documents.
meeting the
Code. When
determined,
condominium
Environmental Health:
- Water supply and sewage disposal lines are in place, with
adequate capacity to serve the project.
- New woodburning fireplaces are prohibited in the metro area. Two
gas-log fireplaces allowed for the building are already allocated.
Gas appliances are allowed in the residential units, but are not
addressed in the application.
STAFF COMMENTS: This project requires multiple approvals. Review
criteria are identified for each application type.
1. PUD Amendment - As noted above, PUD Amendments are reviewed
according to the terms and provisions of Final PUD Review, Section
24-7-903 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The Commission and Council
are authorized, when reviewing the amendment "to insure that the
development will be compatible with current community conditions",
to apply "new community policies or regulations which have been
implemented since the original approval" and to take into
consideration "changing community circumstances as they affect the
project's original representations and commitments".
For the commission members to adequately review this proposal, it
2
.-I
ol
1II
o
llo
o
I-<
'"
....
I':
CU
I-<
I-<
::I
t)
....1II
1':....
CUI':
g.CU
cuol!l
1II1':
~CU
fI1~
....
QI':
t:lCU
"'ol!l
CIIlI':
CIIlCU
=~
Q
t:l
'"
III
CIIl
'"
...
.-1.-1
olol
1':>
.... 0
OIl-<
.... llo
I-<llo
o I'll
<ll
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
"
1II
.......-l
..-{ rtl
C,.-{
::I....
C
.-IOl
Ol'O
....'.-{
o rn
'cOlrn
1-<....
0'\ '.-1
N<I'C
MIll::l
"
rn
.......-l
,.-{ rtl
C'.-I
::I....
C
.-IOl
Ol'O
....'.-{
o rn
'cOlrn
1-<....
N ,.-{
<I'<I'C
MIll::l
<l'rn
....Ill....
rn C '.-I....
....Ol"CC
'.-{"'~::lOl
C<llCf.l "'~
::IUOI..-IOlCf.l
rtl::E:rtlUOI
..-1..-1 t.!J..-{ rtl::E:
Ol llo ......-1 t.!J
.jJ<llNCllo
OI-<r--Ol<llN
,C .-i'OI-<.-I
III ..-{
r--r--'OrnN'O
<l'NCOl<I'C
o::r-(tj$.4-ttj
Q
t:l
'"
.-I
.-I
ol
I-<
CU
>
o
"
rn rtl
.jJ O<ll
,.-{..-IO I-<
C rtlO rtl
::1-1""l ...
.jJ01-<
..-ICO'\O
Ol<ll.-lO
.jJ'O ..-I
0-.-1 ....tj..l
,Crnrn
<ll.jJ .
r-- 1-<'.-111-<
III C.
N\O::lrn
"
rn rtl
.jJ OOl
,.-{..-IO I-<
CrtlOrtl
::1',..{ ...
.jJ01-<
..-I CO'\ 0
<llOl.-lO
....'0 ..-I
O.r-! ....<t-l
,Crnrn
Ol.jJ .
0'\ I-<''-{II-<
r-- C.
NO::lrn
"
rn
.jJ Ortl
'.-{..-IO <ll
CrtlOI-<
::I ,.-{ 'rtl
.jJ0
..-ICO'\I-<
OlOl.-lO
.jJ'O 0
Q-,..j ....,...(
,C rn rn II-<
<ll.jJ
N 1-<'.-111-<
0'\ C.
NO::lrn
o
0.jJ ....
MO rtl
C 0 <ll
'0 01-<
Q) h.oo;tI 0 <<:J
Ol rn .-i..-l _
U.jJ rtl 0 I-<
X ,.-I '0'.-1 0 0
OlC <ll.jJN 0
::l<llC ..-I
o U <ll '-11-<
.jJ..-Ix'Orn
<ll <ll'.-I.jJ .
.jJ.jJ rn,.-{II-<
000 <ll C .
C,C.jJ 1-<::1 rn
I
N
.jJ
....
P:I':
.. 0
....jJ
.-I
....1-<
o ol
..:It)
<ll
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
<ll
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
Ol
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
..-I
rtlo
'.-10
.jJr--rtl
C '<ll
Ol r-- I-<
'0 rtl
-r-! ....
rn rn I-<
Ol.jJ 0
I-<'.-{ 0
C..-I
M::III-<
...jJ
N.... CU
....~~
oa.-l
..:IUJ'"
.
II-<
""
<ll
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
<ll
8'
rtl
,C
U
o
C
""
<ll
8'
rtl
,C
U
o
C
.
rn
'"
rtl
..-IO<ll
rtlO I-<
,.-10 rtl
.jJ -
C.-I I-<
<ll 00
'O.-l0
..-1 ..-I
rJ) ....<t-l
<ll rn
1-<.jJ .
''-{II-<
M C .
",::lrn
llo
o
Eo<
.-l
...-I
..,....
lEl
....
011-<
..:10
<ll
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
<ll
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
Ol
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
rtl
Ol
..-101-<
rtlOrtl
,.-{o
.jJ ,I-<
CNO
Ol.-IO
'0 ..-I
"M ....1.1-I
rn rn
<ll.jJ .
1-<'.-111-<
C .
<I'::srn
.. ol
'Ol'I':CU
CUt)
.....-Iol
Ool.-l
..:Iel'"
""
" rtl
rn..-lo<ll
.jJrtlol-<
..-{,.-{o rtl
C.jJ ,
::l C III I-<
<ll.-lO
..-1'0.-10
Ol''-{ ...-l
+J to ....<t-l
oOlrn
,C 1-<.jJ .
''-{II-<
N.-i C .
r--<I'::lrn
<ll
tl'
C
rtl
,C
U
o
C
""
" <d
rn..-loOl
.jJrtlOI-<
,.-{..-IO rtl
C.jJ ,
::lCIllI-<
<ll.-lO
..-1'0.-10
Ol'.-{ ..-I
4J tIl ....<t-l
o <ll rn
,C 1-<.jJ .
'.-{II-<
or-- C .
Ill<l';:lrn
o
O'\.jJ ....
.-10 rtl
C OOl
'0 01-<
Q.) ...."d' O<<S
<ll rn .-1..-1 '
U.jJ rtlO I-<
X ,.-{ 'O'.-{ III 0
<llCOl.jJ.-iO
;:l<llC ..-I
o 0 Q) ....l.I-I
.jJ..-Ix'Orn
Ol <ll '.-{.jJ .
.jJ .jJ rn ..-{ II-<
OOOOlC.
c,C.jJI-<;:lrn
I':
CU
llo
1II
I'll
..
III '0
I':
....ol
01-<
..:Iel
rn
.jJ
,.-I
C
;:l
..-I
rtl
,.-I III
.jJ
C .jJ
Ol 0
'0 ..:i
,.-{
rn '0
Ol C
I-< rtl
00
<ll
.jJ
o
z
<I' M
.-l
'0 t
C ..:i
rtl
Ol @
tl'.<ll
'0..-1:>:
Ortl.jJ
..-I>Ol
r--2,Q
<I' llo'O
<I' llo Ol
'Ortl~
<llQ,Q
<ll::>..-{
U '" I-<
X .jJ
Ol ..-I rn
.jJ rtl..-{
0,p'O
C llo Ol
'O~,Q
..-ICO
::s0.jJ
Ou
U rn
III '0 ,.-I
<ll
'0 > III
c'.-I
rtl<ll.jJ
U 0
.-I<ll..:i
I-<
rn >0 ~
.jJ..-I1I-<
o C
..:iOC
C :>:
0.jJ 0
U,C
.jJ<llrn
C'r'1
OlO.jJ
'" I-< C
llolloOl
o '"
..-I..-Illo
Ol..-IO
>,.-{ ..-I
<ll =- Ol
'0 >
II-<<ll
..-10'0
rtl
.jJ llo Ol
OO,C
888
MNM
is first necessary to provide background information as to the
PUD's evolution, summarized in the following table and discussion.
History:
The Aspen Mountain Subdivision was initially submitted by John
Roberts in 1983 for PUD review and to obtain lodge and residential
GMQS allotments. Final PUD approval was granted in 1985 for a
project containing a total of 447 hotel units (275 replacement and
12 GMQS units), spread across 5 lots.
Development of the 447 hotel units was to occur as "Hotel Phase I",
to contain not more than 300 hotel units and 14 residential units
on what has become the Ritz-Carlton site, and "Hotel Phase II", on
the Grand Aspen site, to contain not more than 190 hotel units and
14 residential units, provided the combination of the two phases
would not exceed 447 hotel and 14 residential units. The remaining
40 residential units were planned for Summit Place, Top of Mill
(which only received Conceptual PUD approval) and Galena Place.
Following the acquisition of the property by Hadid Aspen Holdings,
a PUD Amendment application was submitted for Lot 1, the Ri tz-
Carlton, in January, 1988. During its review by P&Z and City
Council, consideration was also given to the development program
for Lots 3 and 5. One result of this review process was an offer
by the applicant to drop 105 hotel units from the development
program, in order to secure approval for a 292 unit hotel on Lot
1.
During the review process, the applicant transferred all of the
residential units permitted on Lot 1 to Lots 3 and 5. The
principal reason for this transfer was that eliminating their
square footage resulted in a significant reduction in the size of
the hotel, allowing a break to be made to the building's mass along
Mill Street. The record does not indicate there were any policy
discussions which found residential units inappropriate for Lot 1,
The amended PUD which emerged from the 1988 review permitted 292
hotel units and 0 residential units in the Ritz-Carlton, and 50
hotel units and 47 residential units in the re-development of the
Grand Aspen/development of Top of Mill property.
since 1988, two Insubstantial PUD Amendments have been processed
by the staff, which have had the effect of eliminating 13 hotel
units from the Ritz-Carlton. The applicant did not ask to have
these units transferred to other lots within the PUD; instead, they
were actually dropped from the total unit count. At the present
time, therefore, 279 hotel units are allowed on Lot 1, while 50
hotel units are allowed on Lot 5, for a total of 329 hotel units.
The applicant's proposal would amend these totals to 257 and 72
hotel units respectively, with the total PUD still containing 329
3
hotel units. The proposal would also transfer 6 residential units
to Lot 1, leaving 41 residential units to be built on Lots 3 and
5. The applicant represents there will be no exterior
modifications to the Blue Spruce Building due to the change in
planned use from hotel to residential units.
Review criteria:
The PUD review criteria include several general planning
requirements, followed by a number of more specific standards which
are most applicable to development of vacant land. The criteria
are reviewed below, as applicable to this project.
la. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the Aspen Mountain base
area for "Recreation/Accommodations" land use. This area is
intended as the principal location for visitor oriented uses in the
Aspen Area. The property's Land Use Plan designation was one of
several arguments in favor of the project's original PUD approval.
Since the 1988 approval, major changes in community land use policy
are embodied in the Aspen Area community Plan, which recently
contain any major policy shifts for the base area, it does include
an analysis of remaining lodge buildout in the Aspen Area. The
analysis indicates that within the Aspen Base Neighborhood Planning
Area, only approximately 72-82 new lodge units and 50-80 visitor
oriented residential units remain to be built. These totals
include the units yet to be built within the Aspen Mountain PUD.
since there are so few remaining lodge and residential units to be
built within the base area, it is important that future visitor-
oriented units be located in the most convenient locations. The
Blue Spruce site is located across from Rubey Park, along a major
transportation corridor, within walking distance of the ski lifts
and Aspen's commercial core. It is a particularly appropriate
location for relatively higher intensity visitor use (as is the
Grand Aspen site). Therefore, while transfer of 22 hotel units to
the Grand Aspen site would be consistent with community planning,
the use of the Blue Spruce site for residential use could be less
so, particularly if the units are to be sold to individuals who
keep them out of the rental pool.
Consistent with the purpose of the L/TR zone district, we suggest
it be required that the residential units be managed in conjunction
with the hotel and rented for use by visitors, as the Code would
require if these were lodge, rather than residential condominiums.
There is already a corridor over Dean Street connecting the hotel
and Blue Spruce Building, which should facilitate the unified
management of the two buildings.
4
lb. The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
The character of existing land uses in the surrounding area is
principally visitor accommodations, tourist serving commercial
uses, and recreation facilities. The proposed residential use of
the Blue Spruce Building would be most consistent with surrounding
uses if the units are used for short term accommodations.
The First Amended PUD Agreement stipulates that there shall be four
accessory retail spaces on the main floor of the Blue Spruce
Building, which shall not be combined to create larger spaces.
Permitted uses in these spaces are limited to the following and
similar uses:
* Sundry shop
* Car rental and travel desk
* Ski and sports activity center
* Ski rental and repair shop
* Hotel operator souvenir store
* Beauty shop
* Florist shop
* Gift shop
The purpose of these limits was to avoid the spread of commercial
core type uses into the lodge district. The uses were to remain
accessory to the hotel operation and not become principal
commercial operations attracting clients from throughout town.
To maintain the accessory status of the units, the applicant states
that the retail spaces on the entry level of the Blue Spruce
Building will be designated as a separate condominium unit, which
will remain in the same ownership as the rest of the hotel. This
commitment should be formalized as a covenant, suitable for
recordation, and acceptable in form and content to the City
Attorney.
Another relevant issue to consider is the impact of reducing the
hotel unit count in the Ritz-Carlton on its planned character.
Throughout the prior reviews of the hotel on Lot 1, the applicant
stated the importance of having a unit count of approximately 300
rooms, to insure that a block of rooms would be available within
the hotel for conference participants. The applicant now proposes
to reduce the size of the hotel to just 257 units. A principal
purpose behind the original PUD was to have this be one hotel in
Aspen large enough to adequately support conference facilities.
The applicant should document that its experience in booking the
hotel demonstrates that conference participants can be adequately
accommodated within the reduced unit count.
lc. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
The principal future development within the surrounding area will
be the redevelopment of the Grand Aspen Hotel. When the First
Amended PUD Agreement was drafted in 1988, two key limitations were
5
written for the future development of this site, embodied in
council Resolution 88-11 and the First Amended PUD Agreement.
These limitations were:
* Development on Lots 3 and 5 would not exceed 115,000 sq. ft.
* The applicant would never request additional residential GMQS
allotments to increase the density of Lots 3 and 5.
Because the unit count proposed for Lots 3 and 5 is proposed to
change, it is appropriate to carry these limitations forward as
limitations upon the new development program.
ld. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the
extent of which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
The applicant was awarded sufficient GMQS allotments and
replacement credits during the intial approval to address all
proposed development within the PUD. In fact, the applicant has
actually given back 118 of the 172 lodge development allotments
originally granted to the project, only retaining 54 allotments.
2/3/4. Density/Land Use/Dimensional Limits
The proposed amendment should have no impact on any of these
aspects of the proposed PUD, as the residential units are proposed
within an approved building, and provided the staff recommendation
with respect to limiting Lots 3 and 5 to no more than 115,000
square feet of development is followed.
s. Off-Street Parking
The First Amended PUD Agreement required the applicant to provide
a minimum of 220 subsurface parking spaces within Lot 1, along with
10 permanent service vehicle berths or guest loading spaces at
street level, in front of the hotel. An insubstantial plat and PUD
amendment which eliminated 11 hotel rooms was approved by staff in
October, 1992. This amendment permitted reduction of the parking
requirement to 217 subsurface parking spaces and 7 street level
spaces, (in order to allow for a fire lane) corresponding to the
actual number of parking spaces now installed on Lot 1.
The First Amended PUD Agreement also requires the applicant to
maintain a total of 129 subgrade and street level parking spaces
on the Grand Aspen and Ice Rink. Included in this total were 13
spaces on the north side of Dean street. However, one condition
of the approval of the Aspen winter Garden in Ordinance 12, Series
of 1992 was the provision of a vehicle drop off area on Dean
Street, which is expected to eliminate 3 of the spaces. The loss
of these spaces and the addition of the drop off area should be
indicated in the revised parking commitment, which should read as
follows:
6
Requirement
First Amended
PUD Agreement
Proposed
Revision
Lot 1 and lA
Subgrade
Guest/service loading
220
10
217
7
Subtotal, Lots 1 & lA
230
224
Lot 5 and 6
Subgrade
Surface lots
Surface, north Dean
Guest/service loading
Angle, south Dean
Subtotal, Lots 5 & 6
28 28
73 73
13 10
6 7
9 9
129 127
359 351
Total, Lots 1, lA, 5 & 6
The applicant argues that the parking provided on Lot 1 actually
exceeds that which is required for the hotel as built, and the
proposed residential units. This conclusion reflects the parking
standards developed in a 1984 parking study done for the original
PUD, which established parking factors of .66 spaces per lodge room
at 90% occupancy (plus factors for food, beverage and conference
space), 1 space per residential unit for one and two bedroom units
and 2 spaces per residential unit for three and four bedroom units.
The staff has concluded that the 1984 study has been rendered
obsolete by the significant community transportation planning
effots in 1987, resulting in the Transportation Element, and those
in 1990 - 1992, in conjunction with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
One conclusion of these efforts is that while the community does
not want to build excess off-street parking to attract automobiles,
there should be adequate off-street parking to offer realistic
options to the more limited on-street parking opportunities.
since the hotel parking garage has already been built based on the
1984 study, it would be unreasonable to come back at this time and
require the applicant to meet the parking requirement for the hotel
units (at 1 space per unit, 257 spaces would be required on Lot 1).
It is reasonable, however, to require parking for the residential
bedrooms to be accommodated at 1 space per bedroom, since there is
actually an excess of 7 spaces built in the garage, if the factors
in the 1984 study are applied. There would have been 12 spaces
required using the 1984 study, while 18 spaces are required by the
Code. six of the 7 excess spaces built in the garage should be
7
designated to fulfill the Code's residential parking requirement.
It is also appropriate to put the applicant on notice that when
redevelopment of Lots 3 and 5 occurs, applicable Municipal Code
parking standards shall be met, unless the applicant demonstrates
from an updated parking study, or through transit-type incentives
provided to the community, that parking standards should be varied.
6/7/8/9/10. open Space/Landscaping/Architecture/Lighting/
Clustering
The proposed amendments should have no impact on these aspects of
the PUD, as the residential units are proposed within an approved
building, and the plan for Lots 3 and 5 is still forthcoming.
11. Public Facilities
The proposed amendment should have no impact on infrastructural
facilities or employee housing requirements, since there is no net
change to the number of units in the PUD.
The applicant argues, however, that there will be a net reduction
in the number of employees generated as a result of the amendment.
Since there is no net change in the number of hotel or residential
units proposed in the overall PUD, staff finds that there will be
no net change in employees generated by the proposal.
We conclude that the applicant has made two mistakes in applying
the project's approved employee housing calculation formula.
First, the applicant requests credit for the housing associated
with 203 replacement lodge units, when in fact only 120 such units
have been demolished to date (the 155 units at the Grand Aspen
Hotel are still standing). second, the applicant seeks credit in
the formula for the full reduced hotel unit count when, as a
condition of the recent Insubstantial PUD Amendments, the applicant
agreed not to request such credit for the 13 eliminated units. If
these two mistakes were corrected, there would be virtually no net
change in employees generated by the Ritz-Carlton.
Moreover, it is moot to argue whether the current hotel program
theoretically generates fewer employees than suggested by the
formula. The hotel's housing obligation should remain as stated
in the First Amended PUD agreement, and should only be modified
through the audit, for the following reasons:
The First Amended PUD Agreement Obligates the applicant to provide
housing for at least 198.5 employees generated by development of
Lot I, and the applicant maintains its commitment to house these
employees. The Agreement specifically indicates this number was
an inducement offered by the applicant to obtain approval for the
PUD, and may exceed the project's technical housing requirement,
based on the formula used by the applicant and accepted by the
City.
8
Credit for housing the 198.5 employees was obtained as follows:
Project
Employee Housing Credit
Alpina Haus Conversion
Copper Horse Conversion
Hunter Longhouse
Grand Aspen Conversion
ute City Place
46.0 employees
43.0 employees
69.0 employees
3.5 employees
37.0 employees
Total
198.5 employees
The First Amended PUD Agreement also requires an audit to be
performed two years after the hotel has been in operation, to
determine whether more employees are working at the hotel than
originally anticipated. The PUD Agreement establishes a formula
for increased housing production if additional employees are
generated, but does not establish a mechanism to give the applicant
a credit if fewer employees are generated than have already been
provided housing.
The net housing obligation for redevelopment of the Grand Aspen
Hotel is required by the First Amended PUD Agreement to be
established during the approval process for that component of the
PUD. That housing requirement should address, at a minimum, the
employees generated by the 72 hotel units, and any applicable
housing requirements for the 33 replacement residential units.
We recommend the housing obligations contained in the First Amended
PUD Agreement remain as stated and not be changed by this proposal.
3. Development Schedule
The current development schedule for Lots 1, 3 and 5 was set by
Ordinance 26, Series of 1991, and then was recently amended for the
Ice Rink/Park. This schedule sets the following deadlines:
Certificate of occupancy - Ritz-Carlton Hotel
10/1/92
10/1/93
certificate of occupancy - Ice Rink/Park
Demolition permit - Grand Aspen Hotel
10/1/95
10/1/95
10/1/96
6/1/97
6/1/98
Building permit issuance - Top of Mill
Building permit issuance - Hotel Phase II
certificate of occupancy - Top of Mill
Certificate of occupancy - Hotel Phase II
9
The applicant's current plans with respect to the Blue Spruce
Building are to finish the first floor retail space within and to
construct the stairs and elevator core for the second and third
floors, leaving the interior finishes of the residential units for
a later date. If this approach is acceptable to P&Z and City
Council, it will necessitate a further amendment to the
construction schedule.
The Building Inspector recommends the following conditions related
to the construction schedule amendment:
2. Subdivision - The applicant proposes to create a separate lot
of 15,078 square feet, however the L/TR minimum lot size of 1,000
square feet per bedroom requires 18,000 square feet for 18
bedrooms. Since this will create a nonconformity, subdivision is
not permitted, pursuant to section 24-7-1004 A.3 of the Municipal
Code.
3. Condominiumization - The applicant requests condominiumization
approval for the residential units, pursuant to section 24-7-1007
A.1 of the Municipal Code.
The applicant's responses to the standards of section 24-7-1007 A.1
are as follows:
a. There are no existing tenants who must be given written notice
of the sale of their unit.
b. Residential units in the L/TR zone district may be leased
without limitation. The applicant represents that these units will
be managed through the hotel or other management entity.
c. If the project has already provided affordable housing pursuant
to Section 8-106 E.5, then an affordable housing impact fee is not
required to condominiumize the units. section 8-106 E.5 is the
affordable housing requirement applied to residential units which
compete for allotments in the Growth Management Quota System.
The units proposed for condominiumization are replacement units,
not units which competed for an allotment. The replacement units
in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision were, however / required to
partially mitigate their affordable impacts. In fact, the
applicant's 198.5 employee housing obligation includes a 29
employee obligation associated with the replacement units.
A review of the methodology used in the original 1985 PUD Agreement
indicates, however, that the applicant was only required to provide
replacement housing for 16 employees who lived within 5 of the 42
demolished residential units in the PUD, plus hotel 13 employees
who were to have been housed in Hans Cantrup's Aspen Inn Expansion,
which was never completed. The remaining 37 previously demolished
10
housing units have never had any affordable housing mitigation
attached to their replacement. Therefore, we conclude the
applicant only has 5 "credits" to use toward the affordable housing
impact fee for residential condominiumization.
The 42 replacement units are intended to be used as follows:
6 units in Blue Spruce Building;
3 units in Summit Place; and
33 units in Hotel Phase II.
8 residential units obtained via GMQS allocations are also to be
built in Hotel Phase II.
The applicant should designate whether to credit 5 of the 6 units
proposed for the Blue Spruce Building with an exemption from the
affordable housing impact fee and to pay the fee for the remaining
unit, or whether the credits will be retained towards the other
projects in the PUD.
d. The applicant agrees to make the building available for the
required fire, health and safety inspection. Since the building
is newly constructed, pursuant to City codes, this requirement
would appear to be little more than a technicality.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the PUD Amendment for Lots 1, 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision, Subdivision of Lot 1 to create a new Lot lA, and
Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization of the Blue Spruce
Building, with the following conditions:
1. Following City council approval, the applicant shall submit a
revised final plat which meets the requirements of Section 24-7-
1004. D of the Municipal Code and which documents all changes
approved by this PUD Amendment. The applicant shall designate on
the plat 18 spaces within the parking structure which are assigned
to the 6 residential units.
2. Prior to City Council review, the applicant shall submit a
revised PUD agreement which documents all changes approved by this
PUD Amendment.
3. The applicant shall document, to the satisfaction of P&Z, that
its experience in booking the hotel demonstrates that conference
participants can be adequately accommodated within the reduced unit
count.
4. Future development on Lots 3 and 5 shall not exceed 115,000
square feet, consistent with the requirements of City Council
Resolution 88-11 and the terms of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision
First Amended PUD Agreement.
11
5. The applicant
GMQS allotments
residential units
replacement units
shall agree to never request future
which would increase the total
within the PUD beyond the currently
and 12 GMQS units.
residential
number of
approved 42
6. The applicant is hereby put on notice that redevelopment of
Lots 3 and 5 of the PUD will be required to meet applicable
Municipal Code parking standards, unless the applicant demonstrates
from a current parking study or through transit-type incentives
provided to the community, that parking standards should be varied.
7. The applicant shall
recordation, and acceptable
Attorney, stating that:
prepare
in form
covenants, suitable
and content to the
for
City
a.
The retail and other accessory spaces on the entry
of the Blue Spruce Building will be designated
separate condominium unit, and remain in the
ownership as the rest of the hotel; and
level
as a
same
b. The condominium residential units will be managed through
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel or other suitable management
organization, and will be made available for rental to
the general tourist market.
8. The applicant shall, at the time of recordation of the amended
plat, pay an affordable housing impact fee of $8050 per unit, or
shall designate credits for up to 5 of the 6 planned units, based
on the replacement housing provided for 5 previously demolished
units, and pay the fee for all units for which there is no credit.
12
.
h
F)
~
~
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
February 10, 1992
FEB 1 0 1992
Mr, Jed Caswall
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Jed,
Thank you for your time on January 29th to review the Aspen Mountain PUD and the issue of the
appropriate code to be used as a standard for further review of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision arid
Planned Unit Development (the 'PUD"). We have once again reviewed the PUD Agreement and all of our
materials kept or prepared in connection with the negotiation and drafting of the PUD Agreement and it
remains our fll'1ll position that the code in effect prior to May of 1988 is the correct code under which
further review of the PUD is to occur.
Because the PUD Agreement was negotiated and drafted before you (or for that matter many of the
current planning staff members) 'came on board' I will, in this letter, attempt to outline the background
of the PUD, the reasons why the prior code was grandfathered into the agreement and the language which
applies to the review criteria. Also I will list some of those issues in the code which needlessly confuse the
amendment if the redrafted code is applied.
The PUD is unusual in its composition. When the PUD was first approved and subdivided Lot 3 had
received a conceptual approval for 101,000 square feet of FAR and 33 residential units, for an average FAR
of 3,060 square feet per unit. Thus, because Lot 3 still had to go through final approval, it was always
recognized by all parties that there were further approvals necessary for the full development and buildout
of the PUD properties.
During the amendment process in 1988, after some rather spirited dehate and publicly negotiated give and
take, the owner and the City agreed to certain development parameters for Lots 3, 5 and 6 which allowed
for a fIXed number of hotel rooms, residential units, square feet of floor area and the park--ice rink
amenity, Obviously, because we and the City had pre-determined the numerical limits of development and
the specific location of the hotel rooms and the residential units, it was the intention of the Owner and the
City to review the PUD in accordance with the code in effect at the time of approval. Otherwise, of
course, subsequent changes to the code (definitional and otherwise) could render the numbers that were
so long in the negotiation virtually meaningless.
To evidence the intention of the parties in this respect appropriate language was incorporated into the
PUD Agreement. For example, the sixth recital to the PUD Agreement, as well as Paragraphs 3 and 7
of Section 0 all clearly convey the sense that the parties, in agreeing to certain development parameters,
were contracting with reference to very specifIC review rules, Paragraph 3 of Section 0 provides:
"This agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado and the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, However, inasmuch as review of the planned unit development
amendment contemplated herein was initiated prior to May 25, 1988, the
effective date of substantial revisions to Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code, all reference herein to the Municipal Code or to particular sections
GOO E Cooper St. Suile 200 . f\spen, CO 81 (; I I . :lCU/n2",4272 . 1'.\X n25,4387
h
F--.
'7
Mr. Jed Caswall
Feb. 10, 1992
Page 2
thereof shall be deemed to refer to the Code or, as the case may be, to
sections thereof in effect on May 24, 1988, except to the extent that
subsequent changes to the Municipal Code or to sections thereof have
herein been made expressly applicable to the First Amended PUD or to
the performance of Owner's obligations hereunder."
This section says two things. First, if there is any reference to the Municipal Code or sections thereof the
pre May 24, 1988 code is intended. It does not say that only if there are SpecifIC code citations is the pre
May 24, 1988 code intended. Second, this section clearly states that if any code changes
subsequent to May 24, 1988 have been made expressly applicable to the PUD then those code provisions
would apply. This language was added because the new FAR rules (which were eventua1ly incorporated
into the new code) had actually been approved prior to our 1988 amendment. When we first made
application Alan Richman and I met and agreed that the pre May 1988 code would apply to the PUD
except that we would calculate floor areas under the new definition,
Paragraph 7 of Section 0 reinforces the parties' clear intent. It provides:
"Each of the obligations, commitments and representations made herein
by the Owner and the City, including as to the processing and completion
of further review for the components of the Prqject that have yet to
receive fmal approval, and the parameters of development activity
contemplated herein for such Prqject components, shall survive the
execution hereof and the enactment of subsequent legislation initiated by
the City in any manner inconsistent with such obligations, commitments,
and representations."
Finally, nothing in the Section "M" Amendment dated June 11, 1990 varies the parties' intent. Section 6
of that amendment provides;
"The provisions of paragraph 5 above notwithstanding, each of the
obligations, commitments and representations made in the PUD
Agreement by Savanah and the City of Aspen, including the parameters
of development activity contemplated in the PUD Agreement for each
component of the Project, shall survive this amendment and the
enactment of subsequent legislation initiated by the City in any manner
inconsistent with such obligations, commitments and representations,"
c
I)
F)
Mr. Jed Caswall
Feb, 10, 1992
Page 3
Here are just a few of the very real reasons why the older code must be viewed as the appropriate review
criteria as we negotiated.
1) OPEN SPACE: The pre May 1988 defmition of open space allowed for anything up to ten feet
below grade. Because of this the PUD was granted no variations for open space. Further the Lot
6 Park was always to count as open space for Lot 5. Under the new defmition much of Lot 6 does
not meet the requirements of open space, imperiling the agreement in the PUD that the 115,000
square feet of floor area would be on the southern portion of Lot 5 while the northern portion
would become the open space park and rink and be subdivided into Lot 6. Were the new
defmition applied to the entire PUD the overall open space could be inadequate.
2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Pre May of 1988 if you amended your GMQS scoring you only
had to meet minimum thresholds and maintain the same rank relative to the competition. Now
you must have at least the same scores as originally received in each category of the scoring,
Because 8 of the 47 residential units are GMQS we must amend our scoring. The PUD clearly
anticipates the 47 units but to rescore under the new criteria will make it almost impossible to
achieve a passing grade from the City. The new scoring requirements were imposed in order to
make amendments more onerous, a clear conflict to the PUD negotiated agreement.
3) ORDINANCE 1: This legislation requires reconstruction on site. Lot 3 contains a duplex. The
PUD has employee housing requirements which call for housing 29 people in connection with the
existing units on the properties to be reconstructed, This formula included Lot 3, Thus, any
enactment of Ordinance 1 would counter the assumptions and agreements which formed the basis
of the negotiated PUD parameters.
4) CHAPTER 24 SECTION 5,506--Z0NING OF LANDS CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE
UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT: Lot 3 has three separate zone districts, L/l'R, R-i5 (PUD) (L)
and C (conservation). Under the pre May 24, 1988 code, Section 24-3,7 (i) allowed a formula for
density transfer from residential districts to adjacent lodge districts. The owners of the Aspen
Mountain PUD agreed to certain development parameters for Lots 3 and 5 with the understanding
that Lot 3 would be a residential development of single family or duplex or townhouse
configuration depending upon the land planning process to be undertaken ata date well into the
future from the date of the agreement which formed the basis for the First Amended PUD,
Chapter 24, Section 5,506 has new restrictions for dimensional requirements and uses on parcels
with more than one zone district. Further, the L/I'R zone allows single family residences only on
lots of 6,000 square feet or less, Under the prior L-2 zoning detached single family residences are
allowed. The bottom line is that under the old code the agreed development parameters for Lot
3 and 5 could be realized. Under the current code the agreed parameters cannot be achieved.
Undoubtedly, there are other examples but it is very difficult to expose all of them other than in the
context of a site specific application for development activity, Because the parties' intent in the PUD
Agreement is so clear it does not seem fair to require us, in an effort to get a complete list to you, to have
our consultants, in effect, have to develop two proposals; one under one set of rules and the other under
,
,
-
~
hi
~
Mr. Jed Caswall
Feb. 10, 1992
Page 4
a second set. Simply stated, if we are required to operate under the new code and are tmable to attain
the benefit of the numbers that the parties agreed to in the PUD Agreement, after we have already gone
forward and given the City most of what it negotiated for itself, then a real breach of faith (if not the
contract) that we all had when the bargain was struck between us is involved,
Please consider your position in light of this letter and call me to set up a meeting to discuss our direction.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
r?tf?~
Perry Harvey
PH:ks
ce: Robert Hughes
Diane Moore
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Diane Moore, Planning Director
Alan Richman Planning services ~
FROM:
SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain PUD Amendment - Response To Questions
DATE: November 23, 1992
Following are specific responses to two administrative questions
you have posed to me with regard to the Aspen Mountain PUD. I am
providing you responses to these questions in greater detail than
I am likely to use in the P&Z memorandum, to enhance your
background knowledge of this project's history.
Question 1: What was the thinking behind the limitation in the 1988
PUD Amendment Agreement that Lot 1 would contain 0 residential
units?
Response: I have reviewed the files relating to the 1988 PUD
Amendment application to refresh my memory as to the thinking
behind this limitation. My findings are as follows.
In January, 1988, a PUD Amendment application was submitted for Lot
1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The application was intended to
improve the way the planned hotel would function for the newly
chosen operator, the Ritz-Carlton.
The application proposed changes to the architecture and massing of
the hotel. It also specified the number of rooms which were to be
developed. Where the PUD Agreement provided for no more than 300
hotel units and 14 residential units for Lot 1, this application
requested 292 units (294 rooms) and 5 residential units.
The application was proceeding through P&Z review in February and
March, when a deadline for a six month extension of the project's
GMQS allotments approached on April 15. We brought the extension
request to Council in April, where it was denied. Therefore, on
April 15 the applicant obtained an excavation permit for the hotel
as originally approved by the City (the 1985 Roberts approval) in
order to keep the project alive. A dispute then arose as to
whether an excavation or a foundation permit was needed to actually
keep the GMQS allotments in place.
To address these several disputes, the City Council initiated
meetings with Hadid Aspen Holdings in April and May to address the
concerns Council members had with the project. The P&Z review was
put on hold, since it was the City staff's position that the
project's GMQS allotments had expired.
The applicant and Council negotiated the project's design features
and unit totals during a series of public meetings. The Council
asked the applicant to "voluntarily" reduce the unit count and the
square footage of what was then called Hotel Phase I (Ritz-Carlton)
and Hotel Phase II (Grand Aspen). The applicant agreed to reduce
the size of the project incrementally, until over several meetings
the hotel size emerged to the acceptable size of 292 hotel and 0
residential units, as specified in Council Resolution 88-11. The
limitation of 50 hotel units and 47 residential units for Phase II
was also established in this Resolution.
The applicant transferred all of the residential units to Lots 3
and 5 because eliminating their square footage resulted in a
significant reduction in the size of the hotel. I cannot recall
any policy discussion which found the residential units to be
inappropriate for Lot 1.
I find language, however, in Resolution 88-11, prohibiting the
applicant from ever requesting additional GMQS allotments for
residential units on Lots 3 and 5 beyond those which had been
transferred there. It will be necessary to carry forward and
update this limitation, to insure that the applicant does not
increase the size of the residential project on these lots beyond
the remaining 41 replacement and previously allotted GMQS units.
It is also interesting to note that another key aspect of the
negotiations was to transfer 24 hotel units to the Blue Spruce
Building. The Roberts Plan had shown 36 such units in the Blue
Spruce Building, but the Hadid application proposed no such units.
The transfer of hotel units to this building was done to allow the
breakup in the mass of the Mill Street facade, while maintaining
the 292 unit hotel count.
At the time, the applicant stated the 292 unit count was critical
to maintain a sufficient block of rooms to attract conferences.
Since this was such an important point in prior applications, I
suggest we have the applicant confirm that their experience in
booking conferences has been that the 257 unit count is adequate.
I would also note that an important concession in Resolution 88-11
was that the project size for Lots 3 and 5 would not exceed 115,000
sq. ft. The application is silent on this issue, although it
obviously proposes to change the number of units to be built. We
should require the applicant to once again agree to the 115,000 sq.
ft. limitation for these lots.
Question 2: Is it necessary to re-score the application to permit
the transfer of residential units between the lots in the PUD?
Response: The attached table summarizes the history of the
development approvals granted to the Aspen Mountain PUD. The table
illustrates the many changes in unit locations which were granted
2
to this project over the years. It can readily be seen how both
lodge and residential units have shifted between the various lots.
We have required the project to be re-scored on two occasions that
I can recall. First was at the conclusion of the original PUD
process, because the configuration of the project and many of its
commitments had changed significantly since Conceptual PUD review,
when the allotments were originally granted. The other re-scoring
was done in 1988, when the projects I s design and many of its
commitments were again changed to accommodate the Ritz-Carlton.
The key to both of these instances were the applicant's proposal to
change the look of the building and certain of its physical
components, for which representations were made and scores granted.
No such changes are proposed at this time, which would necessitate
are-scoring.
It is also important to recall that when the allotments were
initially granted, they were granted to the entire PUD and assigned
to individual lots. This was done because many representations,
such as replacing a water line, undergrounding an electrical line
or providing a trail connection, could not be isolated to a single
lot. The interconnection between the lots is also evidenced by the
original limits placed on the number of units on Lot 1 and 5 (not
more than 300 lodge units and 14 residential units on Lot 1, not
more than 190 lodge units and 14 residential units on Lot 5, but
not more than 447 lodge units and 14 residential units in total).
I conclude that re-scoring of this application is not necessary to
implement the applicant's requests.
3
III
Cll
CII
""
~~
III III
I'l:-
'M 0
b>1ol
'M 110
~~
<JJ
b>
I::
III
.<::
U
o
I::
.,
Ul
.j..l.-l
'M III
I::'M
::l.j..l
I::
.-I<JJ
<JJ'O
.j..l'M
o Ul
'<::<JJUl
1-<.j..l
Cl'I 'M
N<I'I::
MI!l::l
"
Ul
.j..l.-l
..-1 III
I::'M
::l.j..l
I::
.-I<JJ
<JJ'O
.j..l'M
o Ul
'<::<JJUl
1-<.j..l
N 'M
<1'<1'1::
MI!l::l
<l'ul
.j..ll!l.j..l
ul I:: ,.-I .j..l
.j..l<JJ"1::1::
,.-I a~::l <JJ
I::<JJUl a~
::lUOl.-l<JJUl
1ll::E:IllUOl
.-1.-1 t!l..-I 1ll::E:
<JJ 110 .j.J.-I t!l
.j..l<JJNI::P"
01-<r-<JJ<JJN
.<:: ..-1'01-<..-1
I!l ,.-I
r-r-'OUlN'O
<l'N I:: <JJ<I'I::
<o:;fl-ro~-ro
Q
t:)
~
~
~
III
Iol
Q)
~
"
ul III
.j..l O<JJ
,.-1.-101-<
I:: III 0 III
:::S-r-1 ...
.j..l01-<
.....1::Cl'I0
<JJ<JJ..-IO
.j..l'O .....
0-..-1....1.1-I
'<::Ulul
<JJ.j..l .
r- 1-< ,.-I II-<
I!l 1::.
N\D::lUl
"
ul III
.j..l O<JJ
'M.-I01-<
I:: III 0 III
::l'.-I '
.j.J01-<
.-I1::Cl'IO
<JJ <JJ..-I 0
.j..l'O .-I
C.r-! ....l.I-l
'<::Ulul
<JJ.j..l .
Cl'I 1-<'M II-<
r- 1::.
NO::lUl
"
ul
.j..l Olll
,.-1.....0 <JJ
I:: III 0 1-<
::l'.-I 'Ill
.j.J0
.-I1::Cl'I1-I
<JJ <JJ..-I 0
.j..l'O 0
o ,.-I ".-I
.<:: ul UlII-<
<JJ.j.J
N I-I'MII-<
Cl'I 1::.
NO::lUl
o
O.j..l M
M 0 III
I:: 0 <JJ
'0 01-1
Q) ....~ 0 ro
<JJ ul ..-1.-1 '
U.j.J III 01-1
~'.-I '0'.-1 00
<JJ1::<JJ.j..lNO
::l<JJ1:: .....
o U <JJ "II-<
.j..l.....~'OUl
<JJ <JJ..-I.j..l .
.j..l.j..l Ul'.-III-<
000 <JJ I:: '
1::.<::.j..l1-<::lUl
I
..
....
'M
Il'OI'l
.. 0
""....
~
....Iol
o III
>'It>
<JJ
tl'l
I::
III
.<::
U
o
I::
<JJ
b>
I::
III
.<::
U
o
I::
<JJ
tl'l
I::
III
.<::
U
o
I::
II-<
ul
.....
III 0
'.-10
.j..lr-Ill
~ '<JJ
<JJr-1-I
'0 III
-r-! ....
ul UlI-I
<JJ.j..l 0
1-1,.-10
~.-I
M::lII-<
......
N'M Q)
....!~
o:l~
>'ItIJ~
'"
<JJ
tl'l
~
III
.<::
U
o
~
<JJ
tl'l
~
III
.<::
U
o
~
'"
<JJ
tl'l
~
III
.<::
U
o
~
'"
III
.....O<JJ
III 0 1-1
'M 0 III
.j..l ,
~..-II-I
<JJOO
'0..-10
'M .-I
tIl ....4-1
<JJ ul
I-I.j..l .
'Mil-<
M~'
M::lUl
p"
o
Eo<
~
..~
M'M
....:E:
0....
>'10
<JJ
tl'l
~
III
.<::
U
o
~
<JJ
b>
~
III
.<::
U
o
I::
<JJ
b>
I::
III
.<::
U
o
~
III
<JJ
.....01-1
III 0 III
'M 0
.j..l '1-1
I::NO
<JJ..-IO
'0 .....
-r-I....4-I
ul ul
<JJ.j..l .
1-1..-111-<
~ .
<I'::lUl
.. III
"l'1'lQ)
Q)U
....~1lI
Olll~
>'Itll~
'"
" III
Ul.-lO<JJ
.j..l1ll01-l
,.-1,.-10 III
~.j..l ,
::l I:: I!ll-l
<JJ..-IO
.....'0..-10
<JJ'.-I .-I
4J tIl .... 4-l
o <JJ ul
.<:: I-I.j..l .
'M II-<
N '"'" ~ .
r-<I'::lUl
<JJ
b>
I::
III
.<::
U
o
I::
'"
" III
ul.-lO <JJ
.j.J1ll01-<
'M'.-IO III
I::.j..l ,
::l~1!l1-l
<JJ..-IO
.-1'0..-10
<JJ..-I .....
-IJ Ul ....4-f
o <JJ ul
.<:: I-I.j..l .
,.-III-<
o r- ~ .
1!l<l'::lUl
o
Cl'I.j.J M
..-10 III
~ 0 <JJ
'0 01-1
Q,) ...."'" 0 ro
(J) U'lMM ...
U.j..l III 01-1
~'.-I 'O'M I!l 0
<JJ~<JJ.j.J..-I0
::l<JJ1:: .-I
o 0 Q) ....q..j
.j.J.....~'OUl
<JJ <JJ'M.j..l .
.j..l.j..l Ul'.-III-<
000 <JJ ~
~'<::.j..l1-<::lUl
I'l
Q)
110
III
l'll
..
III '0
I'l
....1lI
Olol
>'Itll
.
ul
.j.J
'M
I::
::l
.-I
III
'M
.j..l
I::
<JJ
'0
..-1
ul
<JJ
1-1
I!l
.j..l
o
H
'g
III
ul
<JJ
.j..l
o
z
<I' M
..-I
'0 .j..l
~ 0
III H
<JJ @
tl'l.<JJ
'O.....~
Olll.j..l
.-I:><JJ
r-2..Q
<I' P,,'O
<I' p,,<JJ
'Olll~
<JJo..Q
<JJ ::>'M
Up< 1-1
~ .j..l
<JJ..... ul
.j..l~~
O.j..l
~ p" <JJ
'O~..Q
.-I~O
::l0.j..l
OC)
U ul
1!l'O'.-I
<JJ
'O:>1!l
~'M
1ll<JJ.j..l
U 0
..-I<JJH
1-1
1Il >< ~
.j..l.....II-<
o ~
HO~
~.j..l ~
OU'<::
.j..l<JJ1Il
~'n
<JJ0.j..l
a 1-1 ~
p"p,,<JJ
o a
.-I..... p"
<JJ..... 0
:>'.-1.....
<JJ::E:<JJ
'0 :>
II-<<JJ
.-10'0
III
.j.J p,,<JJ
00'<::
E-<E-<E-<
..-INM
~lIJ
j:l~
Glj:l
g,=
Gl'tl
lIJj:l
~Gl
CIJ~
0-10-1
III III
j:ll>
.... 0
"'104
.... s:1o
~~
Q)
01
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l:::
'-
tIl
~.-I
,.-I trJ
l:::'.-I
::l~
l:::
.-IQ)
Q)'ti
~'.-I
o tIl
'<::Q)tIl
J.!~
'" ,.-I
N<I'l:::
MIO::l
"
tIl
~.-I
,.-I trJ
l:::..-I
::l.jJ
l:::
.-IQ)
Q)'ti
.jJ'.-I
o tIl
'<::Q)tIl
J.!.jJ
N '.-I
<I'<I'l:::
MIO::l
<l'tIl
.jJ1O.jJ
till::: '.-I.jJ
.jJQ)"l:::l:::
'.-1 10 ~::l Q)
l:::Q)Cf.I IO~
::lUOl.-lQ)Cf.I
trJ;;:trJUOl
.-I .-I Cl ,.-I trJ ;;:
Q) s:1o .jJ.-I Cl
.jJQ)Nl:::s:1o
OJ.!t'-Q)Q)N
.<:: ..-I'tiJ.!..-I
10 ..-1
t'-t'-'titllN'ti
<l'Nl:::Q)<I'l':
""-<<:S}...j-Rj
Q
l:>
""
.-I
0-1
III
104
Gl
~
'-
tIl trJ
.jJ OQ)
'.-1.-10 J.!
l':trJOtrJ
~.r-I ..
.jJ0J.!
.-Il':"'O
Q)Q)..-IO
.jJ'ti .-I
Q-,..j ....1.1-{
'<::tIltll
Q).jJ .
t'- J.!'.-IlI-l
10 l':.
N\D::ltll
"
tIl trJ
.jJ OQ)
'.-1.-10 J.!
l:::trJOtrJ
:;:$o..-j ...
.jJ0J.!
.-Il:::"'O
Q)Q)..-IO
.jJ'ti .-I
0..-1 ....<i-l
'<::tIltll
Q).jJ .
'" J.!'.-IlI-l
t'- l':.
NO::ltll
"
tIl
.jJ OtrJ
,.-1.-10 Q)
l':trJOJ.!
::l'.-I - trJ
.jJ0
.-Il':"'J.!
Q)Q)..-IO
.jJ'ti 0
o.r-! ...........
.<:: tIl tIlll-l
Q).jJ
N J.!'.-IlI-l
'" l':.
NO::ltll
o
0.jJ ....
MO trJ
l::: 0 Q)
'ti OJ.!
Q) ......., 0 ro
Q) tIlr-t1"'"i ..
U.jJ trJ 0 J.!
X'.-I 'ti'.-I 00
Q)l:::Q).jJNO
::lQ)l::: .-I
o U Q) "lI-l
.jJ.-IX'titll
Q) Q)'.-I.jJ .
.jJ.jJ tIl'.-IlI-l
000 Q) l':
l':'<::.jJJ.!::ltll
I
0:1
~
....
Illj:l
..0
"~
0-1
~k
o III
~CJ
Q)
01
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l':
Q)
01
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l:::
Q)
'"
l':
trJ
.<::
U
o
l:::
.-I
trJo
,.-10
.jJt'-trJ
l': - Q)
Q)t'-J.!
'ti trJ
OM ....
tIl tIl J.!
Q).jJ 0
J.!'.-IO
l':.-I
M::lll-l
..~
....... Gl
~!lg
o!:lo-l
~CIJ""
'"
Q)
01
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l':
Q)
'"
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l':
'"
Q)
01
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l':
.
lI-l
.
tIl
'"
trJ
.-IOQ)
trJo J.!
'.-10 trJ
.jJ -
l:::..-IJ.!
Q)OO
'ti..-lO
'.-I .-I
tIl ....l.I-{
Q) tIl
J.!.jJ .
'.-IlI-l
M l': .
M::ltll
s:1o
o
Eo<
0-1
..0-1
Pl....
:E:
~
Oll-l
~O
Q)
'"
l':
trJ
.<::
U
o
l':
Q)
01
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l':
Q)
'"
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l:::
trJ
Q)
.-IoJ.!
trJotrJ
,.-10
.jJ -J.!
l':NO
Q)..-IO
'ti .-I
'r-! ....<1-1
tIl tIl
Q).jJ .
J.!'.-IlI-l
l': .
<I'::ltll
.. III
"'I'lGl
Gl 0
~0-I1ll
o III 0-1
~Cl""
'"
" trJ
tIl.-loQ)
.jJtrJoJ.!
'.-1,.-10 trJ
l':.jJ -
::l l': 10 J.!
Q) ..-I 0
.-I'ti..-lO
Q)'.-I .-I
-CJ Ul .....<i-l
o Q) tIl
.<:: J.!.jJ .
'.-IlI-l
NH t:: .
t'-<I'::ltll
Q)
'"
l:::
trJ
.<::
U
o
l':
'"
" trJ
tIl.-loQ)
.jJtrJoJ.!
,.-1,.-10 trJ
l':.jJ -
::ll:::IOJ.!
Q)..-IO
.-I'ti..-lO
Q)..-I .-I
+J Ul ....<1-1
o Q) tIl
.<:: J.!.jJ .
,.-IlI-l
ot'-l':
1O<I'::ltll
o
",.jJ ....
..-10 trJ
l': 0 Q)
'ti OJ.!
QJ ......., 0 to:
Q) tIl ..-1.-1 _
U.jJ trJ 0 J.!
X ,.-I 'ti '.-110 0
Q)l:::Q).jJ..-I0
::lQ)l::: .-I
o U Q) "lI-l
.jJ.-IX'titll
Q) Q)..-I.jJ .
.jJ.jJ tIl'.-IlI-l
000 Q) l': .
l':'<::.jJJ.!::ltll
I'l
GI
s:1o
lIJ
till
..
1Il'tl
I'l
~Ill
Ok
~Cl
tIl
.jJ
'.-1
l':
::l
.-I
trJ
'.-I 10
.jJ
l::: .jJ
Q) 0
'ti ~
,.-I
tIl 'ti
Q) l':
J.! trJ
tIl
Q)
.jJ
o
z
<I' M
..-I
'ti .jJ
l': 0
trJ H
Q) @
C1.Q)
'ti.-l:;:
OtrJ.jJ
.-I>Q)
t'-8.Q
<I' o.'ti
<I' 0. Q)
'titrJ~
Q)Q.Q
Q) l:> ,.-I
Up.,J.!
X .jJ
Q).-I tIl
.jJ trJ..-I
oll'ti
l': 0. Q)
'ti~.Q
.-Il:::O
::lo~
Ou
U tIl
I!)'ti'.-I
Q)
'ti>1!)
l':'.-I
trJQ).jJ
U 0
..-IQ)H
J.!
JJ><~
O.-lll-l
Hal':
l': :;:
0.jJ 0
U.<::
.jJQ)tIl
l:::'n
Q)0.jJ
10 J.! l:::
0.0.Q)
o 10
.-1.-1 0.
Q).-IO
>'.-1.-1
Q);;:Q)
'ti >
lI-lQ)
.-IO'ti
trJ
.jJ 0. Q)
00'<::
E-<E-<E-<
. . .
""NM
.'
(
C'
March 6, 1992
Mr. Perry Harvey
Savanah Limited Partnership
600 East Cooper Avenue, Suite 200
Aspen, Colorado 81611
l
Dear Perry:
I am submitting this letter to you in belated response to your
correspondence dated February lOth addressing our continuing
debate over the application of the old and present Municipal Code
to the Aspen Mountain PUD.
While I acknowledge that you have presented some reasonable
arguments for your position that the former Municipal Code should
govern any and all amendments to the existing approvals for the
Aspen Mountain PUD, as I have stated previously, it is my judg-
ment and opinion that a blanket application of the old code to
currently proposed and future amendments to the PUD is (1) not
provided for in the existing PUD agreement, (2) is not consistent
with sound public land .use policy, and (3) is not warranted under
the circumstances of the subject PUD.
It is still my view, and the position of the Planning Department,
that where specific reference is made in the PUD agreement to the
application of the old code, any amendments thereto shall be
governed by the old code. Where the agreement is silent, we have
to examine the proposed amendment individually and determine
which code applies, keeping in mind the approvals as granted in
the agreement. If application of the current code defeats a
substantive purpose or approval as contained in the agreement,
then the old code would most likely be utilized. Again, I think
it requires an issue-by-issue analysis. To the extent you wish
for the City to commit uncategorically to the application of the
old code to all amendments, we simply cannot do it.
I hope this letter is helpful in better clarifying the City's
position.
@ recyc/cd paper
,..j6\;\itj'.,;;"",..:O....,
(
c
Letter to Mr. Perry Harvey
March 6, 1992
Page 2
Thanks.
Very truly yours,
/:;"IJ,,~, /l:A-/) ~
/.,~"~v". ~
Edward M. Caswall
city Attorney
EMC/mc
jc35.3
cc: Planning Director
city Manager
Robert W. Hughes, Esq.
!!>--- _~_._:t
~ '?u
"
vb #L~
~vs~ ~iu/~:uf~
November 24, 1992
Mr. Dave Tolen
Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office
Delivered by FAX to 920-5580
Dear Dave:
. Since there has been some confusion about the revisions to the employee
generation figures included in the Ritz-carlton PUD Amendment
application, I thought it would be helpful to restate the figures another way to
try to clarify.
Under the original approvals granted in 1985 (Roberts), 447 lodge units were
approved for construction on Lots 1 and 5 of the PUD.This total included 172
lodge GMQS allocations and 275 replacement lodge units. When this
approval was amended as spelled out in the First Amended and Restated PUD
Agreement, the maximum number of lodge units was reduced to 342 (292 in
Phase I, o~O in Phase II, or Lot 5). This reduction in the total
number of lodge units permitted in the PUD had the effect of reducing the
lodge GMQS allocations for the project from 172 to 77, since the buildout
could be accomplished with these 77 allocations and the 275 replacement
units. Nonetheless, when we recalculated the employee generation figures for
inclusion in Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement,
we retained the original allocation of 172. In the calculations of employee
generation from lodge operations, the balance of the Phase I buildout of 292
lodge units was therefore made up of 120 of the replacement lodge units as
reflected in Exhibit B.
In the 1992 Amended PUD SubmissionAtoJ:._Lot 1, the ~~~~ buildoqj...fpr
lodge units has been further reduced to~ (257 in Phase I, or Lot 1, an~in
Phase II, or Lot 5). When we recalculated the employee generation figures for
the project for inclusion in the new application (page 13), we retained the
same format as Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement,
but we decided to acknowledge that some of the Originall~ allocation of
172 could not be utilized because of the reductions in the ~ buildout
of lodge units permitted in the PUD, The ~~ buildout in the PUD can
be achieved with the 275 replacement units ane! .s+Iodg~.,GMQS allocations.
TherefoJ~..,tI:te 257 lodge units in Phase I is made up of~eplacement units
and the .;+IOdge GMQS allocations; this is reflected in the chart on the top of
page 14 of the application, which deals only with Phase I lodge units.
.
/"""0;
,";
o
Mr, Dave Tolen
page 2
To some extent, these generation calculations are unimportant because of the
audit which will ultimately establish the actual employee generation of the
project: in addition, the owner's original commitment to house 198.5 has
been maintained in the proposed amendment. Please let me know if you still
have questions about the calculations, however.
Sincerely,
Joseph Wells, AICP
cc: Dianne Moore
Perry Harvey
Ferd Belz
F'1
Under Ordinance 12, Series of 1991, Savanah obligai:ed to provide housing for
additional employees for the Ice Rink and Park approved for Lot 6, and for a third
additional employee if food service is provided. These additional employees will be
housed in deed-restricted rooms in the Grand Aspen as provided for in the
ordinance.
The First Amended PUD Agreement (Section E) requires that the affordable housing
obligation for Hotel Phase IT (or Lot 5), if any, be established by an amendment
process, based on the fmal development program for Hotel Phase IT. Existing
development on Lot 5 presently includes a 155 unit full-service hotel with
conference, restaurant and bar facilities. In all probability, reconstruction on Lot 5
will result in a dramatic decrease in employee generation. Nonetheless, the amount
will be established in a future amendment. The affordable housing obligation for
the 8 residential GMQS units in Hotel Phase IT will also be established in the
amended Submission for Lot 5. The remaining residential units in the PUD,
including those to be utilized in the development program for Lot 3 (Top of Mill)
are replacement units; the affordable housing obligation associated with all of the
replacement residential units, which was established under the original PUD
Agreement at 29 to be housed, was reaffirmed under the First Amended PUD
Agreement (Exhibit B).
In order to establish the revised employee generation for Hotel Phase I, Galena
Place, Summit Place and Replacement Housing resulting from the addition of
residential units sought by this amendment request, the same factors used in
Exhibit B of the First Amended PUD Agreement !;lave been applied to the existing
devel~,;.nt <lllii to the re~ainder~Of the proposal: , c:-; ~ . J_ - [ IJ,.~~
1/lI7'6. 'M 1"16t:/'CG5 (, ~ VR.ifi' /4.r ,l!dz..-/I "," -c.. ('.f<.I1'J /41 ~/"f//
1. Lodge Operation:
New lodge rooms (229) 229
New 1-BR Suites (26) 26
New 2-BR Suites (2) ~
Total Bedrooms (257 units) 259*
Living Rooms. @ 25% :z
Total Rooms 266
Employees per lodge room .36
Employee generation 95.76
13
(")
(")
Las 1'2~
.20
-40.604 2S: "
-55;M 70. 7G.
60%
..33.10' 4z.4c:.
,. The number of hotel bedrooms is two greater than the number of hotel units
because of the second bedroom in the two Ritz-Carlton suites.
3.
4.
Existing lodge rooms being rebui1tf~f#I;")
(257 units les~-5*allocations)
Employees per HS8In
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMQS employees housed
Employees to be housed
2.
Accessory Food and Beverage:
New restaurant sq.ft. (net)
New lounge sq.ft. (net)
New kitchen sq.ft. (net)
Subtotal, New food & beverage sq.ft.
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
Existing F&B and Kitchen sq.ft.
Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMQS employees housed
Employees to be housed
Accessory Retail:
New net leaseable retail sq.ft.
Employee per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
Existing net leasable retail sq.ft.
Employees per 1,000 sq,ft.
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMQS employees housed
Employees to be housed
Non-Accessory Commercial GMQS,_Phase I:
New retail
Employee per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
14
3,713
3,163
4.441
11,317
12,8
114.86
4,900
-2,Q
44.1
100.76
60%
60.46
5,770
-..M
20.2
700
-..M
2.5
17,7
60%
10.6
o
3,5
o
o
5.
. .
Population of
4 3-BRs @ 3.0/ du (58%)
Employees to be housed (42%)
6. Employee Housing Replacement:
Employees to be housed
Summary of Employees to be Housed:
1. Lodge Operations
2. Accessory Food & Beverage
3. Accessory Retail
4. Non-Accessory Commercial GMQS
5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4)
6. Replacement Housing
Total, Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 4 and Replacement
Employees to be Housed
12.0
8.7
33,1 +2,r;-
60.5
10.6
0.0
8.7
29.0
141.9 f5'f.B
The revisions to the program proposed in this application for the Ritz-Carlton site
result in a net reduction in full-time equivalent employment from 247.5 to 214,6, or
32.9 employees from that approved under the First Aniended PUD Agreement.
This is consistent with the compromise arrived at with the City (which led to the
adoption of the First Amended PUD Agreement) to develop a program for the PUD
which would result in significantly reduced hotel rooms and amenities and
therefore reduced impacts on the community. At 60% to be housed, the credit to the
overall PUD obligation is 19.6 employees to be housed.
Although the affordable housing obligation for Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summit
Place and Replacement Housing within the PUD is reduced by 19,6 employees to
141.9, Savanah is nonetheless maintaining its prior commitment to house 198.5, as
well as to house 60% of the full-time equivalent employees of the Ritz-Carlton in
excess of 330.8, if any, to be determined by the audit procedure established in the
First Amended PUD Agreement.
C Effect of the proposal on required parking:
Under paragraph B(6) of the First Amended PUD Agreement, 220 subgrade
spaces are required to be provided on Lot 1 for the approved 294 lodge
15
"""')~
..:.--....
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 5, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
city Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an
application submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership, 600 E. Cooper
Ave., suite 200, Aspen, Colorado, requesting approval of' an
amendment to. the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development/Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to replace 22 lodge rooms
approved for Lot 1 with no more than 6 residential units, on the
second and third levels of the hotel wing fronting on Durant st.
(the "Blue Spruce" building), and is also requesting subdivision
approval to subdivide Lot 1 into two lots and condominiumization
of the Blue Spruce building. For further information, contact
Diane Moore at the Aspen/Pitkin planning Office, 130 S. Galena st.,
Aspen, Colorado 920-5090
s/Jasmine Tvare. Chairman
Planning and Zoning commission
Published in the Aspen Times on December 18, 1992
===:--======----=----=====---=====================================
city of Aspen Account
,
,-", ...,,:
.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AKENDMENTTO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 5, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 s. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, amending city of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 24-5-214, the Lodge/Tourist Residential
(L/TR) Zone District, to add a conditional use to allow commercial
parking on a day use basis for excess capacity in a parking
structure or garage built on the same land parcel as, and in
connection with, a full service hotel. For further information,
contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 s.
Galena st., Aspen, Colorado 920-5090
s/Jasmine Tvare. Chairman
Planning and Zoning commission
Published in the Aspen Times on December 18, 1992
=================================================================
City of Aspen Account
..t.
PUBLIC NOTtCE
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 5, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an
application submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership, 600 E. Cooper
Ave., suite 200, Aspen, Colorado, requesting approval of an
amendment to the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development/Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to replace 22 lodge rooms
approved for Lot 1 with no more than 6 residential units, on the
second and third levels of the hotel wing fronting on Durant st.
(the "Blue Spruce" building), and is also requesting subdivision
approval to subdivide Lot 1 into two lots and condominiumization
of the Blue Spruce building. For further information, contact
Diane Moore at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office; 130 S. Galena st.,
Aspen, Colorado 920-5090
s/Jasmine Tvqre. Chairman
Planning and ~oning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on December 18, 1992
--------~-------------~-~~~--------------~------------------~----
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Aspen Account
NDV-25-'92 WED 08:55 ID:
ti:L NO:
. . 1I~;25 P02
Joseph Wells
JOIe\lb WeIla, AICP
iIIl4 Plannlna md llcstgn
November 24, 1992
Mr. Dave Tolen
Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office
Delivered by PAX to 920-5580
Dear Dave:
Since there has been some confusion about the revisions to the employee
generation figures included in the Ritz.Carlton PUD Amendment
application, I thought it would be helpful to restate the figures another way to
try to clarify.
Under the original approvals granted in 1985 (Roberts), 447 lodge units were
approved for construction on Lots 1 and 5 of the PUD.This total included 172
lodge GMQS allocations and 275 replacement lodge units. When this
approval was amended as spelled out in the First Amended and Restated PUD
Agreement, the maximum number of lodge units was reduced to 342 (292 in
Pl\ase I, or Lot I, and 50 In Phase U, or Lot 5). This reduction in the total
number of lodge units permitted in the PUD had the effect of reducing the
lodge GMQS allocations for the pro~t from 172 to 77, since the buildout
could be accomplished with these 17 allocations and the 275 replacement
units. Nonetheless, when we recalculated the employee generation figures for
inclusion in Bxhlbit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement,
we retained the original allocation of 172. In the calculations of employee
generation from lodge operations, the balance of the Phase ~ buildout of 292
lodge units was therefore made up of 120 of the replacement lodge units as
reflected in Exhibit B.
In the 1992 Amended PUD Submission for Lot 1, the maximum buildout for
lodge units has been further reduced to 329 (257 in Phase I, or Lot I, and 72 in
Phase D, Or Lot 5). When we recalculated the employee generation f4tures for
the project for inclusion in the new application (page 13), we retainea the
same fonnat as Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement,
but we decided to acknowledge that some of the original lodge allocation of
172 could not be utilized because of the reductions in the maximum buildout
of lod~e units pennitted in the PUD. The maximum buildout in the PUD can
be achieved with the 275 replacement units and 54 lodge GMQS allocations.
Therefore, the 2571od8e units in Phase I is made up of203 replacement units
and the 54 lodge GMQS allocations; this is reflected in the chart on the top of
page 14 of the application, which deals only with Phase I lodge units.
130 MldIIDcI Puk PIa<P. Number n
eE,ColoIIda 81611
Iione (303) 935-8080
mile (303) 93s-8m
NOV-25-'92 WED 08:56 ID:
TEL NO:
11225 P03
~'._-,
Mr. Dave Tolen
pase 2
"
To some extent, these generation calculations are unimportant because of the
audit which will ultimately establish the actual employee generation of the
project: in addition, the owner's original commitment to house 198.5 has
been maintained in the proposed amendment. Please let me know it you still
have questions about the calculations, however. . .
-sincerely,
VIePh W ., AICP
a:: Dianne Moore
Perry Harvey
!lerd Belz
j
1
j
H.EAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
Novelnber 23, 1984
Mr. ]\~an Richman
Aspen 'Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen ~buntain Lodge PUD
Replacement of Displaced Employee Housing
Dear AJ"an,
submitted herein is information concerning the replacement of
employee housing which will be displaced by trle Aspen ~buntain
Lodge PUD. The information complies with section 20-22 &23 of
the Aspen Municipal Code and responds to the Aspen/Pitkin-Housing
Office letter of February 3, 1984, in Attachment A. The informa-
tion addresses each item raised by the Housing Office letter.
l-A. Melville II Building. The Melville II building (Haerdle
Cottage) has been used by Mr. Melville for employee housing for
the ~buntain O1alet as expressed in his letter in Attachment B.
The four bedroom building houses from 8-12 employees in the win-
ter and 4-8 employees in the summer. Averaging the high winter
occupancy of 12-employees and the high summer occupancy of 8
employees gives an average of 10 employees on a year-round basis.
l-A. Black Residence. The lower apartment of the Black
residence houses a married couple (2 employees) per Mr. Black's
letter in Attachment C.
l-B. Townplace Apartments. The 2 Townplace apartments have
housed up to 4 management employees per Richard wilhelm's letter
in At tachrnent D.
l-C. Off-site Housing. The only off-site employee housing pro-
vided for the Aspen Inn, Continental Inn, and Blue Spruce has
been in the Holiday House Lodge. Per Richard Wilhelm's letter in
Attacrunent D, 7-10 employees have been housed as needed in the 5
deed restricted and '2 free-market garden level units in the
Holiday House Lodge. As you know the Hillside Lodge is proposed
to be exchanged for the Holiday House Lodge which will result in
a net increase in employee housing as described in item l-D.
?\urtll of .\clJ DuilJing
P.O. Box 3159. Aspen.ColMJ"lo 31611
T clcI,llollc: ~o:\) <J25..~530
144
-=--
iI
.
II
:r~r
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
II
.
II
--
Il
.
~
.
lit
.
--
..
IIIl
~
..
-
Incorporated
t.tt. Alan Richman
November 23, 1984
page Two
I-D. 'Holiday House Lodge and Hillside Lodge Exchange. 'l'he
Holiday House Lodge is to be exchanged for the Hillside Lodge.
The Hillside Lodge has 14 units (14 bedrooms) while t11e Holiday
House has 27 units (33 bedrooms). The Hillside Lodge houses up
to 30 employees in a shared room living arrangement which
averages approximately 2 employees per bedroom. If the Holiday
House is used in a s~nilar donnitory manner, it could house up to
66 employees at 2 employees per bedroom. Using the Hou.sing
Authority's recently adopted dormitory standard of 150 sf per
employee applied only to the net living area of the Holiday House
(9,672 sf) would allow for 75 employees. Another ex~~ple of a
simple dormitory configuration for the Holiday House is given
below:
Holiday House Lodge
21 units std. lodge unit 275 sf avg. @ 1 emp.junit = 21 emp.
5 units - 2 bdrm.ldg.unit 596 sf avg. @ 3 emp.junit = 15 emp.
1 unit 2 bdrm. apt. 917 sf avg. @ 4 emp.junit = ~emp.
27 units 40 emp.
As demonstrated, the Holiday House Lodge can easily house 40 to
66 employees in a dormitory manner, which is the likely manner
the Lodge will be used. Therefore, the exchange of the Hillside
Lodge for the Holiday House Lodge will result in no net loss of
employee housing to the community but will actually produce a net
gain as shown below:
Existing
Hillside Lodge-
Holiday House -
with Exchange
emp.housed
emp .housed
emp.housed
30
10
40
Holiday House- 40-66 emp.housed
I also wish to emphasize the Holiday House Lodge will provide not
only more, but also a higher quality of employee housing because
of increased employee privacy and amenities as the swimming pool,
saunas and lanundry room.'
2. Mine Dumps.
at the Mine Dumps
in Attachment D.
No employees of the existing hotels are housed
on a special basis per Richard Wilhelm's letter
3. 1978 Aspen Inn Expansion, In the 1978 Aspen Inn Expansion
GMP application for 36 free~~~rket l?dge units in Attachment E,
1-1r.. Cantrup did represent a commitment for 24 employee units
housing 35 employees. The Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant feels
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
Incorporated
Mr. Alan Richman
Nove~ber 23, 1984
Page Three
this was an unreasonable and as demonstrated unfulfilled commit-
ment by Mr. Cantrup and that the present applicant should not be
bound by Mr. Cantrup's action. To meet the intent of Code
Section 20-23(2) the present applicant will commit to house 100%
of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units of the 1978
Aspen Inn expansion application or to house 13 employees. (36
lodge rooms x .36 emp./room = 13 employees.) The commitment to
house 100% of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units is
generous given that the appl+cant'sGMP commitment for new lodge
units is-to house 60% of the employees generated.
In summary, the Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant feels he complies
with Section 20-22 & 23 of the Code by commiting to house the
following displaced employees:
Melville II replacement
Black residence replacement
Townplace Apts. replacement
Hillside-Holiday exchange
Mine Dumps
1978 Aspen Inn expansion
10 employees
2 employees
4 employees
o no emp. displacement
o no emp. displacement
13 employees
29 employees
Once you have revievled the submitted information, please feel
free to give me a call on any questions.
JC:cck
Enclosures
Sincerely, 1
\ . /} \
p^'" ~((Z7
\Jim Curtis .
\j
cc: Jir.l Ada"lski, Aspen/pitkin Housing Office
lilt:
W"-'f-> Z
0 G:lt' 'dG:lt' Ot' 'dl'Dt' ot' 0
rt 110 ~1lI0 ....0 ~io 11I0 <:
(\) IlIrt llI~rt :crt III rt I1rt III
{Jl 1:1 o III 0 ~ 11
888 a.u. llll:l'" ...w III ... N rtl-' III
::>'00 .. III .. ~.. rt .. 0" ~
(\) '0 rt lIoI ~ I:Illl ~
PJ l/l >:3 ...
0,01-' '0 0 rt 'd
(\)Hl III 'tI N c::
< 0, 1:1 I t:l
(\):3:(\)
I-' ....,<
01-' (\)
'OI-'l-' {Jl C 11 rt::>'::l {JlC'" {JlCW HlCw (JlCl1rt::>'::l PJ~11 PJ~"" lIoIO
!3 0 . ::l CD 000 . ::l . ::lW I-'::l ::l (\) 000 ::l""(\) ::l"-''''' 'tI11
(\)'O~ Hl ....' {Jl rtrt Hl .....11 Hl ..... 0.....11 Hl ..... (Jl rtrt o,"-'{Jlo,-..J-..J 'tI ...
::l11 . rt ..... (\) (\) . rt(\) . rtl1 o rt (\) . rt ....' CD (\) ..... \11 I1IQ
rtO(\) {Jlo,~l-'rt {Jl {Jl {Jl (\) 11 {Jl {Jl {Jlo,~l-'rt f->l1o,f-> ::>' 0...
1"J,::l Hl~. (\) a 0 1-1).....1-- 1-1).... en ....1-'- t-f).... CD (1 0 "-'(\)CD-..J110 <:1:1
(Jl(\)rt I-' ::l(\)C I-' 0, I-' ..... PJ 0, I-' ::l (\) C 'O::l"-'(\)rt 11I11I
::>'a Of->rt(\)::l(\) Of->(\) Of->o, 11-.J(\) O"-'rt(\)::l(\) G'l I-' rt '0 (\) ~~
o rt 0 o \11 ....' 0,....' ~ O"-'::l OO(\) (\)~ ::l Oo....'o,....'~ :3: PJ ....' G'l I-' I-'
oe: ::l 110PJ rta 11~ rt 11f->::l PJ-..Jrt 110PJ rta lOaPJ:3:PJ
::lgl:"' ~ I-'f->{Jl(\) 0...., ~ rt 0...., - I-'f->{Jl(\) [J)(\)l-'lOaC
PJO .r;::..... CD PJOPJ PJ 0..... OPJ PJo .,:::..... CD ~!3 [J)(\)::l
Hll-'O 110 0, 1101-' 110PJ I-' 110 0, (\) C ~!3 .....
o,<:rt (\) 0 ::l (\) (\)01-' {Jl (\)0 ::l ::l::l"(\)rt
11 {Jl PJ Of-> PJ PJ PJ OW rt ....' ::l {Jl
11 I-' rtlO '" Hl I-' rto rt\11rt
I:"'(\)f-> 0 0 {Jl ""
o a PJ
rl' e,::l {JlC"'\11 ::l ::l ::l (JlCO"-' C\11W
\11<0, . ::l-..Jo 0 0 0 . ::l 10 ::l""'"
(\) Hl ....' Hl .....11 "-' ..... "-'
....' 0, \11 . rtl1::>' a a a rt(\) rtl1
{Jl a {Jl (\) 0 ::>' ::>' ::>' Hl{Jl{Jl::>' {Jl(\)::>'
(') H).... 00 rt PJ PJ PJ f-J.... .....0 (Jl 0
rtOO I-' .....(\) ::l ::l ::l 0 o,rt ....'rt
o ::l C Of->o,l-' "I "I "I Of->(\)(\) o,(\)
a I-' Of->(\) (\) (\) (\) 111O::l1-' (\)1-'
tr(\)o, 11\11::lC w ort ::l
(\)'0 ::l ~ rt::l PJ- .....C rtC
rt PJ 0....,..... 110PJ::l ....'::l
o,CO 110PJrt (\) 01-'...., PJ ....'
.....PJ rt (\)Ol-'{Jl PJO rt I-'rt
(Jl I-'(\) PJ " {Jl (Jl
q'tlB w " "
....'c::: (\)
tro(\) ::l ::l ::l ::l {Jl C 0"-' C \11W
:;'PJo, 0 0 0 0 . ::l -..J ::l"'''-'
(\)'0", Hl ....' 11 10 ....' 10
0,'0 "" a a a a . rtCD rtl1
tra-..J ::>' ::>' ::>' ::>' {Jl{Jl::>' {Jl(\)::>'
PJ PJ PJ PJ 1;)....1-'-0 {Jl 0
(\)<1-' ::l ::l ::l ::l I-' o,rt 1-" rt
rl'PJo "I "I "I "I Of->(\)(\) o,(\)
oe:l-'o, (\) (\) (\) (\) o 1O::l I-' (\)1-'
(\)."1 110rt ::l
(\) (\) - ....,C rtC
::l PJoPJ::l .....::l
PJ 11 01-'..... PJ ....'
I:"' ::l (\)0 rt I-'rt
0 0, PJ {Jl {Jl
rt " "
f->
W '"
PJ 11 {JlC""-..J ::l ::l ::l {Jl C "'''-' ::l 0
::l (\) . ::If->''-' 0 0 0 . ::l \11 0 s::
0, (Jl Hl ....' Hl .....11 -..J 11
..... . rtl1::>' a a a . rt(\) a 11
I:"' 0, {Jl (\) 0 ::>' ::>' ::>' (Jl{Jl::>' ::>' III
0 (\) t1).... en rt PJ PJ PJ t1)....1-'.0 PJ 1:1
rt ::l I-' ....'(\) ::l ::l ::l I-' o,rt ::l rt
rt Of->o,l-' "I "I "I Of->(\)(\) "I
\11 ....' Of->(\) (\) (\) (\) o 1O::l I-' (\) 'd
PJ 11\11::lC w 110rt 11
I-' ~ rt::l - .....C 0
PJ 0....,..... PJoPJ::l 'tI
C 110PJrt 11 0 1-'..... 0
::l (\)Ol-'{Jl (\)0 rt l/l
....' PJ ~. PJ {Jl III
rt w " ~
{Jl
Aspen Mountain Subdivision
A) I approved an
amendment for the
which included the
insubstantial plat (5th Amended Plat)
Aspen Mountain Subdivision in October
following:
and PUD
of 1992
1) The elimination of eleven (11) lodge rooms - the development
rights to these units will not be transfered to other lots within
the Aspen Mountain Subdivision.
2) Parking tabulation - The First Amended and Restated PUD
Agreement lists 220 subgrade spaces and 10 guest and service
loading spaces. Applicant requested the elimination of 3 spaces in
the porte cochere area and the loading dock areas identified on the
south side of Dean Street. Applicant also requested the elimination
of 3 subgrade spaces due to the addition of a stairwell within the
garage. Thus, the subgrade spaces would total 217 and the parking
spaces in the porte cochere area/loading dock area on the south
side of Dean Street wou,ld total 7 spaces.
3) The applicant agreed, during the insubstantial plat review, not
to readdress the employee housing requirement relating to the
elimination of the eleven (11) hotel rooms. This will be addressed
at the time that the Ritz institutes the employee audit for the
hotel, which is required ~ yeat5from the date of issuance of the
certificate of Occupancy f r the hotel.
"2-
4) The applicant also proposed to establish a sports Activity
Center for the guests of the hotel in the entry level space of the
Blue Spruce building. This use will replace two of the four spaces
approved for retail shops with an equipment storage and rental
area, and reception desk. One of the remaining retail spaces will
open directly onto the Activity Center reception area. The uses
are consistent with the uses identified in the PUD Agreement and
the revision was approved through the insubstantial plat amendment
process.
5) Applicant also requested a minor change to the Dean Street entry
to the lower level of the Blue Spruce building and this was also
approved.
Other minor changes (removing connecting doors, revising roof stair
layout, adding mechanical space etc...) within the hotel were
identified and approved during the insubstantial plat approval.
B) The applicant also submitted another insubstantial plat
amendment for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision in November
of 1992 and I am currently undergoing the review of this
application:
1) Applicant would like to eliminate two (2) additional lodge
rooms and convert this space to an accessory beauty salon. This
reduces the number of lodge rooms in the hotel to 279 from the 281
units approved under the Fifth Amended Plat. The beauty salon is
a permitted accessory use within the PUD Agreement.
2) The total number of dining seats approved wi thin the PUD
Agreement is 204 seats. Applicant proposes to add the space
designated on the recorded drawings as the "Grille/Bar" to "Grille
Dining" area. The change has no ef,fect on employee generation for
the food and beverage space because the generation factor agreed
upon by the city is the same for dining square footage and lounge
square footage. The dining seat laYouts on the proposed revised
plat confirm that the layouts are in conformance with the
limitation on dining seats.
~
~ ."
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
1\1 OCT 261992
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health Department
Zoning Administration
Aspen Fire Protection District
Building Inspector
Diane Moore, Planning Office
Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1
Parcel ill No, 2737-182-85-0011005
October 15, 1992
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Savanah Limited
Partnership.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 12, 1992.
The Design Review Committee will be meeting on November 5, 1992, at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor
City Council Chambers.
Thank you.
f!Jo Comme/LJ1'5 /'! 7 7#/.5 7//?J e:-
,
j
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO
Diane Moore
BC
Jed Caswall
From: Jed Caswall
Postmark: Nov 11,92 10:57 AM
Subject: Forwarded: Aspen Mountain Subdivision (Ritz) PUD Amendment
------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------
Comments:
From Jed Caswall:
Can your Dept respond on this--we can talk about it on friday.
Message:
From Rob Thomson:
the Ritz is proposing to condominiumize the 2nd and third floor of
the Blue Spruce Building. Typically when we condominiumize a
building we ask them to show designated parking on the condominium
map. Since they will be utilizing the parking structure in the Ritz
is it o.k. to designate the parking spaces in the condo documents
rather on the plat? The applicant doesn't want to designate specific
spaces primarily because parking will be handled by valets.
1t~ ~'
/\"e1) -------========x========------- --p
:J \ ~~ f~
~;" "'^ (jJ!r- q
cf\ ~'d. ~ \1' di'- cP-
rY*~\1
'to Uv'L- USe., CU (('0, ~ CV~ ?""lun,\ r^"'~
{f --0~ ~ ~~fu~ (ffil) cLo 0:- &7S ().-~ Lue..-
-tf"-" ftei","S pa.J:i^j cJ~ .r~ k;r
1])A In -rht:, IqE;q: PM~j ztuLo~
.i{;:]
ASPEN. PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
,\ [? (f' ~ 1lW7 f:g ~
II "', -.11111
I:
NOV I 11992 i
I
L UL_, l[ll':
To: Diane Moore, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: November 14, 1992
Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-85-001-005
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant serves the project with public sewer as provided by
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with
Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin Countv Requlations On Individual Sewaqe
Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems
wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of
individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not
feasible for public sewers".
The sewer collection lines are in place and can accommodate the
proposed changes in this section of the building.
ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant serves the project with water provided by the Aspen
Water Department distribution system. This conforms with section
23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which
use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility
system".
The City water distribution mains are in place and can accommodate
the flows and demand expected from the proposed changes in this
section of the building.
AIR OUALITY:
The location of the proposed development provides easy access to
town by walking, biking, or riding the bus. Parking is to be
provided for the six units in the valet parking garage. This
amendment and change of use should have little effect on the total
air quality impact of the project.
This development will have a small effect on air quality. No
woodburning fireplaces are allowed in the metro area, and the two
130 South Galena Street
Aspen. Colorado 81611
303/920-6070
recycled paper
I
-':
''e
AspElnMountain Subdivision PUDAmeIid.ment/Lot 1
November 14, 1992
Page 2
fr'
gas-log fireplases arElalready alloGated .t.o tpEl build~ng. Gas
appliances for the six units are allowed,howevElr, the application
dOEls not address what is planIied Of proposEld.
NOISE:
There are no obviously be noise gElMratedby thEl iIitended. change
of use oJ this part of the facility, as construction activities are
OGcurring inside. The applicant, s110uld still take appropriate
steps ,to minimizEl noisEl lElaving the facility and. into surrounding
neighborhoods.
Should complaints be received by this office/. Chapte:r 1<5 of thEl
Aspen Municipal Code -Noise AbatElment, will bel the document used.
in thEl investj.gatj.on. It 'is 'iJl1po:i:t~nt tfiatt:)laappfican't13ec6!l1'e
familiar with the regulationanq d~sign aCGordingly.
-.
",:.;
';41
,"'~
~
*'!
to1l
I
,;~
i!i
"'.,,/ ~
I
I
I
I
I ..'..,''',.\
:i~:';. -:"j
I .'
I
I
I
I
U
.
18
.
~
.,
~. .
)
remaining portions thereof.
section 10: This ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation
"
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or preceeding
now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
section 11:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the
ninth day of March, 1992 at 5:00 P.M. in the city council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
in a
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published
newspaper of general circulation within the city of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
.,,4
the city council of the city of Aspen on the tenth day of February
1992.
wi- Z7~_~;li-
John Bennett, Mayor
Clerk
C) FINALLY,
7' 1992.
adopted,
passed and approved
this /6 day of
~6. ~
ennett, Mayor
John
Kathryn
jtdm:aspen.winter.ord.
)
10
)' "-,,. ::;>,,--
~)
.:->;
'" .. ..,
ASPEN MOUNTAIN
SUBDIVISION
The Ritz-Carlton, Aspen
The Grand Aspen Site and The Park
700 South Galena
Summit Plaee
Top of Mill
1992 Amended PUD Submission for Lot 1
v
,
,
ASPEN MOUNTAIN
SUBDIVISION
The Ritz-Carlton, Aspen
The Grand Aspen Site and The Park
700 South Galena
. Summit Place
Top of Mill
Amended PUD/Submission
for Lot 1
Submitted to:
September 30,1992
The City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-2020
Owner:
Savanah Limited Partnership
c/o Aspen Enterprises International, Inc,
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3760
Los Angeles, California 90064
213 / 556-3350
Owner's
Representative:
Savanah Limited Partnership
Attn: Perry Harvey, Development Manager
600 East Cooper A venue, Suite 200
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303 / 925-4272
FAX: 303 / 925-4387
Prepared by:
Joseph Wells, AICP
Joseph Wells, Land Planning
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303 925-8080
FAX: 303 925-8275
,
'-
CONSULTANT TEAM
Architects for Lot 1 and Lot 1A
Parking & Circulation
Heery Architects & Engineers
1250 24th Street, N,W., Suite 350
Washington, D,e. 20037
Phone: 202 / 778-6100
FAX: 202 / 872-1933
Transportation Development
Associates, Inc.
316 Second Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98104
Phone: 206 / 682-4750
Landscape Architects
Title Information
Design Workshop, Inc.
710 E. Durant Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303 / 925-8354
FAX: 303/920-1387
National Title Research, Inc,
717 17th Street, Suite 1650
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: 303/295-7300
Municipal Services & Utilities
Leonard Riee Consulting
Water Engineers, Inc.
2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: 303 / 455-9589
FAX: 303 / 455-0115
Surveying
Alpine Surveys,
Licensed Surveyors
P.O. Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Phone: 303 / 925-2688
Legal
Oates Hughes & Knezevich
Attorneys at Law
533 E, Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303 / 920-1700
FAX: 303/920-1121
,
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L
INTRODUCTION
A.
Background of the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision
Current Status of Project Approvals in the Aspen Mountain
PUD/Subdivision
B.
c
Applicable Law
II. AMENDED PUD SUBMISSION FOR LOT 1 (Art. 7, Div. 9)
III. SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A NEW LOT 1A (Art. 7, Div, 10)
IV. CONDOMINIUMIZATION (Sec. 7-1007)
V. EXHIBITS
A. Additional General Application Requirements
1. Disclosure of Ownership
2. Letter of Consent By Applicant's Representative
3, Vicinity Map
4. Revised Plat Drawings
Page
1
2
4
7
9
18
21
B, Recent City Actions Regarding the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision
1. City Council Ordinance No, 12/92
'-
,
1. INTRODUCTION:
This application requests, on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership ("Savanah"),
approval of a PUD amendment and related reviews for the Aspen Mountain
Planned Unit Development/Subdivision (the "PUD") to permit the replacement of
22 lodge rooms approved for Lot 1 with no more than 6 residential units and a
maximum residential bedroom count of 18, This residential conversion is proposed
for the second and third levels of the hotel wing fronting on Durant Street (the
"Blue Spruce Building"). The residential units to be transferred to Lot 1 will be
taken from the replacement units currently approved for reconstruction on either
Lot 3 or Lot 5; the lodge units will be retained for possible development on Lot 5 in
"Hotel Phase II",
The application for full PUD Amendment included in Section II is being made
because of an interpretation by the Planning Office that the relocation of residential
units may not be approved as an insubstantial amendment because of the language
in the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision
Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision recorded in Book 574 at Page 792,
et seq., of the Pitkin County records (the "First Amended PUD Agreement"). The
First Amended PUD Agreement states that the Hotel Phase I component "shall be
comprised of no residential units"; this language was incorporated because at that
time the residential units originally planned for Phase I had been moved to Phase II.
This submission for amendment is made in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the First Amended PUD Agreement.
Additionally, Section III of this application includes a request for subdivision
approval to subdivide Lot 1 into two lots; that portion of the lot to the south of
vacated Dean Street will continue to be designated Lot 1 and that portion to the
north of Dean will become a new Lot lA. Subdivision is requested to permit
Savanah to establish a "Common Interest Ownership Community" (formerly
condominium ownership) for the residential units in the Blue Spruce Building
1
...-'
I
~
I
l
~
I
j,
~
i
j
t
I
(
~
i
.'
t!
f.
!'
I
I
,
.
ih
"
~
I
f~.
'-
'-
without the necessity of condominiumizing that portion of Lot 1 to the south of
Dean,
A request for condominiumization of the Blue Spruce Building has been included
in Section IV of this application. On January 22, 1985 (P&Z Resolution No.1, Series
of 1985), the Planning and Zoning Commission granted subdivision exception
approval for condominiumization of all of the residential units in the PUD.
Although the City previously approved condominiumization of the residential
units, approval of condominiumization of the Blue Spruce Building is requested so
that the entry level retail and accessory space may be retained in the same
ownership as the balance of the hoteL
When the P&Z approved residential condominiumization, it also reeommended
approval of a requested clarification that, because the site is zoned for tourist use, the
residential units should not be subject to the six-month minimum lease r,estriction
of Section 20-22. This inconsistency in the code language which was in effect at the
Hme has since been modified to make it clear that condominium units in the L/TR
zone may be rented without restriction.
A. Background of the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision:
Because of personnel changes on the Planning and Zoning Commission, in the
Planning Office and on City Council, a background of the history of the PUD is being
provided in this application, This will hopefully familiarize all parties with past
agreements and create a balanced platform from which to begin review of this
request.
In September of 1983, the then owner of the properties, John H, Roberts, Jr"
submitted the original application to the City of Aspen for conceptual approval of
the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD, consisting of five lots containing 11.7
acres with several different underlying zoning designations. Two years and over
seventy meetings later, the City Council granted final approval to the PUD in
2
-
,
,
December of 1985. The approvals were embodied in the Planned Unit
Development/Subdivision Agreement-Aspen Mountain Subdivision recorded in
Book 500 at Pages 656, et seq, (the "Initial PUD Agreement"). The principal
components and provisions of that Agreement included the following:
1. Overall PUD Approvals:
The original approval for 447 lodge units within the PUD included
approval of 172 lodge GMQS allocations; the project was also credited
with 275 replacement lodge units (the Grand Aspen, the Aspen Inn and
the Blue Spruce Lodge). The lodge units were approved for
construction on Lots 1 and 5 of the PUD. In addition, the City approved
12 residential GMQS allocations and the replacement of 42 existing
residential units. Three of these 54 residential units were approved for
construction on Lot 2 (Summit Place) and four of the units were
approved for Lot 4 (Galena Place). The remaining 47 residential units
were to be constructed on Lots 1, 3 and 5 - up to 14 units on Lots 1 and 5
with the remaining units on Lot 3, subject to final approvals.
I
I
~
I. 3.
$.
l,
\:
I
r,:
I
i
~
I
2. Lot One (The Ritz-Carlton site):
Development on Lot 1 was limited to 200,000 FAR square feet and the
total number of lodge units was not to exceed 300; up to 14 residential
units were also permitted on Lot 1. A total of 97 lodge unit credits (the
Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge) and 10 residential unit credits
were associ,\ted with Lot 1.
Lot Two (Summit Place):
Hans Cantrup had begun construction on what was to be a total of four
residential condominiums on this parcel; construction was brought to
a halt when the properties went into bankruptcy. The building was
left unfinished, with the four units at various stages of completion,
PUD approval for this site under the Roberts plan was for a reduced
count of three two-bedroom units with an FAR limitation of 7,700
3
..
,
square feet, to be constructed from the replacement unit total of 42
units.
4. Lot Three (Top of Mill):
Consisting of approximately 55 acres, this southernmost portion of the
PUD received conceptual approval (Resolution 23, Series of 1984) for 33
four-bedroom units with an FAR ceiling of 101,000 square feet. Four
existing residential units on this site were credited to the replacement
unit total of 42 units for the project. Final approval for the Top of Mill
was not part of the original PUD.
5. Lot Four{Galena Place):
Residential GMQS approval was granted for four four-bedroom units
and 12,000 square feet of FAR space. Three replacement unit credits for
previously existing units on the site are a part of the total of 42
residential replacement units in the PUD.
6. Lot Five (Continental Inn/Grand Aspen):
Approval was granted for a total of up to 190 lodge units (with the total
lodge units for Lots 1 and 5 not to exceed 447) as well as 14 residential
units on Lots 1 and 5 (8 of these are GMQS allotments). Maximum
FAR for Lot 5 was established at 150,000 square feet. There are 178
lodge unit and 23 residential unit replacement credits associated with
LotS.
B. Current Status of Project Approvals in the Aspen Mountain
PUDI Subdivision:
In August of 1987, the PUD site was purchased by Savanah, following foreclosure of
the property, Savanah then submitted a modified plan for Lot 1 which was designed
to better meet the operator's needs and changes in the Aspen market. During the
period 1985 to 1990, the Little Nell Hotel had been opened, the Hotel Jerome had
been expanded, the Sardy House was opened and the Aspen Club Lodge was
4
,
,
renovated and substantially upgraded. Finally, the operator, Ritz-Carlton, preferred
to have about 300 rooms located not in two phases, but in a single building.
On October 3, 1988, following several extensions of the development approvals for
the PUD by the City Council, the First Amended PUD Agreement was approved,
executed and recorded by the City. The First Amended PUD Agreement provides for
the following reduced level of development on the five lots in the PUD:
1. Overall PUD Approvals:
The total number of lodge rooms on Lots 1 and 5 under the First
Amended PUD Agreement were not to exceed 342, a reduction of 105
rooms. This ehange had the effect of reducing the previously approved
lodge GMQS allocation required for the project from 172 to 67, The
owner voluntarily relocated the approved residential units from Lot 1
to Lot 5,
2. Lot One (The Ritz-Carlton site):
Approval for 190,000 FAR square feet (a reduetion from that approved
in the Initial PUD Agreement of 10,000 square feet) and 292 lodge
rooms (a reduction of 8 from the maximum previously approved for
Lot 1, with no residential units). The residential units were moved to
Phase II to reduce the size of the Phase I project.
3. Lot Two (Summit Place):
Approval was maintained for three two-bedroom units in compliance
with all of the restrictions and site improvements required under the
amended PUD, As these are considered replacement units, the
deadline for beginning construction is related to demolition of the
existing units, In August of 1991, because of the deteriorating condition
of the partially completed building, and at the request of the City,
Savanah demolished the existing units begun during the Cantrup
ownership of the property. The excavation was filled and the site was
reseeded as an interim measUre prior to future construction,
5
4. Lot Three (Top of Mill):
The First Amended PUD Agreement anticipates that the Top of Mill
project will be master-planned in the future. A PUD/Subdivision
Application for Lot 3 will be prepared shortly and submitted by
Savanah, The First Amended PUD Agreement limits the residential
units on Lots 3 and 5 to a total of 47, Land planning for this site and for
Lot 5 will be undertaken under a unified plan to allow for review of
the two parcels together, at least in the initial application,
5. Lot Four (Galena Place);
The units approved for Galena Place have been completed, This
project conforms to the approval as outlined in Section 0 of the First
Amended PUD Agreement, The FAR square footage for Lot 4 is 12,000
square feet; the lot size is 18,000 square feet. According to underlying
zoning, a floor area ratio of 1:1 was permitted; therefore, the FAR
square footage constructed on Lot 4 is 6,000 square feet less than that
allowed by zoning,
6. Lot Five (Continental Inn/Grand Aspen):
The First Amended PUD Agreement restricts Lot 5 to no more than 50
hotel rooms in addition to no more than 47 freemarket residential
units (39 replacement and 8 GMQS units), which can be distributed
between Lots 3 and 5, Maximum FAR square footage for Lot 5 was
reduced to 115,000 square feet (plus any additional square footage
approved by the City for the Park); this is 35,000 square feet less than
that approved originally and 13,685 square feet less than that allowed by
underlying zoning.
7. Lot 6 (Ice Rink and Park):
Savanah has received approval under Ordinance 12, Series 1992 (see
Exhibit B) for an amendment to the First Amended PUD Agreement
to construct an Ice Rink and Park on Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain
6
~'
II
;;
,
Subdivision. Construction is now planned for the spring and summer
of 1993.
i
i
>
"
I
~
!
~
j
I
I
Since the signing of the First Amended PUD Agreement, the amendment for the
Park and Ice Rink discussed above has been approved and two Insubstantial
Amendments for Lot 1 have been filed. In addition to a number of minor design
changes, the previously requested Insubstantial Amendments have resulted in the
further reduction of the lodge unit count on Lot 1 from 292 units to 279 units, as
well as an overall reduction in the maximum lodge unit count within the PUD
from 342 units to 329 units.
I
.
I
Upon approval of all of the requested amendments for Lot 1 and construction of up
to 6 residential units on Lot 1A as requested herein, the final lodge unit count on
Lot 1 will be 257 units. No more than 72 additional hotel rooms will then be
permitted on Lot 5 and no more than 41 additional residential units will be
permitted between Lots 3 and 5. These amended approvals would have the effect of
limiting the increase in new hotel units within the Aspen Mountain PUD to no
more than 54 and no more than 12 new residential units from the total previously
(i.e. pre-Roberts) existing on the site, over and above the replacement units, These
units are, of course, located in the area designated in the 1973 Aspen Area Land Use
Plan as most desirable for high-density development and fall well within the GMQS
quotas established for the community,
c.
Applicable Law:
Under Section 0, General Provisions of the First Amended PUD Agreement,
reference is made to the applicable law and review criteria for projects withiI\. the
PUD which are involved in the amendment process, This language was agreed
upon to assure that Savanah would in the future be able to accomplish the
development program spelled out in the First Amended PUD Agreement for which
it and the City bargained,
7
~
~
"3, Applicable Law.
...inasmuch as review of the Planned Unit Development Amendment
contemplated herein was initiated prior to May 25, 1988, the effective
date of substantial revision to Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, all
reference herein to the Municipal Code or to particular sections
thereof shall be deemed to refer to the Code, or as the case may be, to
sections thereof in effect on May 24,1988, except to the extent that
subsequent changes to the Municipal Code or to sections thereof have
herein been made expressly applicable to the First Amended PUD..,"
I
,
,
t
!
"7, Survival.
Each of the obligations, commitments and representations made
herein by the Owner and the City, including as to the processing and
completing of further review of the eomponents of the projeet that
have yet to receive final approval, and the parameters of development
activity contemplated herein for such Project components, shall
survive the execution hereof and the enactment of subsequent
legislation initiated by the City in any manner inconsistent with such
obligations, commitments and representations,"
Because the Ritz-Carlton project has previously received final approval, this
submission of amendments to that approval has been prepared and submitted for
review and approval under the provisions of the current Aspen Land Use Code.
8
II. AMENDED PUD SUBMISSION
FOR LOT 1 (Art. 7, Div. 9):
A PUD amendment which is not eligible for review as an Insubstantial
Amendment is required to be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the
final PUD development plan procedure, provided that the proposed change is
consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan.
The current redevelopment plan for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD is embodied
in the drawings submitted with the two recent Insubstantial Amendment requests
(the Fifth and Sixth Amended Plats). The purpose of this section is to expand upon
the further changes proposed for Lot 1 in this application in order to explain their
effect on the approved PUD plan. A PUD amendment is required because under the
language of the First Amended PUD Agreement, residential units were not
approved for Lot 1. It should be noted, however, that under the original PUD
approval, residential units were permitted on Lot 1; in fact, a portion of the
residential GMQS allocations were envisioned to be built on Lot 1 at one point
during the history of the project.
Savanah proposes to relocate the twenty-two lodge units approved for the second
and third levels of the Blue Spruce Building to Lot 5. These will be replaced with
residential reconstruction units numbering no more than six residential units with
a maximum bedroom count of eighteen, No significant alteration of the exterior of
the Blue Spruce Building and no change in the square footage is proposed to
accomplish this revision, Because the employee housing requirement for the
reconstruction residential units has previously been induded in the overall
numbers of employees to be housed, there will be a reduction in employee
generation for Lot 1 resulting from this substitution of residential units for lodge
rooms in the Blue Spruce Building, Nonetheless, Savanah is maintaining its
commitment to house 198.5 employees, as agreed to in the First Amended PUD
Agreement, Also, the requirement for an audit after the second full year of
9
, '
operation of Hotel Phase I, which is provided for in theFirst Amended PUD
Agreement (page 25), will accurately establish the number of employees working in
the hotel and the number to be housed will, as may be applicable, be adjusted.
The changes necessary to update the First Amended PUD Agreement to reflect the
changes previously approved for the Ice Rink and Park and the changes proposed in
this application are being submitted in draft form under separate cover to the
Planning Director, Following approval by the City of the programmatic changes
proposed in this applieation, the PUD Agreement can be formally amended to
accurately reflect the approvals.
Amendments in the First Amended PUD Agreement which are presently
anticipated include the following:
1. A revised construction sehedule which anticipates that separate
building permit applications will be filed for the residential units will
be included, At the present time, Savanah plans to construct the
stairs and elevator core but the remalnder of the space will not be
finished, The interior finishes of the residential units will be
tonstructed in the future.
2, Site improvements agreed upon for the PUD which have been
completed will be noted as such.
3. The applicable Plat drawings will be amended and re-recorded to reflect
approved changes,
4. The employee housing calculations will be amended as approved to
refleet the ehanges resulting from the reduced development program;
the commitment to house 198.5 employees will be maintained,
however,
A. Final PUD development plan contents:
In support of this Application, Savanah offers the following:
1. Additional general application information required in Common
Procedures, Section 6-202, which is not provided in the narrative is
included in Exhibit A.
10
..
2. Architectural plans of the proposed revisions which illustrate a six-
unit residential layout are included with the drawings submitted with
this application. Other than the shifting of approved lodge and
residential units within the PUD, no changes in the approved land
uses, densities, natural features, internal traffic circulation patterns, off-
street parking and open space areas is proposed,
3. No change in the previously approved variations in the dimensional
and off-street parking requirements of the underlying zone districts
within the PUD are proposed, although the reduction in the number
of lodge units proposed does cause a reduction in the off-street parking
requirement and employee generation as described below,
4, The proposed amendments should result in a reduction in the use of
public facilities by the guests of the hotel and the owners of the
residential units,
5. The proposal has no effect on the previously established development
schedule for Lot 1, except that interior finish work for the residential
units will be completed at a later date, under separate building permits.
6. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the previously
approved final PUD development plan.
7. Architectural drawings indicating the revised floor plans are included
with this application. No significant changes to the exterior elevations
of the building are proposed.
8. No changes to the approved landscape plan are proposed,
9. No development on steep slopes is proposed.
10. No changes to the approved open space plan is proposed,
11. An amended plat which depicts the applieable information required by
Section 7-1004(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a) will be submitted for recordation
upon approval.
B. Revisions to the Affordable Housing Program
The affordable housing program for the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision was
first developed by Jim Curtis of Real Estate Affiliates, Based on an extensive analysis
of resort hotels, the program included employee generation factors to be applied to
all existing and proposed uSes to arrive at net employee generation. In addition, a
11
,
replacement housing program was established for the existing residential units
within the site, some of which were tourist units, some owner-occupied and others
employee-oceupied.
During the review of previous PUD and GMQS amendments for Lot 1, the City
required a reduction in the generation factors to be applied to the lodge units and
food and beverage facilities then existing within the PUD site. Consequently, the
employee credit for these existing uses was lowered, thereby effectively increasing
the affordable housing obligation for the PUD.
.;",
Under the terms of the First Amended PUD Agreement (Exhibit "B"), the
applicant's affordable housing obligation under the agreed upon factors for Hotel
Phase I (the Ritz-Carlton), Galena Place, Sununit Place and replacement housing
was determined to be 161.5 employees as follows:
Hotel Phase I
Galena Place
Summit Place
Replacement
Total:
123,8
8.7
0.0
29.0
161.5
Nonetheless, Savanah agreed to provide off-site housing for 198.5 employees and in
addition, agreed to provide housing for 60% of the full-time equivalent employees
of the Ritz-Carlton in excess of 330.8, if any, based on an audit to be performed after
two years of operation (refer to Section B.4(g), page 25 of the Agreement).
Housing provided by the applicant in satisfaction of the Agreement to house 198.5
employees is as follows:
Alpina Haus 46.0
Copper Horse 43.0
Ute City Place 37,0
Hunter Longhouse 69,0
Grand Aspen Hotel 3.5
Total: 198.5
12
, .
Under Ordinance 12, Series of 1991, Savanah is obligated to provide housing for two
additional employees for the Ice Rink and Park approved for Lot 6, and for a third
additional employee if food service is provided. These additional employees will be
housed in deed-restricted rooms in the Grand Aspen as provided for in the
ordinance.
The First Amended PUD Agreement (Section E) requires that the affordable housing
obligation for Hotel Phase II (or Lot 5), if any, be established by an amendment
process, based on the final development program for Hotel Phase II. Existing
development on Lot 5 presently includes a 155 unit full-service hotel with
conference, restaurant and bar facilities. In all probability, reconstruction on Lot 5
will result in a dramatic decrease in employee generation, Nonetheless, the amount
will be established in a future amendment, The affordable housing obligation for
the 8 residential GMQS units in Hotel Phase II will also be established in the
amended Submission for Lot 5. The remaining residentiai units in the PUD,
including those to be utilized in the development program for Lot 3 (Top of Mill)
are replacement units; the affordable housing obligation associated with all of the
replacement residential units, which was established under the original PUD
Agreement at 29 to be housed, was reaffirmed under the First Amended PUD
Agreement (Exhibit B).
In order to establish the revised employee generation for Hotel Phase I, Galena
Plaee, Summit Place and Replacement Housing resulting from the addition of
residential units sought by this amendment request, the same factors used in
Exhibit B of the First Amended PUD Agreement have been applied to the existing
development and to the remainder of the proposal:
1.
Lodge Operation:
New lodge rooms (229)
New 1-BR Suites (26)
New 2-BR Suites (2)
Total Bedrooms (257 units)
Living Rooms @ 25%
Total Rooms
Employees per 'lodge room
Employee generation
229
26
~
259'
.z
266
.36
95.76
13
Existing lodge rooms being rebuilt
(257 units less 54 allocations)
Employees per room
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMQS employees housed
Employees to be housed
203
.20
40.60
55,16
60%
33,10
* The number of hotel bedrooms is two greater than the number of hotel units
because of t.he second bedroom in the two Ritz-Carlton suites.
2.
.'
Accessory Food and Beverage:
New restaurant sq.ft. (net)
New lounge sq.ft. (net)
New kitchen sq.ft. (net)
Subtotal, New food & beverage sq.ft.
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft;
Employee generation
Existing F&B and Kitchen sq.ft.
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMQS employees housed
Employees to be housed
3.
4.
Non-Accessory Commercial GMQS,_Phase I:
New retail
Employee per 1,000 sq.ft,
Employee generation
14
3,713
3,163
4,441
11,317 '
12,8
114.86
4,900
--2.Q
44.1
100.76
60%
60.46
5,770
~
20.2
700
~
2.5
17.7
60%
10.6
o
3.5
o
o
5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4):
Population of unrestricted units
4 3-BRs @ 3.01 du (58%)
Employees to be housed (42%)
6. Employee Housing Replacement:
Employees to be housed
Summary of Employees to be Housed:
1. Lodge Operations
2. Accessory Food & Beverage
3. , u' Accessory Retail
4, Non-Accessory Commercial GMQS
5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4)
6. Replacement Housing
Total, Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 4 and Replacement
Employees to be Housed
12.0
8.7
29.0
33,1
60.5
10,6
0.0
8,7
29.0
141,9
The revisions to the program proposed in this application for the Ritz-Carlton site
result in a net reduction in full-time equivalent employment from 247.5 to 214.6, or
32.9 employees from that approved tinder the First Amended PUD Agreement.
This is consistent with the compromise arrived at with the City (which led to the
adoption of the First Amended PUD Agreement) to develop a program for the PUD
which would result in signifieantly reduced hotel rooms and amenities and
therefore reduced impacts on the community. At 60% to be housed, the credit to the
overall PUD obligation is 19.G employees to be housed.
Although the affordable housing obligation for Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summit
Place and Replacement Housing within the PUD is reduced by 19,6 employees to
141.9, Savanah is nonetheless maintaining its prior commitment to house 198.5, as
well as to house 60% of the full-time equivalent employees of the Ritz-Carlton in
excess of 330.8, if any, to be determined by the audit procedure established in the
First Amended PUD Agreement.
C Effect of the proposal on required parking:
Under paragraph B(G) of the First Amended PUD Agreement, 220 subgrade
spaces are required to be provided on Lot 1 for the approved 294 lodge
15
,
,
bedroom facility, While the parking demand for the PUD is based on the
series of factors listed below which were developed by Transportation
Development Associates ("TDA"), the subgrade parking requirement for the
hotel nonetheless equates to a factor of .75 spaces per lodge bedroom. Using
the same factors established by TDA, the subgrade parking requirement for
the 259 lodge bedroom facility proposed in this application is 210 spaces. A
total of 217 subgrade spaces have actually been built in the hotel parking
structure. The revised parking requirement for all the lots in the PUD is
documented on Table 2, on page 17,
On-Site Parking Required, Lot 1 (and proposed Lot 1A)
(The Ritz-Carlton Site)
L 257 lodge keys w, 259 lodge bedrooms x,66x,90* = 153.8
2, 6 3-BR residential units x 2** = 12.0
3. 6,876 s.f. of food & beverage/19,240 s.f. x30*** = 10.7
4, 17,829 s.f./20,OOO d. of conf space x29**** = 25.9
5. Employee spaces***** = 7.0
Subgrade req'mt: 209,4 (210)
'" Provided: 217 spaces
6. Truck(2) & guest(5) loading ****** 8.0
Supply Factors used by IDA:
Lodge: ,66 spaces per lodge bedroom @ peak occupancy of 90%,
Residential: 1 space per unit for one- & two-bedroom units,
2 spaces per unit for three- & four-bedroom units.
Interpolated from original 447 lodge room program:
*** Food & Beverage: 6,876 s.f./19,240 s.f, x30 spaces
(includes restaurant & lounge s.f, but excludes kitchens)
**** Conference: 17,829 s.f./20,000 s.f. x29 spaces
(excluding pre-function space)
***** Employeespaces remain the same
******Loss of two spaces on vacated Dean Street due at the request of City
staff,
*
**
(Based on March 30, 1984 TDA Parking Study, Table 5, pg. 8,
See Appendix A of Preliminary PUD Submission for the Lodge)
16
,
Table 2
Revised Parking Requirement,
Aspen Mountain PUD
"Phase 1"* On-Site
Parking Commitment
1. Lot 1 and proposed Lot 1A
Subgrade (30 spaces set aside
for employees)
Guest & service loading
(Porte cochere, loading dock
& south side of Dean Street)
First Amended &
Restated PUD
Agreement
Current
Proposal
220
217
10
7**
Subtotal, Lot 1:
230
224
2. Lot 5 and Lot 6 (Approximate siting)u,"
Subgrade
Surface lot west side of Grand Aspen
Surface lot east side of Grand Aspen
Surface parking north side of Dean
Guest & service loading
Angle parking, south side of Dean
Total On-site - Lots 1, lA, 5 & 6
28 28
55 55
18 18
13 13
6 6
2.....____________~
359 353
3. Summit Place
6
6
16
4. Galena Place
16
5. Top of Mill
6. Hotel Phase II
Premature
Premature
Premature
Premature
**
The Ritz-Carlton, Grand Aspen, Ice Rink, Galena Place & Summit Place
Elimination of 2 spaees on Dean assumed as requested by the City Staff,
Lot 5 requirement is restated from First Amended PUD Agreement; the
parking requirement has, however, been modified by final approval of the
Ice Rink
*
***
17
~._......-
-
I..
J
'.
:-I;~
.
."'.-.:.
".<j
,~
'"'
'.
~
Ii
"I"'
:'.
J,-,
",,'..
,I
.
III. SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A NEW LOT lA
(Art. 7, Div.10):
Subdivision approval is requested to create a new Lot lA on the northern portion of
Lot 1 as previously subdivided, This northerly portion comprises what was the site
of the Blue Spruce Lodge, This parcel is approximately 15,078 square feet in size and
is bordered by Durant, vacated Dean, Mill and Monarch Streets. Subdivision is
requested to permit Savanah to establish individual ownership for the residential
units in the Blue Spruce Building without the necessity of including the Ritz-,
Carlton hotel ( i.e. that portion of the lot to the south of Dean). No revisions to the
street system or utility system are proposed. The only reason for the subdivision
request is to create a practical vehicle for individual ownership of the residential
units without implicating the hotel in that ownership and vice versa.
A. Review Standards
Subdivision approval is usually requested prior to and in order to accommodate
subsequent development of the property, In this case, the development of the site
has previously been accomplished and the proposed use is consistent with prior
approvals. The project remains in conformance with the review standards for
subdivision, which include the following:
1.
General requirements:
a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
b.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the charaeter of
existing land uses in the area, which is generally made up of
projects on smaller, not larger, traets.
c.
The proposed subdivision has no adverse effect on the future
development of surrounding areas,
18
I
!
t
)
I
,
,
I'
"
~
I
~
,
~
}
r~
~
.
"
,
d, Other sections of this application address other applicable
requirements of the City land-use regulations.
2. Suitability of the land for subdivision:
a, The land is not unsuitable for subdivision because of natural
hazards, No such hazards have been identified as affeeting the
site,
b.
The subdivision does not result in spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies or premature extension of public facilities or
unnecessary public costs.
3,
Improvements:
a. Required improvements are in place exeept that additional
monumentation will be added following approval.
approved
b. Plans and specifications have previously been filed and
by the City,
c,
Savanah will make arrangements with individual utilities
regarding any reimbursement of the developer's costs as a result
of any oversizing of utilities.
4, Design Standards:
a. No changes in approved street layout or design are anticipated,
b. No additional easements are needed or proposed as a result of
the proposal.
19
.
"
"
r,!
,
"
'" .t:
~
I
~
r
,>
i,
-
.,
f!
~'
.
t
J
,
~
t
,
!.
i
~
.
,
t
t
,
~
I
,
~
,
;
~
~
~
~
Co
The affordable housing requirements of the project have
previously been established (see discussion beginning on
page 11),
B,
Application Contents:
1, The general application information of Sec, 6-202 is included in Exhibit
A.
2.. A vicinity map of the projeet is included in Exhibit A.
3, A reduction of the plat illustrating the proposed additional lot is
included in Exhibit A.
4.
Amendments to the First Amended PUD Agreement will be submitted
following review of the proposal by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
20
,
,
IV. CONDOMINIUMIZATION (Sec. 7-1007)*:
Although the City previously approved condominiumization of the residential
units, approval of condominiumization is requested at this time so that the entry
level retail and accessory space in the Blue Spruce Building may be retained in the
same ownership as the balance of the hoteL The retail and other accessory spaces on
the entry level of the Blue Spruce Building will be designated as Condominium
Unit One. Savanah commits that the ownership of Condominium Unit One will
remain in the same ownership as the hotel improvements on Lot 1. The residential
condominium units on Lot 1A will be managed by the Ritz-Carlton staff or other
management organization,
In addition to the other requirements of Subdivision, when application is made for
subdivision of a parcel of land to be used for condominium development, the
application must also comply with the following requirements during the review of
the development application.
1. Condominiumization of residential units,
a. Purchase rights of existing tenants is not applicable to this
application.
b. A minimum lease period for the residential units which are to
be condominiumized is not applicable in the L/TR zone district.
Residential dwelling units in the Lodge/Tourist Residential
(L/TR) zone district may be leased without limitation.
c, An affordable housing impact fee is not applicable to the
condominiumization of the residential units in the PUD,
because affordable housing has been provided pursuant to
Section 8-106(E)(S). Projects which provide affordable housing
are exempt from the impact fee,
21
.
.
d,
The building proposed for condorniniurnization ia available for
inspection by the Building Department.
~
.
~
,
,
* In light of the recent changes in Colorado Law supplementing the state's
Condominium Ownership Act with the uniform COmmon Interest Ownership Act,
the notion of local regulation of what is familiarly known as the
Condominiurnization process may be superceded, Savanah, of course, reserves its
rights under the new law, but wishes now to go forward with its plan to create
separate fee ownership for the residential units; the issue of the City's right to
regulate the process can be left for later. Additionally, technieally the term
"condominium" has been rendered obsolete under the new law. Savanah will
continue to employ it in the context of this application, since all are familiar with it
as a legal concept.
t
i'
,
.~
I
,1
t
;::
i
1\
I
!
~
22
5
~:
i
f:
'"
V.EXHIBITS
j
I
I
t
,
,
EXHIBIT A.
Additional General Application Requirements
1. Dis~osure of Ownership
2. Letter of Consent By Applicant's Representative
3. Vicinity Map
4, Revised Plat Drawings
09/09/91
15:58
002
EXHIBIT A(1)
OWNBRSHIi' " RNCtnmlUUICB REPORT
CASE NO. ASPEN RITZ CARLTON
An eXlUll1nAtion of the record.. of PITltXN County, Colo:ro.do all
maintAined in the Office of the Clerk ADd Recorder of said County,
for tho periocl ending SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 at 8:00 A.H. on the
property de.cribed aa:
LOT 1 FIRST AMENDEIl PLAT OF ASPEN HOlm'l'AnI St1BIl:IVXSION,
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
haa di.clo..d the following infor.ma~ion:
1. Th. la.t nemed 9Xantee, ADd apparent record. owner, o~ tbe
above-d..cr!Qed. real property i.1
SAVAHAJl LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DISTRICT OF COLtlMBIA LIMITED
PAR'1'NUSBIP.
2. The ~o11owJ.ng mortgAge. _d/or Deecla of ~.t purport to
affect .aid real property:
A. IlBBD OF TRUST !'ROK SAVABAB LIMn'BD PARTlmlUJBIP TO TIm
PUBI.XC TRUSTBll: 01" l'I\'Xo.ul COU1IIft !'OR TUB usa 01' ASPBN
FDUUIIC:tlfGS, LTD. TO SBCUM A PKXBCUAL SOH OF
'70,000,000.00, RECOJU)BD IilOVJDIBJIR 10, US9 J:B BOOE 607 AT
PAGB 176.
3. Ot:her infoz:mation re~e.1:ed, if any:
HONK
NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE NOR IMPLIBD AS TO '1'9 VALIDITY OR
SUFFICIENCl' 01" ANY DOCtJMBNTS, NOR HAW ANY I)OCUJVi1ll'1'S BUK BXAKD1BD
FOR EXCBP'l'IONS, RBSBRVATl:OIIS OR 0T8BR COVEKA1II'1'S OR CONDX'1'XOl'IS
An'BCTl:NG '1'ITLB. IF INFOlUfA'1'IOII WAS RBQtll!:STEIl BY RBl'BREHCB TO
S'1'RBlST ADIlRBSS, NO lUSPlU!:SB1ll'1'ATJ:Olf IS MAPB TJIA'1' SA:tIl UAL l'KOl'DTY
DESCRIP'l'IOl'I IS THE SAME AS SAID ADD1tESS.
Ll:ABILI'l'Y BBRBtJRDBR IS LIMITED TO CHARGES PAXD FOR 'l'BIS
mFOJUCA'l'IOH .
NATIONAL TITLB, IRC. AGBliT FOR
FIDELITY RA7XONAI, TXTLB D1StJRANc:s co.
717 Seventeenth str.et, Suit. 1650
Denver, Co1orado 80202
(303) 29.5-7 0
BY:
,
f
I
f
I
1
EXHIBIT A(2)
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
September 30, 1992
Diane Moore
Director of Planning
eity of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Moore,
Savanah Limited Partnership (Savanah) is making application for an amendment to lhe First
Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement for thu Aspen
Mountain Subdivision. The amendment is to permit the replacement of 22 lodgl', rooms I
approved for Lot 1 with no more than six residential units and a maximum bedroom count of
eighteen. Additionally we are requesting a subdivision approval to create a new lot consisting
of the Blue_Spruce building in order to allow the sale of the residential units as condouiniums.
For the purpose of proccssjng these requests Mr. Ferdinand Belz m and Mr. Perry HaJ:vcy will
be representing Savanah Limited Partnership.
Sincerely yours,
BY: ASPEN ENTERPRIsES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Managing General Partner
FJl,E, P'IUSERBIlIEILo\UIUBIWPIOMAa""OORE2.LI!T
6OO:e. Cooper Avenuo, Slo. 200, AJpon, co 81611, 303/925-4272. Fax 303/925-4387
,
EXHIBIT A(3)
"
,
,
',~
:':a
\"~
'r
\'S.
;-;t.
'~9
:~
,
I
I
,
I
\
,
I
,
I
\
,
\
,
,
,
,
\
,
\
\
:,.
\~
IZ
10
I~
".
I
I
,
I
1
1
\ASPEN MOUNTAIN P.U.D.
i
~
oil
t.~'i-
ASPEN MOUNTAIN
OU,W'"GTlTU
CO"'~U..HTI
2.~~~;~
:::-:.:;;.....'...
~.D
VICINITY MAP
The Lodge 'Galena'Top Of Mill
American Century Corporation
[ .~,
. ~I
~ 0 ~
.
~, ,
I'
I ~"I
n"1
f . , ,
. ,
~
= L
~ 3 ~
i
I
I~
'."i.,"
Ii;;;:
I ~~!f~
i~, :!
:'~ ..
, ~H :~
. ,
:! !~
o
'__'__'M'_".'_.'_'___'.'"",!
i
;
i
;
i
;1
>l
" ^
iV
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I~!ll
/1
o
lit i
! :
',01 ,.\', 0',
'. .rt.
, D ~
~
-0
~i~ !P'; ~ .,
:;'~I IHII I
~ ~ i!l!! !!
!!-iZ!1,1
~~..., j I
!I~.~ ~
III ""
!J ::11 ~!
'I; ""
~ ~l! 11II ~
, ,
j!<,
".l:
itin:, '
~,. <I I ...~, ,
111l<!', '
11 Q'Q
'.'."
iI!:!!!
.w. ,.'.
ii1 ' .. ~I
i ~i~ ::l
ImH~..i
EB
EXHIBIT A(4)
I
,
~I
~I
ii,
~
',1
"I" .,
-, '
,
"" ,-,j, -"I
ai='....'r'<:l~ ;I:;.~~~~:;- ~Il;". "'i-
- I ' . _ ~ _ ~
N ..~!;p:y ;.tf in~U51~; .rE'~! ~!,
j" :Il. .:i: f; ,".':! :!o!lll it.;.; ~ ~ 'Ii
ill! ..,...., lll!1,,,..,, ill!., .,1
!!.~ . ,. !I~!~ I.. !J~ ..
~~11 11 8UI1.. nrJla;"'1I Inl';1 l
!I!~!""."';';o/l ~~~,:i~".';'"I Ii!!....
!f(....H~~~~ ~I!H;H~; ~1;5 H
'1..""., 1;'1""" "'"
3i' ."U!U ji :It!U 3ji; !I
~ :!i~Uili : liilllEli ~ i ~f
.. i .; = _. Ii ~ .. ," ~:!::.:!. ~i .. .. ~ "
d I II.... ill ....iI .1
~i '
~ ,::, I;
I.~ I
~"'i'
I' i
I ~";
H"f' 0
! ! ". ,
~ .
: IH.
i ii: i
~~g If ~i~ i" ~~~ ,"
, - : . ~.~
l'i I~ ~i ~: ::~ :::
~I,.lli!I,~iji.
:~~ ~~;II :;iii!
fi~ ~ I'i~ I ft.~,
"ql"l,i/I'3
,iB c pi.!J I
r if'II;I!II;
d i :Ii Ii ii
'1'
~!ll
,II
,..",,.&.
~.""~J~I~'~' ,
'!illlil'! i
, 1'1 ~ ' . : i
id" UtHi
o
(
~
",
'-"---'-'~'-"~'-~-'i
;i
Ii j!1ll 1,: ij
~~ ~;.~Q"; ~
;1
i
,
=-~~- - - --I ___ ____/r
o
~..
<0
,
P
i;~
~ m~~~;:;; L
I iimmu;;
:.- ~"h"."
''''''''-~
~ I
,
i
~
~
!i1i"':1'1I
;11.
~ ~
,I
'~
~i,;~
'- ~mr='} ~
II jlL
1:1 I,
. !I:I \\
"::" '!
'I il
~ ,,~
O~
:1
~
'I
"
"
c
I.~\i
'I '~
-
'=-----:"
c
~
I'. t I" ~I
~ .'
, ~i~.; ~
i:l:1!:1; I.d .. I
EB
I
I
I:
I
I
~
I
'E
~
~i
..
~
~
llilllir:Jl:l~ ~
~, . ~ . ~ " ... :;.r
i~ !li!C I. ! ;
U ;i;i I~ : !:
~! ~ ~~.;. !
I 1''''I,q
_ ..;;lIi I ~ ~-:
; ~.;. ~ . ~ !;
f i ~:;;~ ': ii~"
~IH ~ ~~~~~J~~.
Ii I~ ~ t&~.l
.
5
in
~
:J
o-on
~6
I~<
:=i-
0(
$:;
!:!I
w,
.".
,
,
,
i
',!, :;;
1~: ::
~:~.. l, ..
~ '-'l
5 i
i '~-r.:...~---..--i ~
r II .. f W
~ : ' ...
!!" ~ ".
~fi ~:
11'
!r-
!I'
!l
!r
"
l~"
"
,
z
~
9
w
>
w
o
I-
Z
:J
o
w
Z
~
~
c6
,
~
i
--'..~~
~
i
i :
II :
r~
'I fr
f: t~
in:
!' II
IIlI
!;! I'
.~lh Ii
li}U l
01",.\
..v.. ...
m~
: :...~~~.~~~~~_?.:;:~-..,
1I~~",
-""""'--"-"''''~--~''':''<>~<>,np.,
'<~!11~
- ~ .. ,-,{,!,
:
:
:
,
,
1
,
,
,
i.
. /
>"
.'
,
.. h.
I,
, ,
i ii:
I "II
: ro:
: ' :11
;;..J-_______.J-._____.. _.....
..
~
~
./.------T---------~ -
I I ,~
: I : ""
, ' ,
1 1 !
! !
I . :
:--------1.-; ____"._.,h
~_.--!---;il--- ;
! ~ ~
...____.Oh__.'
, ,
u _n~f
s,
?~
( ~.
,
!I-~ ...-.....
~
"
"'.........,..
00'
>-'1-
0\
~"
--,...---~--
--~......-:..
..
>-
e
-'
DURANT
f---------;~;~~-~~;;--------~
i,
~
i'
~;
iil
i.
-
d
" ' ~".t
"'I - :~
'-------__, ~ Z
I w~
: z~
, ~.. ,',
I OW
/ ,I
/ lill'i!j'!l!
I / ... ~ 01;
/'f ;'!l ;\~il!l
-.. -~.. __ J .l r.~"=;IH ii if H 115 lI!t!
(,/ ,ii, i.., .!i,
ff . d !'j !i i~ lill'llli
Ii i \ j -j. h ~! I ih,
/it ; ill i :t:t :, 'I: :g.
:/ -- !\"H lllr II . !l.!
1/ ~ ~ ~.. . t . ~ ....jI!~
II :..t f1ei" ~ f~ t I t^ '~j!:1
,.' / ~ ..............___._r_ ~:~Jhu ~ ~i. .. .... sU
,1'; __~_l __4
.
.'
M
o
~
I
l
,
~..
" ~
, "t,
,~
1-
,:I
!
~ -:;;.~~/~.~ i-SUMMIT Sf
. 0>1'1' ~:"l--~-:---.---....--,
o ' j' ; i :
.....N~ la .~.. ...:....,,:.......J 1
- . "I
..:.~t..., :::
~~..; ~ I f '--~-SN-ARi~-ST-~-.J
:,!.:, l ---~-._.--:--"'--:-i
, . '.
:1\1 ,,~ :' ! ~ 1
I :. ).01 ,..... -:""".,-'",:
!"-'..'''' 0 i : !
. .,;::ti;';:';;:::::-~ . ..--------=---.:.--....-..1
;:c
..
"
o
~
JUNIATA Sf
, ~
-.
,
0;
....."
,
i 1.
F s'
I"
~,:
"
,,----':::~-_.
~t '"","",,"' ".........v
~L--=;.~
-<<-
I;. ....~::.~~~-~~--
. .........'.....?"..'.........'"
~o:~-..r~~~f-~,.l\ ~
~-:. !: "
:." .\
t ' . , ..
.....--'---'---.<-.-....--
..!$...-
0(
~
b
-'
AVENUE
r---- ----------------------~---...,
, ""....c..' ........ ,
.......... :
l h!IiHhlj'hl
: l;l""ll!,Pl
! mmi!l:hii
, '" ~"1'!! 'II ,I
(OJ;' ~ld~~ ~~h ~Qt
,~ '( ~-
"I' '11''''
::;1\;1: I ti:i t
i::~!~ ;I ~'J." II
,1, i ~l ii! ~
",1: ii' "Ii!
~i;;! iI' i'l!i I
!"lll! "I
~;~~~ l!! ~!~I ~
1{,.1Ihhl
~~H ~3~ J~,,\
pO, ,j
~;nf "d
-~--..,
,
,
:,
Iii
~"
II II II! ,!
,I' '11'!1
Ill! l!,i ill !'I!
.! II .l'j '.f ' '
, II 41lJ! ::~p
,,!:, 11 ij l!i; Ils I- I
!,"l'P , ,1
'I' 'n '11'1' 'IS ,<
c_ :!i!~ !!i !li i ill
'Iii .!
~~ 2 f r.;!~ "I..
'!l " 'I ,j,i'~l '6
": r ; :,.,11 51
I~" j <{I,,, ~.. ~ 13
:~~ ~ ~~ 1\1~~5 Y~t
.;.1' : ~ ,J. )I -;, ~~, ~;lll
.,. .;~ ""r .:" I ,,~,~',:~ ~~
zt..l ,J >,)1 ;..' ;I,,J ~~'
~il:il g 11 iiHlI,!il
a,,; :I!: 'l':ll; ~l!
gil~. i, l-lll'l!! II'
.dll.' J., h l..:
..
~
~
~
..
'"
:z:
u
..
..
z
o
:I
I'~~!l, ~Ee!~ l;l
g~~l J"~~! (~,..
",! 1'-' I"
t;~>!, --!la "
:~!!;! fl,ll j!l
li:!!IM;i 11:
'll;'! U~i;~ ~ :
II!!!!! !l!l!~ ill
l,l,l '~'llll
et: ~"rb Sl~8~1; ~
2!\!1\i :ili'a :1
L_
,-
:
-'
0(
>
e
a:
...
...
..
'"
::z:
~
9
-'
~
o
w
'"
;;:
w
a:
w
CD
o
0-
W
'"
..
:::>
'"
::z:
..
-'
'"
::z:
e
F=
..
a:
..
>
W
0-
e
::z:
,
EXHIBIT B.
Reeent City Actions Regarding the
, Aspen Mountain PUD /Subdivision
1. City Council Ordinance No. 12/92
,
EXHIBIT BO)
ORDINANCE # 12
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING THE ASPEN WINTER GARDEN AMENDMENTS TO THE FIRST AMENDED
AND RESTATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, FINAL ~UD DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
FACILITIES FOR LOTS A THROUGH I, BLOCK 91, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN
WHEREAS, the Aspen Winter Garden property has been designated Park
(P) with PUD overlay on .the Official Zone District Map; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Winter Garden Conceptual PUD Development Plan
received Conceptual approval with conditions from the Aspen city
\ council in July of 1990; and
}
WHEREAS, the Savanah Limited.Partnership submitted to the Planning
Office on September 25, 1991, a Final PUD Development Plan
application for the development of an Ice Rink and Park on Lot 6,
and requests for Subdivision, Growth Management Exemption for
Essential Public Facilities, Waiver of park dedication fees, Waiver
of water tap fees, Conditional Use for the skate rental and
maintenance building, and Special Review for parking in the Park
zone; and
WHEREAS, the development application submission has been made in
accordance with The First Amended and Restated Planned unit
Development/Subdivision
Agreement
for
the
Aspen
Mountain
Subdivision (PUD Agreement) which requires that Lot 6 of the
~ property become an Ice Rink and Park; and
1
.
.
WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering
Department, Water Department, Parks Department, Environmental
Health Department, Ice Garden, and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority; and
WHEREAS, there is npthing inconsistent between the foregoing
described review standards and the type and level of development
activity contemplated in the PUD Agreement for the Ice Rink and
Park; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application in
consideration of the review standards for: final PUD development
plan (Section 24-7-903), SUbdivision (Section 24-7-1004), Growth
""':":'\ Management Quota System (Article 8 of Chapter 24), Special Review
)
(SectioR 24-7-404), Conditional Uses (Section 24-7-301), and the
comments received from referral agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed
Public Hearing on January 7, 1992, after which it recommended
approval with conditions for the Aspen Winter Garden final PUD
development plan, Subdivision, Growth Management Exemption for
Essential Public Facilities,
and approved wi th condi tions
Conditional Use, and Special Review for Parking in the Park Zone;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council may grant approvals to final PUD
development plan (Section 24-7-903), Subdivision (Section 24-7-
1004) Growth Management Exemption for Essential PUblic Facilities
) (Article 8 of Chapter 24), and amendment to the PUD Agreement; and
./
2
,
:,~,
.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the applicant 's
request for waiver of the water tap fees does not meet the
standards established by Ordinance #90-8, Series of 1990, whereby
tap fees are only waived for 100% employee housing as approved by
the city Council and administered by the Aspen/Pitkin County-
Housing AuthoritYi and
WHEREAS, the PUD Agreement specifically states that Lot 6 shall not
be assessed a Park Dedication Feei and
~'HEREAS, 'the City Council, having considered the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendations for the Aspen Winter Garden,
does wish to grant the approvals with conditions,
H, NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: The City Council finds that the final PUD development
plan for the Aspen Winter Garden (ice rink/park) is consistent with
the conceptual PUD development plan.
section 2: The City Council finds that the development meets the
standards from Section 24-7-903 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which
are not inconsistent with the development plan for the property
approved by the PUD Agreement, and does hereby grant final PUD
development plan approval with the following conditions:
1. Upon submission of a finalized landscape plan, a detailed
description of the proposed irrigation system should be included
as well as descriptions and specifications on landscape maintenance
) plans.
3
.
',.'"
.
2.If the three spruce trees located at the mid block of the parcel
(near Durant Avenue) are removed, they shall be replaced with four
(4) 12' to 16' spruce trees onsite.
3. The two cottonwood trees located on the corner of Durant Avenue
and Galena Street may be removed from the property and replaced
with three (3) 12' to 16' spruce trees onsite.
4. A "drop off" area shall be designated on the north side of
vacated Dean Street and depicted on the final development plan.
5. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of occupancy for the ice
rink, the off-street parking spaces located on the north side of
vacated Dean street shall be designated with signage as parking
for the Ice Rink/Park users only. Nine (9) parking spaces shall
""";,,,~ be provided on the north side of vacated Dean Street.
)
6. Consistent with the original PUD approvals, the open space on
Lot 6 shall be utilized and credited to support the open space
requirements for the development activiey on Lot 5 including any
open space in excess of two (2) feet below the existing grade of
the adjacent street.
7. In that Lot 6 (ice rink/park) has been restricted as a community
activity center and public ice skating rink pursuant to a
Declaration of Restrictive Covenant recorded on 6/29/90 (Book 624,
Page 52), all special events to be conducted on Lot 6 that .exclude
the public shall be subject to the city special event approval
procedure.
Any service of liquor, wine, or beer shall be by special events
) permit only.
4
.
..,
.
8. The ice rink/park shall be open during the hours of 10 am _ 10
pm, seven (7) days per week, throughout the year, unless otherwise
approved by the City:
During the winter months commencing on
Thanksgiving and continuing through December, January, February,
and March, the ice rink shall have no less than eight (8) hours of
public skating per day, weather permitting.
9. The trash access area shall be depicted on the final PUD
development plan.
10. An evaluation of the ventilation system for the Ice Rink should
be conducted to insure that fumes will not reach unhealthy levels.
11. The applicant should readdress the landscape plan as it relates
to the evergreen planting located at the west end of the parcel.
., 12. The architect should consider the hazards of snow slides from
j
the roof in the roof design.
13. It is the intent of t!1e operator and the city that the local
public use of the ice rink/park shall be encouraged and that the
facility be accessible to the local public at reasonable times at
reasonable rates. There shall be no special pricing treatment for
the individual guests of the Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel over .the
general public unless approved by the city. Pricing alternatives
shall include discounted local passes, group discounts, children's
rate, value sessions, and use packages.
Group/business and
reserved use of the skating rink will be supplemental and ancillary
to public use.
The operator shall submit to the City an annual
operating plan conSisting of a summary of the prior year's usage
by price category and month and use projections with pricing for
5
.
.'
.
the coming winter skating season, on or before September 1 of each
The operator shall be available to meet with the city to
year.
review operations and pricing upon the City's request.
14. The food service area for the ice rink/park shall be limited
to the concession area which is depicted on the final development
plan, except in the case of special events. The concession area
shall provide seating for twentY-five (25) people or less,
15. The concession area shall undergo conditional Use review prior
to operation of the concession area. If conditional Use approval
is not granted, then the concession area may not be utilized on
the site for food service.
..""";':J
"'. ".~. :.,
engineer.
16. The ice rink Cooling system shall be designed by a professional
17. In the event that the City should, by February 12,1993,
require Savanah to landscape the right-of-way areas .along Durant
Avenue and Mill Street adjacent to the ice rink/park, then Savanah
shall be obligated to landscape the area(s) to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Planning Director and shall maintain the
landscaping in this area. The City and Savanah should insure that
the landscape plan does not impact existing utilities along Durant
Avenue and Mill Street. Costs associated with the relocation or
maintenance or repair of any utilities (e.g. water, sewer lines or
buried cable) shall be borne by the City. The landscaping along
Durant Avenue should extend approximately eight (8) feet from the
existing face of the curb and approximately fifteen (15) feet from
} the existing face of the curb on Mill street. The sidewalks along
/J
6
.
,
Durant Avenue and Mill street should remain in their present
location as depicted on the final development plan.
18. The operator should utilize CFC-22 in the refrigeration system
for the ice rink.
section 3: Having found that the development meets the standards
contained in Division 10 of the Land Use Code, City Council grants
approval of SUbdivision with the fOllowing conditions:
1. The curb line along the northern boundary (adjacent to Durant
Avenue) shall be maintained at its existing location, unless a curb
extension is approved by the city engineer.
2. The plat amendment shall include and indicate the electric
transformer easement as needed by the City Electric Department.
3. The applicant shall consult city engineering for design
considerations regarding development within public rights-of way
and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public
rights-of-way from the city streets and engineering department.
4. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
5, The sidewalk adjacent to Durant Avenue shall be eight (8) feet
in width.
6. The applicant shall relocate and underground all electrical,
telephone and cable television lines along vacated Dean Street
between Galena Street and Mill street. The applicant shall also
construct new curb and gutter along the entire Lot 6 boundary on
Dean Street, a new sidewalk along the property boundary on Galena
7
..
,v
, ...
street, and a new sidewalk along the boundary on Durant Avenue and
Mill street.
7. The applicant shall provide a guarantee for one hundred (100)
percent of the current estimated cost of the landscaping
improvements in the approved landscape plan as estimated by the
city engineer, except. that twenty five (25) percent shall be
retained by the City until the improvements have been maintained
in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years.
8. The applicant shall provide a guarantee for one hundred (100)
percent of the current estimated cost of public improvements within
the public right-of-way to accomodate the development as estimated
by the city engineer.
,1 Section 4: The City Council finds that the development meets the
j
standards of. Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code
and does hereby grant Growth Management System Exemption for
Essential PUblic Facilities with the following conditions:
1. The applicant is required to mitigate for 2 employees in
connection with the ice rink and 1 employee in connection with the
concession area, The applicant shall deed restrict three rooms in
the Grand Aspen Hotel according to the category 1 Price and Income
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. At the time of redevelopment of the Grand Aspen Hotel,
the applicant shall provide comparable deed restricted replacement
housing for the 3 employees,
2, Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
) shall file an appropriate Deed Restriction with the Pitkin County
8
.
.....
..
if'
I
clerk and Recorder for the housing mitigation described above and
the Deed Restriction language shall be approved by the Planning
Department and the Housing Authority.
section 5: All material representations made by the applicant in
the application and during public meetings with the Planning
commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
section 6:
The City Council finds that the. PUD Agreement
specifically' states that Lot 6 (Ice Rink and Park) shall not be
assessed a Park Dedication Fee and no fee shall be required.
section 7: The city Council finds that the applicant's water tap
"
.;.(
.. )
fee waiver request does not meet the standards for a waiver under
ordinance 90-8 (Series of 1990), and does hereby deny a waiver of
water tap fees.
section 8: Within 180 days of approval by city Council, the PUD
Agreement, Final Development Plan and Amended SUbdivision Plat must
be recorded with the Pitkin county Clerk and Recorder. Failure to
do so will render any approvals invalid unless an extension to
recordation is granted by city council. The final development plan
shall consist of final drawings depicting the site plan, landscape
plan, utility plan and building elevations.
section 9: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
.) provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
9