HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160920
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
September 20, 2016
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. September 6, 2016 Meeting Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Gorsuch Haus (Lift 1A) - Planned Development
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 7, 2016
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 6, 2016
1
Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Skippy Mesirow, Brian
McNellis and Keith Goode.
Jason Elliott, Jesse Morris and Spencer McNight and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Ben Anderson.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
August 16, 2016 – Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the minutes and Mr. McNellis seconded the motion.
All in favor, motion approved.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
501 W Hallam St – Residential Design Standards Variation
Mr. Goode asked if public notice was provided. Ms. Quinn stated she reviewed both affidavits of public
notice and found notice was appropriately provided.
Mr. Goode then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to Staff.
Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner, stated the case tonight is the first to be reviewed since the residential
design standards (RDS) were put in place earlier this year.
He noted the property is located on the southwest corner of 4th St and Hallam St and sits in the Medium
Density Residential (R6) zone district and is also in the Aspen Infill Area. There is an existing duplex on
the property which is proposed for demolition and replaced with a single family residence.
Mr. Anderson noted in his review of the new RDS, there was an effort to bring flexibility and definition
to some of the standards and address some of the arbitrary nature of the some of the decisions. Like the
previous RDS, the following objectives remain:
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 6, 2016
2
1. Connect to street
2. Respond to neighboring properties
3. Reflect traditional Aspen building scales
He feels allowing for flexibility for architectural freedom is an important part of the standards. While the
standards do not attempt to prescribe architectural styles, the standards in place give a lot of concern to
the following:
• form/mass and scale
• orientation and connection to street
The standard the variation request is most applicable to is the articulation of building mass which is
labeled in the code as a non-flexible standard. For flexible standards, staff has leeway to look at
alternative compliance to see if design meets the intent of the standard and make an administrative
approval. Because this is not a flexible standard, the request for variation must be reviewed by P&Z. The
non-flexible standard, Articulation of Building Mass states the principle building shall articulate the
building to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms in similar scale to those seen in historic
Aspen residential buildings. The new standard gives further definition to the secondary mass and how it
connected to the primary form.
For each of the standard with the RDS, options are identified. There are three options defined for this
standard provided to meet the standard. He provided a slide and discussed the options.
1. The maximum sidewall depth of 50 ft as defined from the front-most wall to the rear-most wall
of the building. This is the particular option the application is requesting for a variation.
2. Off-set with one-story ground level connector in rear
3. A 45 maximum length principal structure with increased side setbacks at the rear and stepdown
in story
Mr. Anderson then provided a slide of the proposed ground level floor plan and noted where the
measurements were defined from the front-most wall on Hallam St to the rear of garage number 2
which is nearly 80 ft. There is a 5 ft proposed setback to the alley and about a 15.5 ft setback from the
front of the property line. The proposed structure is about 79.5 ft in length of the first floor. On the
second floor, the length is approximately 66 ft from the front most feature.
Mr. Anderson wanted to note with the exception of the variance request, the design meets the
dimensional requirements in terms of floor area, height (just under 25 ft) and lot coverage.
He then provided slides depicting the elevation from 4th St and one from Hallam St as provided in the
agenda packet.
He noted Staff agrees with the applicant regarding the design articulation both horizontally and
vertically.
He noted the neighboring property to the west is built to the lot line and a portion of the eave that
hangs over the neighboring property line.
Staff does not feel there are any site specific constraints.
Staff’s position is that P&Z is making an evaluation on the alternative design approach which meets the
overall intent of the standard. There are three parts to the intent statement.
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 6, 2016
3
1. The design should promote light and air access and articulate building walls by utilizing multiple
forms. Staff agrees this part has been met.
2. The design should include massing and articulation that convey forms similar to historic Aspen
residential buildings. Staff does not feel this has been met.
3. The design should change the plane of buildings sidewall, step a primary building down to a one
story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure.
Staff cannot make findings the proposed design meets the entirety of the intent standard and therefore
recommends denial of the variation request.
Mr. Anderson then reviewed an email he received over the weekend regarding the application which
was entered as exhibit C.
Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for staff.
Ms. Tygre asked when the flexible and non-flexible standards went to effect. Mr. Anderson though it
was in February 2016. Ms. Phelan thought it was either the end of 2015 or the beginning of 2016.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff to discuss why staff the second design intent is not met. Mr. Anderson
replied it is his understanding there has always been an intent of the RDS that there is a form Aspen
wants replicated in the infill area. He feels there is a reference to Victorian styles. The options and
definitions included within in the latest RDS were an attempt to replicate the massing and form
supported by the community.
Ms. McNicholas Kury then asked if the 50 ft metric was an attempt to capture it and Mr. Anderson
believes they were meant to define the desired scale and building lengths. Options were defined for
larger masses proposed. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if a connector would allow for the forward building
to be longer. Mr. Anderson described the options as presented in Figure 2 of Staff’s memo in the packet
(p 13). Ms. Phelan added traditional forms, particularly in the west end, include the original house along
with detached out buildings. You see a lot of simple forms and buildings sharing the same setback. She
stated the intent of the standard was to break up the mass.
Mr. Mesirow asked to see the elevation slide and inquired if the caboose sections to the left and right
could not be considered based on the intent of the standard. Mr. Anderson replied he was correct.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Scott Hoffman, property owner, introduced himself and also introduced Mr. Jack Snow, RKD
Architects. Mr. Hoffman then thanked P&Z and staff for their assistance.
Mr. Hoffman provided a little background. He started Crestone Building Co in Vail primarily building
custom homes. He discovered Aspen and was drawn by its sense of community. He purchased the home
formerly owned by Roger Hunt in 2010 which is also known as the red house. He started designing a
new home in 2013. He looked at the neighboring properties and spoke with neighbors as well which he
feels is important. He met with Stan Gibbs who lives nearby and he learned the importance of height so
it does not impact neighbors. In regards to the RDS, he originally wanted to submit an application with
no variances required. He learned they had misunderstood portions of the standard as they relate to the
articulation of the building mass and the depth.
He then introduced and described two models, one of the current structure and one of the proposed
structure. He noted the models were constructed based on the same scale so the height, mass and side
coverage can be compared between the existing and proposed home.
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 6, 2016
4
In regards to maximum sidewall depth, they understood that related to depth where separated by
articulation and pointed to the areas on the model. He stated Ms. Sara Nadolny explained the maximum
sidewall depth related to the entire building. He now understands the articulation should be pushed to
the ends rather than the center. He continued stating they looked at alternatives and everything they
tried resulted in a lesser home. He stated they could compact the home and eliminate the 4th St
entrance, but the RDS specifically emphasizes a street connection and improve the street experience by
establishing a physical and visual relationships between streets and residential buildings located along
the streets. They understood this as it relates to the front façade (Hallam St) as well as the side façade
(4th St). As he met with staff, it became clear the proposal does not meet the letter of the standard.
He indicated staff had suggested an argument could be made regarding intent and noted at council
meeting earlier in the year when Ms. Jessica Garrow had stated intent could be considered for
compliance to encourage creative, contemporary architecture. He decided to move forward with the
application with P&Z. He noted he has spoken to his neighbors including the Tracy and Bubba Eggleston
and Joe DiSalvo. He has not heard anything negative about the design.
Mr. Hoffman feels they meet a number of the core requirements. Under intent, he believes the
proposed structure provides a strong connection with the street as well as articulation to break up bulk
and mass. Under the single family duplex standards, he noted the design should promote light and air
access between adjacent properties, the design should articulate building walls by using local forms to
break up large, expansive wall planes.
He then discussed the two criteria for granting a variance. He discussed the second criteria, as he
understands, relates to fairness related to unusual site condition. While every site is unique, he does not
believe there is a fairness issue. He believes the application meets the first criteria as it relates to intent,
noting the house fits, it is liked by the neighbors and it is his preferred design.
Mr. Snow noted Mr. Hoffman was very involved in design. He stated they have been working on the
proposal for some time and did not come in looking for a way around the RDS. He displayed a video
which walked around the build and reiterated Mr. Hoffman wants to be a good neighbor.
Mr. Snow feels they are improving the existing structure which measures 90 ft long and has no
articulation. He stated they were looking for the best design and did not realize they did not comply
until April of this year. Using the model of the proposed home, he pointed out the neighbor’s home that
is up to and overhangs the property line. Because of this, the proposed home is pushed towards 4th St.
They feel 4th St is very important and had a lot of opportunity. Having the home closer to 4th St allows for
more light and also provides for the living area to be on the second level and facing the south. He noted
where they took a bite out of the home to provide light to the living areas.
His experience of sitting on review boards allowed for the board to approve applications which are a
better idea. He feels the current code forces an hour glass shaped building and does not address a
corner lot. He noted the proposed building is officially longer than allowed, but they feel they are trying
to create the best building by bringing in the light and air and address an alley.
Mr. Goode asked for questions of the applicant.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked to see the building as it sits on the lot from overhead and then asked for the
width at its narrowest point. Mr. Snow replied it is about 25 ft.
Mr. Goode asked which street has the façade with large window. Mr. Snow replied it is 4th St.
Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing.
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 6, 2016
5
Mr. Goode then opened public comment portion of the hearing.
There were none appearing.
Mr. Goode then closed public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Goode then asked the commission for comments.
Ms. Tygre noted Roger Hunt used to describe his house as the ugliest house in the west end. For her, she
feels it is simple because the RDS states it very clearly. She does not feel the application meets any of
the three criteria and just stating they meet the intent is not sufficient. She can’t find anything to
support the variance request and agrees with staff’s findings.
Mr. Walterscheid noted that he sat in on the rewrite and stated this was not what they intended. He
feels it is clearly an articulated building and feels there are unintended consequence of the rewrite.
Ms. McNicholas Kury stated her preference would be to continue the hearing to allow them to modify
the design to meet one of the options or provide a more compelling presentation which addresses the
intent statement as listed under Staff Comments on p 16 of the agenda packet. She stated she has not
been won over.
Mr. Mesirow agrees with her statement and would be fine with a continuation. He thanked the
applicant for their honesty and recognized the frustrations with the changing of standards during their
design efforts. He feels P&Z has to look at the recently updated RDS and he does not see how the intent
was address based on the information provided.
Mr. McNellis also acknowledged the challenges based on the updated standards and agrees they are at
a disadvantage because it is a corner lot. He feels the articulation does step down when you look at it
from 4th St. He is not quite convinced the design has gone far enough. He then pointed to the stepping
down feature of the existing home which mimics homes of the Victorian era. He agrees with the other
commissioners regarding the opinion that the community has just stepped up and declared what they
want to see in the neighborhood.
Mr. Goode asked staff if this application would have passed under the previous standards. Mr. Anderson
feels the one that would have been most appropriate would have been the secondary mass standard
that asked for the primary building to have 90% of the mass and then there would be a connector to a
secondary mass that would be at least 10% of the total size of the building. Mr. Snow stated they had
been working towards this previously.
With permission from Mr. Goode, Mr. Hoffman noted the standard was written for a typical interior lot
and it doesn’t address corner lots. He asked if there was any room with that thought. Mr. Goode replied
it would not be accepted as a site constraint.
Mr. Hoffman asked for clarification that the articulation should not be in the center, but on the ends.
Ms. Tygre reiterated it needs to be one of three things. Mr. Hoffman replied the code also allows for
intent and for contemporary architecture.
Ms. Phelan noted the P&Z schedule is incredibly full and the earliest possible date is in November. She
recommended continuing to the next meeting until a true date can be identified based on the
applicant’s timeline and schedule openings.
Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to continue the hearing to September 20th, 2016. Mr. Mesirow seconded
the motion. All in favor, motion passed.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning September 6, 2016
6
Mr. Goode then closed the hearing.
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
P6
IV.A.
Page 1 of 15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Gorsuch Haus (S. Aspen Street) –Planned Development and Associated Reviews –
Resolution No. , Series 2016 – Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: September 20, 2016
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Norway Island, LLC
Aspen Skiing Company, LLC
(owner)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Design Workshop, Inc.
LOCATION:
Four parcels, at the top of and
along the east side of S. Aspen
Street (Lift 1A).
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Conservation (C)
zone district. The current use of
the property is as the base of a ski
lift (Lift 1A)
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
develop a hotel with commercial,
free-market residential and
affordable housing. Additionally,
lift 1A is proposed to be relocated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission make a recommendation of denial of the
project to the City Council.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission a recommendation of approval for a number
of land use reviews in order to redevelop the site with a
new mixed use building and relocate the Lift 1A base.
Photo: Lift 1 A
SPECIAL NOTE:
The body of the July 5th memo has been updated to reflect the amended proposal submitted by
the Applicant with updated referral comments and recommendation.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
P7
VI.A.
Page 2 of 15
The Applicant is requesting a consolidated review, meaning all final decisions are granted by the
City Council and the following land use requests will be recommendations by the Planning and
Zoning Commission:
• Planned Development - Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional
requirements for the project as required for property requesting Ski Base zone district
designation. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City
Council. City Council is the final review authority).
• Rezoning (Chapter 26.310) to amend the underlying zone district for the property. The
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is
the final review authority).
• Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design
Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use development. (As a consolidated review, the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. (City Council
is the final review authority).
• 8040 Greenline Review (Chapter 26.435) to develop in an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
(As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation
to City Council. City Council is the final review authority).
• Mountain View Plane (Chapter 26.435) to develop in an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
(As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation
to City Council. City Council is the final review authority).
• GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for residential multi-family, affordable housing, lodging
and commercial development and allotments. (As a consolidated review, the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final
review authority.)
• Major Subdivision for the reconfiguration of the existing parcels pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal after considering a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission).
• Vested Property Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to be
built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a prescribed time
period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (City Council is the final review
authority). The Applicant is requesting a vesting period of five years (instead of ten years
from the original application) rather than the standard three year period.
Planned Development – Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission is the first
step in a three step review process. Once heard by the Commission, the City Council will review
the application and recommendations of the Commission at a public hearing. This is the second
step of Planned Development review. If approved by City Council, the Applicant may then make
an application for Planned Development – Detailed Review which is reviewed before the
Planning and Zoning Commission (step three). Additional land use approvals necessary for this
P8
VI.A.
Page 3 of 15
project are consolidated with the Project Review portion of the Planned Development (steps 1 &
2).
The property is currently located in the Conservation zone district and is presently not located in
a zone district that is subject to the requirements of Referendum 1, which requires a public vote
of certain types of projects. Referendum 1 only applies to properties that were located within the
CC, C-1, NC, MU, L, LP, and LO zones on January 1, 2015.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Norway Island, LLC (which has received consent to submit a land use
application by the Aspen Skiing Co., LLC) is requesting approval to redevelop four parcels
located at the end of S. Aspen Street where Lift 1A is located. The city/county boundary crosses
one of the subject parcels (Government Lot 31) as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 1: Subject parcels and jurisdictional boundary2
The Applicant requests to develop the parcels with a new mixed use building that will contain:
• 67 units (compared to 62 lodge units previously) with 81 lodge keys (flexible
configuration)
• 6 free-market residential units (no change)
• 1 affordable housing unit (no change)
• 6,810 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable area inclusive of a restaurant, Aspen Ski Co.
operations and some retail
• 61 parking spaces (compared to 58) located in a subgrade garage
1 When a property is located within two jurisdictions, development may only occur within the boundary of the entity
reviewing the land use request.
2Subsequent images will only show Government Lot 31 to the Pitkin County/City of Aspen jurisdictional boundary.
P9
VI.A.
Page 4 of 15
Figure 2: Original and proposed site plan
Typical lodging amenities are proposed such as a flex/meeting room, spa, and fitness room as
part of the lodge. A new, relocated chair lift is proposed and a number of rights of way are
requested to be vacated. Overall 70,134 sq. ft. of Floor Area (and 127,525 sq. ft. of gross area)
for the entire development is proposed.
KEY ISSUES: There are eight different land use review processes related to the current
application, as listed on page 2 of the staff memo. Many contain the same or similar standards;
for example, criteria for a Planned Development (PD), a Rezoning and a Subdivision all require
adequate public facilities be available to serve the development and consideration of the natural
environment in the review. Rather than go through each review process one at a time, this memo
is written in a more narrative form, focusing on the “Key Issues” that staff has identified. The
memo will reference various standards of review. Complete responses to review criteria are
included as exhibits to this memo.
(1) Site Planning:
The property is currently comprised of four parcels, with various existing easements on the
properties (for example there is a fire access/drainage easement along the Mountain Queen
condominiums). The four parcels equal a total of 278,162 sq. ft. (over 6 acres) within the
municipal boundary. The applicant is now requesting to reconfigure the four existing parcels into
two lots (rather than maintaining the same number of lots). Besides existing easements, there are
P10
VI.A.
Page 5 of 15
three city rights of way that the applicant requests be vacated: the southerly half of Hill Street,
all of Summit Street, and the easterly half of S. Aspen Street. Proposed Lot 1 will contain the
hotel with amenity areas such as exterior terraces, walkways, stairways and underground
building structure. The new ski lift will also be located on lot 1.
Since the Commission initially provided feedback to the Applicant, changes have been
incorporated into the site plan and hotel proposal. As mentioned in the August 16th staff memo,
the lower ‘hook’ portion of the building has been removed and some of the massing has been
reconfigured into the remaining lower portion of the building by widening it and including a
portion of the building that cantilevers over the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac has been enlarged. It
appears that the previously proposed roof /porch overhang on the restaurant (when it was
proposed at the southernmost portion of the building) has been filled in with building mass. The
exterior terraces and stairs have been substantially reduced. The location of the lift has been
brought downhill about twenty feet. A wider skier return is provided in the area of the Mountain
Queen and Caribou condominiums. A more direct access is provided to the ski lift.
As noted above, the lodge is proposed to cantilever over the cul-de-sac. The entry façade is four
stories with the 3rd and 4th stories cantilevered over the cul-de-sac. The building then steps up
the site for approximately 330 feet in two to four story modules depending on the elevation
(similar to the original proposal). A series of terraces step up the slope on the eastern side of the
building (about 115 feet in length) and public access to the relocated ski lift is from the cul-de-
sac by walking along a series of stairs. A pull-off for arriving guests is near the lodge entry,
while a transportation stop is proposed along the cul-de-sac. The ski lift is to be moved slightly
to the east from its current location and uphill (but is now slightly lower than originally
proposed).
Extensive grading is proposed along the eastern side of the building to provide for a gentle skier
return to the lift and continued skiing downhill, through the Lift One Lodge site, terminating at
Dean Street. Some of the grading requires retaining walls on the lower part of the site by the
Caribou condominiums, Lift One Lodge, the stairway to the lift, as well as around the proposed
building. The current summer access road that is used by Ski Co. is proposed to be relocated
from the western side of the site to the eastern side which is also the area designated for the skier
return.
Staff Comment: Overall, staff recognizes that a lodge development is an appropriate use at the
base of Lift 1A. However, staff is still concerned with some of the fundamentals of the site plan.
Although the ski lift has been moved a bit lower on the site plan it is still 66 feet from its current
location. Add to that the walk up the stairs to get from the cul-de-sac to the original queuing
area and one has a longer walk. Public access for someone with a disability has been improved
with an elevator that has direct access from the exterior of the building and directly unloads onto
an exterior terrace.
With the amended site plan, the lift is still located to the east of the lodge building, but removal
of the ‘lower hook’ of the building assists in opening up the ski lift to the public right-of-way.
The proposed lodge still encloses the lift but not to the same extant. However, additional views of
the hotel and site access should be shown, via the sketch-up model, at the hearing. To ensure that
the reconfigured skier access “contributes to the identity of the town.” and “Provides
pedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access.”
P11
VI.A.
Page 6 of 15
While staff recognizes that this is a sloped site, staff is still concerned about the retainage that is
being proposed and would like more details in the form of elevations and sections to understand
the scale of some of these structures (including the terraces and exterior walkways) as well as
the grading. Some height measurements have been provided on the site plan but not enough to
know what the height will be from the base to top of wall for all retaining features.
The 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan, developed by Aspen Skiing Co., anticipated replacement
of the Shadow Mountain Lift (1A) with a completely different location for the bottom terminal
but also recognized that if the new location did not happen, the “lift would be rebuilt at its
current lower terminal.” The master plan also contemplated a lower lift from the Willoughby
Park location to create a more convenient access point for skiers.
The applicant proposes that the city vacate 13,234 sq. ft. of platted right of way. Staff questions
the community benefit of vacating the rights of way, especially Hill Street and S. Aspen Street as
city utilities (water and electric) are located within Hill Street and people can currently ski down
S. Aspen Street to the paved road/parking area, which will not be viable if vacated.
Figure 3: Proposed streets to be vacated
Staff still does not see vacation of the
rights-of-way to be in the best interest of
the city, as the proposed site plan limits
pedestrian access options to the mountain
and provides a longer walk to the lift from
the street. The request does not
“demonstrate the right-of-way, or portion
thereof, has no current or future use to
the community as a vehicular way,
pedestrian or bike way, utility corridor,
drainage corridor, or recreational
connection.”
Additionally, with regard to the
subdivision, the four parcels are now
proposed to be configured into two lots.
This a more reasonable configuration,
taking into account the proposed use for
each lot; however, a donut hole of lot area associated with Lot 1 is not actually contiguous to the
parcel. This latest configuration, disregarding the donut hole provide a lot configuration where
“the proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original
Aspen Townsite,” Certain improvements for the lodge are still proposed on the additional lot or
within the right of way and Staff believes it is inappropriate to have improvements associated
with the hotel, including some structural components, on a different lot, as this will essentially
create a nonconformity. The stairway encroachments into the remaining S. Aspen Street right-of
way is not supported by staff.
P12
VI.A.
Page 7 of 15
Figure 4: Proposed lot configuration
There are also technical issues that need to be addressed. Currently an easement sits along the
eastern side of the property benefitting the Mountain Queen condominiums. This easement,
which is a dirt roadway, provides fire access and is plowed in the winter. This area is shown as
part of the ski return; however adequate fire protection will need to be provided and the
easement beneficiaries will need to vacate the easement. With the current design of the building
certain fire code provisions will not be met, particularly a requirement that the design of the
project provide fire apparatus access.
Figure 5: Existing zone districts
(2) Dimensions Proposed/Programming:
The applicant is proposing a rezoning from Conservation
(C) to Ski Base Area (SKI) for the existing four parcels.
Development within the SKI zone district requires approval
of a Planned Development (PD) to establish the
dimensional requirements of the project, as the underlying
zone district does not have any dimensional requirements.
The Applicant is requesting Project Review approval which
focuses “on the overall concept and general parameters of a
project”. Through the PD process the dimensional
requirements are set for the project and the neighborhood
P13
VI.A.
Page 8 of 15
context should be used to assist in determining the requirements.
The SKI zone district permits hotels, multi-family residential, affordable housing, retail and
restaurant uses, ski and administrative offices, as well as ski areas. The zone district does not
have any underlying dimensional requirements associated with it so all development is approved
through a planned development to establish the dimensions. Although located within the
Conservation (C) zone district, the site is adjacent to properties within the city that are located in
the Lodge (L) zone district. As the SKI zone district does not have any underlying dimensional
standards, both Conservation and Lodge are provided for reference in Table 1, which outlines the
proposed dimensions of the lodge.
Overall, the project proposes approximately 70,134 square feet of Floor Area which includes the
lodge and the new ski lift. Comparatively, the C zone district permits the development of a
single-family residence on a lot of record, so at the most four residences could be built under the
current zoning. Under the Lodge zone district, based on the density of lodge keys to lot size
(which equals one lodge key per 931 sq. ft. of gross lot area), a maximum Floor Area of 1:1 or
between 46,606 -62,142 sq. ft. would be permitted3 (when deductions for steep slopes are
considered). The height of the building, which still needs to verified, is proposed at 47 feet as a
planned development while the present C zone district permits a height of 25 feet and the L zone
district would permit a height of 28 feet for the lodging density proposed. The Wheeler View
plane intersects this lot as shown in Exhibit G. The applicant has stated that the view plane is
minimally infringed upon and that the building is not visible from downtown.
Table 1: Dimensional standards
Dimensions Conservation Lodge
Current
Proposal
(SKI)
Original
Proposal
(SKI)
Minimum lot size 10 acres 3,000 75,466 (Lot 1) 44,550 (Lot 1)
Minimum net lot area per
dwelling unit 10 acres NA NA NA
Minimum lot width 400 ft. 30 ft. +/- 221 ft. +/- 60 ft.
Front yard 100 ft. 5 ft. 46 ft. 0 ft.
Side yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 6 and 0 ft. 0 ft.
Rear yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft.
Maximum height 25 ft. 28 ft.** 47 ft. 49 ft.
Cumulative floor area 5,132 – 6,842 sq.ft.*
(SFR)
1:1**
46,606 -62,142 sq.
ft.*
70,134 sq. ft. 67,781 sq. ft.
Lodging floor area NA
1:1
46,606 -62,142
sq. ft.*
51,268 TBD
Commercial floor area NA .25:1
11,651 – 15,535 8704 TBD
3 The Lodge zone district provides a sliding scale of Floor Area and Maximum Height which increases as the density
of lodge units increases on a lot.
P14
VI.A.
Page 9 of 15
Dimensions Conservation Lodge
Current
Proposal
(SKI)
Original
Proposal
(SKI)
sq. ft.*
Multi-family floor area NA
.25:1
11,651 – 15,535
sq. ft.*
12,102 TBD
Affordable housing floor
area NA
.25:1
11,651 – 15,535
sq. ft.*
5,910 TBD
Maximum multi-family
size cap NA
1,500
(2,000 with a
TDR)
NA NA
Minimum
off-street
parking
spaces
Lodge NA 81 keys = 40.5 81 keys = 41 81 keys = 41
Residential Max 2 per residence 7 units = 7 7 units = 7 7 units = 7
Commercial NA 6,810 = 7 6,810 = 7 9,111 = 10
Public Amenity Space NA 25% NA NA
* The Floor Area range includes taking no deduction up to the maximum deduction of 25% required by the
presence of steep slopes.
** Height and Floor Area allowances are based on the proposed lot having less than 1 lodge unit per 500 sq. ft. of
gross lot area (81 keys/ 75,466 sq. ft. = 1 lodge key per 931 sq. ft. of lot area).
The project proposes 67 lodge units with a total of 81 keys. This creates an the average room size
per key of 522 sq. ft.. Seven (7) of the lodging units are proposed as 2-bedroom,
condominiumized lodge units with the ability to be divided into three (3) keys each. The seven
units range from 1,450 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. when not divided. The six free-market units
(considered multi-family residential) range in size from 1,500 to 2,000 sq. ft.. In the Lodge zone
district, which permits multi-family, the maximum unit size cap is 1,500 sq. ft. unless a
Transferrable Development Right (TDR) is proposed which allows an increase of unit size to
2,000 sq. ft. previously, the Applicant has proposed to use TDRs to increase the unit size.
The applicant proposes the following improvements and programming by building level.
Parking Level – 61 parking spaces, mechanical, and circulation.
Level One –Entry lobby, lodge back of house, mechanical, SkiCo ticketing and Aspen Ski Co.
space.
Level Two – Meeting/conference room, 1 affordable housing unit, fitness, back of house and
circulation.
Level Three – 5 lodge units (5 keys), hotel spa, restaurant, bar/lounge, back of house and
circulation.
Level Four – 18 lodge units (18 keys), 3 free-market residences, and circulation.
P15
VI.A.
Page 10 of 15
Level Five –5 lodge units (11 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation.
Level Six –11 lodge units (17 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation.
Level Seven – 13 lodge units (15 keys), 2 free-market residences, and circulation.
Level Eight – 15 lodge unit (15 keys), back of house, circulation and restaurant.
Rooftop –bathrooms, circulation, pool and terrace.
Staff Comment: Staff is concerned with the overall size and height of the building. The Floor
Area proposed is substantially greater than what would be permitted in the C zone district or in
the L zone district as currently proposed. The height of the building is out of scale with the
surrounding context and exceeds what would be permitted in both the C and L zone districts. The
building sits high up the slope and part of the building is above the Wheeler View Plane, which
is not to be infringed upon unless the Commission “determines that the proposed development
has a minimal effect on the view plane.”
3) Design/ Architecture
The proposed lodge is subject to the Mountain Base Character Area of the Commercial, Lodging
and Historic District Guidelines. Key design objectives include: provide a pedestrian friendly
street edge, provide a sense of human scale, encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level,
reflect natural topography, provide an interconnected pedestrian circulation system, and maintain
views to the mountain and other natural features.
Staff Comment: Overall staff appreciates the materials proposed for the project; however, the
conceptual design review focuses more on placement and massing of buildings as well as site
planning. The subject site is steeply sloped and the proposed development steps in increments to
follow the natural slope, thereby varying the height of the building’s modules; however, the
footprint of the proposed new building is substantially larger than the surrounding development
and has not been significantly modified from the original application. When combined with the
predominantly four story height of the building above grade, the goal of achieving a sense of
human scale is not achieved as the building stretches some 330’ in length and 90’ in elevation up
the hillside. Staff still recommends that, like Lift One Lodge to the south, Gorsuch Haus be
broken into two structures, either completely detached or with a meaningfully sized hyphen or
ground level pass through between the masses. Staff finds that the height and mass as proposed
is still inappropriate given the site topography. As a frame of reference for the size of the
building, Aspen Square Condominiums, sited on a relatively flat parcel in the center of
downtown, is a four story building approximately 270’ in length.
Staff still recommends that the structure be predominantly topped by simple low pitched gable
roof forms, ideally with green roofs installed. The surrounding neighborhood features many
examples of classic alpine architecture with pitched roofs, deep overhangs, exterior balconies,
wood siding, and other features that are typically sympathetic to a site with steep topography
and mountainside vegetation.
P16
VI.A.
Page 11 of 15
Figure 6: Aspen Square
4) Mitigation/development allotments
As a new development, the applicant must request and receive development allotments for the
mixed use project. Allotments are required for the lodging, free-market, affordable housing and
net increase in commercial being proposed. As designed, the following allotments are
necessary:
• 81 lodging keys which equals 162 pillows (each lodging bedroom is considered two
pillows).
• 6 free-market development allotments
• 1 affordable housing allotment
• 6,810 sq. ft. of net leasable area (compared to 9,111in the original application)
All of the necessary allotments are available in the 2016 growth management year, except for
lodging, where only 112 pillows are permitted to be granted in a calendar year. There are not
enough lodging allotments in 2016, so the applicant is requesting a multi-year allotment for the
lodging component of the project, as 50 pillows are still needed.
With the lodging, commercial and free-market residential uses proposed, affordable housing
mitigation is required. As proposed staff has calculated the following mitigation requirement
associated with Lot 1 and explained in detail in Exhibit D.
Free Market Residential 8.21
Lodge 29.16
Commercial Net Leasable 15.81
53.17 FTES
P17
VI.A.
Page 12 of 15
The applicant is proposing one onsite affordable housing unit, housing three FTEs, and the
balance of mitigation is to be in the form of off-site units or certificates of affordable housing
credits (AHCs). APCHA has recommended that a percentage of the mitigation be in the form of
physical units.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends additional on-site housing be considered. Additionally, any
off-site housing should not solely be in the form AHCs. Staff concurs with the APCHA board and
recommends that the applicant commit to certain number of FTEs being physically housed by the
construction of actual units.
REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
A number of referral agencies have provided comments (Exhibit H) on the application: Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, Aspen Fire Protection District, city engineering, city
environmental health, city parks, city transportation, city utilities, The Aspen/Pitkin Housing
Authority and the Pitkin County Commissioners. Appropriate comments from the departments
have been included in the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: This site is the second portal to access skiing and Aspen Mountain.
Historically people have been able to ski down to S. Aspen Street and access the existing lift
directly from S. Aspen Street and it is important, as the property is considered for
redevelopment, to preserve the mountain
as a scenic, accessible resource.
Figure 7: Lift 1 COWOP site plan (never
approved)
The Applicant has made some
modifications with the site plan and
design of the lodge. Staff believes these
changes are starting to go in the right
direction but little has been done to
modify the mass and height of the
building. The requested Floor Area is
greatly above what is permitted in the
Conservation zone district and is higher
than what would be permitted in the
Lodge zone district. The height being
requested is significant on a sensitive
property that climbs up Aspen Mountain.
There has been much debate on a
number of topics. Where should the lift
be located? What is an appropriate skier
return? Should there be a platter lift
developed or at least considered in the
site planning? How does this proposal
relate to its neighbors and the wider
community? What master planning
processes have occurred in this
neighborhood and should they be
P18
VI.A.
Page 13 of 15
considered?
With regard to past master planning efforts in this neighborhood, the COWOP proposed a plan
that was not approved by the City Council. As part of the plan, the lift was proposed to move
uphill, but a platter lift was also envisioned to assist getting the public to the higher lift location.
As a result of the failure of the planning process, some of the lots have been developed
individually, incorporating or not incorporating some of the COWOP ideas. The proposal before
the Commission should be judged on its individual merits. Mass, scale, neighborhood
compatibility, access, and creating a vital base area should be at the forefront of the
Commission’s consideration. As a proposed development at the base of a ski lift, creating a
vibrant outdoor area for the public and private lodge guests is paramount to creating a successful
base area. A sketch-up model should be available at the hearing to see views from any point of
interest and should be used to see multiple perspectives of the building.
Although there has been some change to the site plan, more work is needed. Staff finds the
current site plan and design of the building to be incompatible with the neighborhood as it
proposes a building with dimensions that overwhelm the neighborhood, is incompatible with
adjacent zone district dimensions, and continues to limit the skier access to and around the site.
A PD review criterion requires “The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or
distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns.” Staff cannot
find this standard met with the current proposal. The design does not provide a human scale for
the project and provides building mass above the Wheeler View Plane and views through the
property are not provided. The goal of achieving a sense of human scale is not achieved as the
building stretches some 330’ in length and 90’ in elevation up the hillside with heights that
exceed surrounding zone district allowances.
This is the fourth meeting the Commission has conducted with very little change to the proposed
building’s size and height. Staff recommends denial of the proposal.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to make a recommendation of denial of the Gorsuch Haus.”
ATTACHMENTS: (EXHIBITS IN BOLD ARE PROVIDED WITH THIS MEMO)
EXHIBIT A – Planned Development Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B – Subdivision Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C – Commercial Design Review
EXHIBIT D – Growth Management Review Criteria
EXHIBIT E – Rezoning
EXHIBIT F – 8040 Green Line Review
EXHIBIT G –View Plane Review
EXHIBIT H – Referral Agency Comments
EXHIBIT I – Public Comment
EXHIBIT J – Application
EXHIBIT K – Affidavits of Public Notice
EXHIBIT L – Public Comment, post 7/5/16
EXHIBIT M – Public Comment Sign-up sheet, July 5 and 19, 2016
EXHIBIT N – Applicant’s 7/19/16 PowerPoint presentation
EXHIBIT O – Applicant addendum memo dated 8/8/16
EXHIBIT P – Amended site plan dated 8/8/16
EXHIBIT Q – Applicant’s letter dated 8/15/16
P19
VI.A.
Page 14 of 15
EXHIBIT R - Applicant’s updated drawings for 8/16/16 hearing
EXHIBIT S - Public Comment, post 7/19/16
EXHIBIT T - Public Comment, post 8/16/16
EXHIBIT U – Application: updated memo 9/1/16
EXHIBIT V - Application: elevations, site and floor plans
EXHIBIT W - Application: sketch-up views, subdivision plats, FAR calcs, misc.
P20
VI.A.
Page 15 of 15
P21
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 1 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. --
(SERIES OF 2016)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-PROJECT
REVIEW AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR THE GORSUCH HAUS, A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE BASE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN AND 1A LIFT, ON
THE EAST SIDE OF S. ASPEN STREET, COMPRISED OF FOUR PARCELS, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel IDs: 273513127001, 273513126001, 273513400028
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Gorsuch
Haus lodge from Norway Island LLC, PO Box 12393, Aspen CO 81612 (applicant), where
Aspen Skiing Company, PO Box 1248, Aspen CO 81612 is the owner, represented by Design
Workshop for the following land use review approvals:
• Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445;
and,
• Rezoning - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310; and,
• Growth Management Reviews – for lodge, free-market, affordable housing, and
commercial development pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470; and,
• Conceptual Commercial Design Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412;
and,
• 8040 Greenline Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.435; and,
• Mountain View Plane - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.435; and,
• Major Subdivision - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480; and,
• Vested Property Rights - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308.
WHEREAS, the application for the redevelopment proposes:
67 hotel units with 81 keys.
6 free-market residential units.
1 affordable housing unit.
61 parking spaces; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental
Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and Utilities
Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a
recommendation by the board was provided; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed application and initially recommended restudy of the project so the
P22
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 2 of 10
design, mass and scale of the project better fit with the context of the immediate neighborhood;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at a duly noticed
public hearing on July 5, 2016, that was continued to July 19, 2016, August 16, 2016, and
September 20, 2016, during which the recommendations of the Community Development
Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the land use
reviews needed to redevelop the site with a mixed use building containing a mix of lodging, free-
market residential, affordable housing and commercial net leasable space. Specifically, the
Commission recommends that the following land use reviews be approved: Planned
Development- Project Review, Rezoning, Major Subdivision, Growth Management Quota
System Reviews, Conceptual Commercial Design, Mountain View Plane, 8040 Greenline, and
Vested Property Rights approval for the Gorsuch Haus, subject to the conditions of approval as
listed herein for a development containing 67 lodge units (with 81keys,) 6 free-market
residential units, 1 affordable housing unit, 6,810 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable space and a
new ski lift.
The lodge units shall operate under the rules and regulations of the City of Aspen. The six free-
market units are not permitted to be combined. Prior to review by City Council the Applicant
shall:
• Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area and height with staff.
• Verify employee generation rates and credits with staff.
• Provide additional information, as deemed necessary by staff, regarding drawings of
perspectives, elevations, and sections of the project as well as additional information on
the parcels, associated easements, and proposed transportation shuttle.
Section 2: Planned Development -Project Review
The proposed project includes the development of a new, relocated ski lift as well as a mixed use
building that contain a mix of lodging, free-market residential, affordable housing, and
commercial uses. The recommended dimensions, site plan, architectural massing and character
are represented as Exhibits A and B of this resolution.
Section 3: Rezoning
The current zoning for the subject properties located with the city’s municipal boundary is
Conservation (C). The Commission recommends a rezoning of the subject properties to the Ski
Area Base (SKI) zone district.
Section 4: Subdivision
P23
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 3 of 10
Currently the subject land area consists of four parcels within the city’s municipal boundary. The
applicant proposes, and the Commission recommends that the parcels be reconfigured into two
lots. The commission also recommends the vacation of the public rights-of-way, comprised of
13,234 sq. ft. as requested by the Applicant (a portion of S. Aspen Street, all of Summit Street
and a portion of Hill Street) and any necessary easements.
Section 5: Growth Management Allotments
2.1 Reconstruction Credits. Based on the Gorsuch Haus redevelopment proposal, the Applicant
is entitled to a reconstruction credit, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470
a. 2,117 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable is represented to currently exist on the site. This
credit and the FTEs generated by the square footage will be verified and applied to the
project at building permit submission.
2.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted
to the Hotel:
a. 6 free market residential dwelling unit allotments.
b. 1 affordable housing unit allotment.
c. 4,693 sq. ft. of new commercial net leasable space.
112 lodging pillows from the 2016 GMQS calendar year, with a recommendation of 50
lodging pillows to be granted from the 2017 GMQS calendar year.
Section 6: Affordable Housing
3.1 Mitigation Requirements. The mitigation required for the project is as follows, which may
change upon further review and modification of the project:
Free Market Residential 8.21
Lodge 29.16
Commercial Net Leasable 15.81
53.17 FTES (MINUS ANY CREDIT)
The project includes one (1) three-bedroom affordable housing unit for on-site mitigation and
the balance of mitigation is to be in the form of off-site units or certificates of affordable housing
credits (AHCs).
3.2 Affordable Housing Conditions. Any affordable housing units shall be deed restricted at a
Category 4 income level or lower. They are permitted to be rental units, and shall comply with
the APCHA Guidelines, now and as amended.
No Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted for any component of the project until all of the
affordable housing mitigation is provided.
Section 7: ESA Reviews
The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the application meets the 8040 Greenline review
criteria and finds that the project has a minimal effect on the view plane.
P24
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 4 of 10
Section 8: Engineering Department
The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering
Department.
Section 9: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 10: Parks Department
Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or
significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on
site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Additional
materials shall be submitted as part of the Planned Development Detailed Review application
inclusive of, but not limited to, a detailed plan for existing tree protection and sidewalk
development for the property.
A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees
remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or
significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the
City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill,
storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle.
Section 11: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office. The current sanitary sewer service line is substandard and
shall be replaced with a new connection to the District’s main sewer line in the alley.
Section 12: Environmental Health Department
The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs.
Additional materials shall be submitted as part of the Final Commercial Design Review
application inclusive of but not limited to appropriate sizing of the trash/utility enclosure,
delineation of clearance of the waste enclosure, clarity on co-location of trash and utilities to
ensure adequate room is provided.
Section 13: Water/Utilities Department
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water
System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees
P25
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 5 of 10
will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet
adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 14 :
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning
Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be
complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an
authorized authority.
Section 15:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 16:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this --- day of----------, 2016.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Keith Goode, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Site plan and elevations
Exhibit B - Dimensional standards
Exhibit C – Legal description
P26
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 6 of 10
Exhibit A – Site Plan and elevations
P27
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 7 of 10
P28
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 8 of 10
Dimensional standards
Dimensions
Current
Proposal
(SKI)
Minimum lot size 75,466 (Lot 1)
Minimum net lot area
per dwelling unit NA
Minimum lot width +/- 221 ft.
Front yard 46 ft.
Side yard 6 and 0 ft.
Rear yard 5 ft.
Maximum height 47 ft.
Cumulative floor area 70,134 sq. ft.
Lodging floor area 51,268
Commercial floor area 5,910
Multi-family floor area 12,102
Affordable housing
floor area 854
Maximum multi-family
size cap NA
Minimum
off-street
parking
spaces
Lodge 81 keys = 41
Residential 7 units = 7
Commercial 6,810 = 7
Public Amenity Space NA
P29
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 9 of 10
Exhibit C – Legal Description
The legal descriptions are as follows:
PARCEL 1: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 AND 14, BLOCK 10, EAMES ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN
PARCEL 2: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 AND 7, BLOCK 12, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PARCEL 3: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 15, 1985 AS RECEPTION NO. 156038 IN BOOK 270 AT PAGE 21
OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS AND THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT
RECORDED JULY 13, 1971 AS RECEPTION NO. 146439 IN BOOK 256 AT PAGE 506; SAID
PARCEL OF LAND ALSO BEING SITUATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; SAID
PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 10 EAMES
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7 OF SAID
BLOCK 10 BEARS N.15°46'58"E. A DISTANCE OF 41.96 FEET; SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF
RECORDED APRIL 24, 1973 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 379; THENCE S.70°03'10"E. ALONG
THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS A DISTANCE OF
1.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS,
ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1974 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT
PAGE 489; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID CARIBOU
CONDOMINIUMS S.11°25'30"E. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID
MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS A DISTANCE OF 110.77 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS S.89°55'06"W. ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 53.70 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 N.15°46'58"E. ALONG
THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION A DISTANCE OF
5.21 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION, SAID POINT
ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SUMMIT STREET RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE
CONTINUING N.15°46'58"E. ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY A
DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 10 EAMES
ADDITION; THENCE CONTINUING N.15°46'58"E. ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF SAID BLOCK 10 EAMES ADDITION A DISTANCE OF 88.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 2,973 SQUARE FEET OR 0.068 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
PARCEL 4: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 1946 AS RECEPTION NO. 094502 OF THE PITKIN
COUNTY RECORDS; SAID PARCEL OF LAND ALSO BEING SITUATED IN GOVERNMENT
LOT 31 IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN AS DESCRIBED BY THE DEPENDENT RESURVEY AND SURVEY PLAT OF
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST, OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, FILED MAY
30, 1980 IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT OFFICE IN DENVER, COLORADO ("BLM PLAT"); SAID PARCEL OF LAND IS
LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND IS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MOUNTAIN QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1974 IN
PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 489, WHENCE THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID MOUNTAIN
QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS BEARS N.11°25'30"W. A DISTANCE OF 110.77 FEET; THENCE
P30
VI.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. , Series 2016
Page 10 of 10
S.11°25'30"E. ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MOUNTAIN QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS A DISTANCE OF 197.75 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID
WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE S.45°00'00"W. A DISTANCE OF 6.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS; THENCE LEAVING SAID
WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE S.45°00'00"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
GOVERNMENT LOT 31 A DISTANCE OF 281.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLO,
ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 24, 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE
132; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31 N.70°37'00"W.
ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID SOUTH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF ASPEN A DISTANCE OF 757.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID
GOVERNMENT LOT 31; THENCE N.14°40'13"E. A DISTANCE OF 35.71 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY MOST POINT OF GOVERNMENT LOT 38, ACCORDING TO SAID "BLM PLAT";
THENCE ALONG THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31 AND SAID
GOVERNMENT LOT 38 THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1) N.38°38'25"E. A DISTANCE OF 72.34 FEET
2) N.45°13'35"W. A DISTANCE OF 33.86 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 38, CONTINUING ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31 N.14°42'57"E. A DISTANCE OF 30.93 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SE1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, ALSO BEING A POINT
ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE
OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31 N.89°55'06"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SE1/4NE1/4
OF SECTION 13, ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31, A
DISTANCE OF 598.23 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 12,
EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINES
S.14°50'49"W. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12 EAMES
ADDITION A DISTANCE OF 6.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 12
EAMES ADDITION; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK
12 EAMES ADDITION S.75°09'11"E. ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID
BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITIONS A DISTANCE OF 181.46 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION; THENCE N.15°46'58"E. ALONG THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION A DISTANCE OF 54.79 FEET TO A
POINT ON SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SE1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, SAID POINT ALSO BEING
A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31; THENCE LEAVING SAID
EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION N.89°55'06"E. ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SE1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31, A DISTANCE OF 53.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 240,375 SQUARE FEET OR 5.518 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.
P31
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Planned Development – Project Review
1
26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The
burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application
and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying
zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the
dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional
variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review
of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies
with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Findings: The proposed development is not subject to a regulatory city document. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development
on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the
property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep,
rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide
areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could
harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable
for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed
in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation
techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: The lot currently contains development. The property currently contains Lift 1A
and a ski operations building. The Engineering Department outlined specific information needed
to comply with the Engineering Design Standards and provide adequate mitigation for natural
hazards such as mudflow. With appropriate conditions of approval, staff finds this criterion
conditionally met.
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the
area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
Staff Findings: The proposed development mimics the natural changes in topography by
stepping the design in modules. However, the proposed building is very large and
although the modules assist in breaking up the mass, additional consideration needs to be
given to reducing the mass, as it does not blend in or enhance the ski mountain. Staff
finds this criterion to not be met.
P32
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Planned Development – Project Review
2
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing the removal of mature trees along the
property’s east service road. The Parks Department has reviewed this application and
would like to see these trees preserved. Parks has instructed the applicant to provide a
more detailed grading plan showing why these trees require removal, and the amount of
fill or cut required up against the trunk of the trees. Parks is also requiring an
alternative to preserve the spruce trees adjacent to the Caribou Condominiums. Staff
finds this criterion to not be met.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff Findings: The proposed development is oriented with its front entrance towards
South Aspen St., which is the only public street that accesses the site. The site is
constructed with one large building that contains no access ways through the site, rather,
there is just one walkway that starts at the front of the property and wraps the building to
the east. The front of this walkway could be particularly problematic for emergency
service as this area also serves pedestrians, skiers and ski co when needed. Staff
recommends the applicant study the design and provide additional access ways through
the site to allow for more effective pedestrian, skier, emergency, maintenance and service
vehicle access. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established
during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any
dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to
the following criteria:
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
Staff Findings: As part of this proposal the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the
property to Ski Base Area (SKI). The dimensions of this zone district are set by the
adoption of a final development plan, as there are not underlying dimensional standards
for this zone district. Therefore the applicant is not requesting any variations from
underlying zoning with this PD request. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff Findings: The project proposes approximately 70,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The
site’s current zoning is Conservation (C) which permits the development of a single-
family home on the site. With the requested rezoning to Ski Area Base (SKI) the
applicant is requesting a much larger development that includes lodge, commercial
space, underground parking, and residential housing. Staff finds the overall size to be
too large for the neighborhood in which it is being proposed, Staff finds this criterion to
not be met.
P33
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Planned Development – Project Review
3
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
Staff Findings: The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a small lodge and multi-
family residential units. In this sense the proposed uses are compatible with the identity
of the neighborhood. However, the scale of the development, proposed as a single
building, does not complement the development pattern of the neighborhood. Staff
recommends the building be divided into separate structures to support less massing and
scale, as well as to provide additional access points through the site. Staff finds this
criterion to not be met.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of
the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing 61 off-street parking spaces in a sub-grade
garage accessed from South Aspen St. As a note: the Lift One Lodge has requirements to
maintain four parking spaces at the end of South Aspen St. that may not be removed by
Gorsuch Haus.
The applicant is proposing to add a public transit stop that has been reviewed by the
City’s Engineering Dept. The bus stop is part of the MMLOS improvements required for
the project.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific
allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review.
Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 –
Amendments.
Staff Findings: The applicant is not requesting any allowances for dimensional flexibility
at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation.
Staff Findings: The proposed development is subject to Chapter 26.412, Commercial
Design Standards. The design does not provide a human scale for the project and
provides building massing above the Wheeler View Plane and views through the property
P34
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Planned Development – Project Review
4
are not provided. Staff does not find the applicant to effectively meet the design standards
related to public amenity or utility location, and find that the trash/recycling area
proposed will require a Special Review approval by the Environmental Health Dept.
Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing to construct the building from stone, wood,
and metal with zinc and green roofs. These materials are compatible with those seen in
the immediate vicinity, which include wood, metal and stone. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on
existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed
Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: In response to the required Traffic Impact Analysis the applicant is proposing a
new bus stop with lighting and bench seating at the northern edge of the pedestrian walkway at
the front of the site; however, there is no actual vehicle proposed for this stop that is city run,
rather a shuttle van is proposed. The applicant is also proposing the addition of bicycle parking
across from the bus stop. Additional information is needed to evaluate the shuttle option to
verify it is a legitimate option. Staff finds this criterion not to be met.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the
Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: Staff Findings: Currently, the engineering department has noted that the
proposal does not meet certain standards such as the required width of the cul-de-sac and other
design features of the cul-de-sac including the transit stop and the need for sidewalks. The
drainage proposed does not currently work with other drainage plans along the S. Aspen Street
corridor. Staff does not find this criterion met.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall
upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
P35
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Planned Development – Project Review
5
Staff Findings: The applicant has been working with the Engineering Dept. to provide
improvements to the site that will upgrade the public infrastructure and facilities in this area.
The Engineering Dept. has required the applicant to work with adjacent One Aspen project to
provide a joint drainage plan that will serve both properties. Further requirements from
Engineering are listed as part of Exhibit H – Referral Agency Comments. Staff finds this
criterion to be conditionally met.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or
obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure
adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and
driveways are prohibited.
Staff Findings: The only access way to this site is via S. Aspen St, which is a public roadway.
The applicant is proposing to terminate S. Aspen St. in a cul-de-sac, which will also be used as a
turn-around for dropping people off to the site, as well as the bus drop-off/loading area. With
these uses the cul-de-sac will not remain unobstructed.
The applicant is also proposing a perpetual vehicular easement across Lot 3 to provide access to
Lot 4. However, this corridor will also serve as ski return to Lift One Park. This may prove to
be a conflict of different uses.
Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
P36
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Subdivision Review
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards.
All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations
in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision:
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual
unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate
or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a
Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate
public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are
prohibited.
Staff Findings: As proposed Lot 2 will not have legal vehicular access to a public way. A
potential roadway/easement is shown but should comment to Aspen Street. Staff does not find
this criterion met.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to
the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as
applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate
significant features of the site may be approved.
Staff Findings: The reconfigured lots generally follow a more conventional configuration for the
development proposed and the existing parcel boundaries. Staff does not support the ‘donut
hole’ of lot area proposed as part of lot 1 which is not contiguous with the lot and deviatse
drastically from standard lot configuration. Staff does not find this criterion met.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone
district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to
this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique
circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision
review.
Staff Findings: The development is proposed as a Planned Development and shall meet the
dimensions established in any site specific approval since the SKI zone district being requested
does not have any dimensional standards. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase
the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to
correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently.
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision, the
structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to application for
subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a structure
spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until recordation of the
subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance that the non-conformities
will be remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a
P37
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Subdivision Review
development agreement or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be
time-bound or secured with a financial surety.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing a four lot subdivision where some of the
improvements such building structure spans lot lines below grade, creating a nonconformity.
Staff does not find this criterion met.
A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating
individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the
following standards:
1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 –
General Subdivision Review Standards.
Staff Findings: As currently proposed, staff does not find the application meets the general
subdivision review standards with regard to guaranteeing access to a public right of way,
creating more traditional lot configurations, or by creating a nonconformity. Staff does not
find this criterion met.
2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the
use of the limited amount of land available for development.
Staff Findings: The subdivision does not create an efficient pattern of development as the
building improvements proposed still cross lot lines and access to the lots is somewhat
limited. Staff does not find this criterion met.
3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and
structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological
importance or contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Findings: The current site is the second portal to access skiing and Aspen Mountain.
Historically people have been able to ski down to S. Aspen Street and access the existing lift
directly from S. Aspen Street. This proposal, based on how the footprint of the lodge is
located, will reduce skier access to/from the ski area from S. Aspen Street but encourage
skiers to follow a skier return down towards Dean. Staff is concerned that the skier return,
although widened, is still somewhat narrow for the multiples uses in the area (pedestrians,
skiers, ski co employees and machinery) and that the historic ski identity of this side of the
mountain will be negatively altered. Staff does not find this criterion met.
4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development
because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding,
mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides,
mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in
excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm
the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as
suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City
Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards.
Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details
P38
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Subdivision Review
and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to
Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Findings: The Applicant is proposing to mitigate potential hazards through
engineering techniques. A condition to this effect will be included in the draft resolution.
Staff finds this conditionally met.
5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques
necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable
requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of
Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: Currently, the engineering department has noted that the proposal does not
meet certain standards such as the required width of the cul-de-sac and other design features
of the cul-de-sac including the transit stop and the need for sidewalks. The drainage
proposed does not currently work with other drainage plans along the S. Aspen Street
corridor. Staff does not find this criterion met.
6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to
serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Findings: The applicant has represented that all infrastructure cost will be born by the
applicant. A condition to this effect will be included in the draft resolution. Staff finds this
criterion conditionally met.
7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management
approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System, including
compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement
development as applicable.
Staff Findings: The applicant is requesting growth management approvals in conjunction
with the subdivision request. Applicant represents that all growth management requirements
will be met. A condition to this effect will be included in the draft resolution. Staff finds this
criterion conditionally met.
8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter
26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance
pursuant to said Chapter.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes to meet the school lands dedication with a fee-in-lieu
payment. Any payment will be calculated and assessed with the submission of a building
permit. A condition to this effect will be included in any ordinance. Staff finds this criterion
to be conditionally met.
9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
P39
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Subdivision Review
Staff Findings: If approved, a plat meeting the city’s requirements shall be required to be
recorded. A condition to this effect will be included in the draft resolution. Staff finds this
criterion to be conditionally met.
10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Findings: If approved, a development agreement meeting the city’s requirements shall
be required to be recorded. A condition to this effect will be included in any approval
ordinance. Staff finds this criterion to be conditionally met.
B. Vehicular Rights-of-Way. The dedication, boundary alteration, realignment, or any
partial or whole vacation of a Street, Alley, or other vehicular right-of-way serving more than
one parcel, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following
standards:
Figure 1: Rights of way proposed to be vacated
1. The proposed change maintains or improves the public health, safety, and welfare of the
community and is in the best interests of the City of Aspen.
P40
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Subdivision Review
Staff Findings: The applicant requests vacation of three rights of way: a portion of Hill
Street, all of Summit Street and a portion of S. Aspen Street. The engineering department
does not support the vacation of the rights-of-way, as the need for them in the future is
unknown and Hill Street is an important utility corridor for water and electric. Historic skier
access to S. Aspen Street will be greatly limited by the vacation of part of that right-of-way.
Currently staff does not see vacation of the rights-of-way to be in the best interest of the city,
as the proposed site plan limits pedestrian access options to the mountain and limits lift
access from the street by moving the lift location uphill. Staff does not find this criterion met.
2. The proposed change to the public rights-of-way maintains or improves safe physical and
legal access from a public way to all adjacent properties and shall not restrict the ability
for a property to develop by eliminating or hindering access. Redundant access, such as a
primary street access plus alley access, is preferred.
Staff Findings: As proposed, the cul-de-sac does not meet the design standards of the city.
Due to the configuration of the new lots access not improved for every lot. Staff does not find
this criterion met.
3. The design of the proposed change complies with Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering
Design Standards and is consistent with applicable adopted policies, plans, and approved
projects for the area (such as a highway access policy, an approved development project,
an infrastructure plan, a trails plan, an improvement district plan, and the like).
Staff Findings: As mentioned previously, the engineering department does not support the
request to vacate the rights of way, as the need for them in the future is unknown and Hill
Street is an important utility corridor for water and electric. Staff does not find this criterion
met.
4. The proposed change maintains or improves normal traffic circulation, traffic control
capabilities, access by emergency and service vehicles, pedestrian and bike connections,
drainage infrastructure, street and infrastructure maintenance needs, and normal operating
needs of the City including snow removal.
Staff Findings: A cul-de-sac would be an improvement to the way the street currently
terminates; however, the proposed rights-of-way vacation negatively impacts existing
utilities and historic access to the mountain. Staff does not find this criterion met.
5. For all new rights-of-way and physical changes to existing rights-of-way, the applicant
shall design and construct the proposed right-of-way improvements according to the
design and construction standards of the City Engineer. Upon completion, the right-of-
way improvements shall be subject to inspection and acceptance by the City Engineer.
The City may require a performance warranty. The requirements of this criterion shall
be reflected in a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: The city’s engineering department has stated that the proposed cul-de–sac
does not meet the sizing requirement of the city.
6. For partial or full vacation of existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall demonstrate the
right-of-way, or portion thereof, has no current or future use to the community as a
vehicular way, pedestrian or bike way, utility corridor, drainage corridor, or recreational
P41
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Subdivision Review
connection due to dimensions, location, topography, existing or proposed development,
or other similar circumstances. The City shall consider whether the interests of the
applicant and the City can be achieved through a “closure” of the right-of-way.
Staff Findings: Staff does not support the vacation of Hill Street as city utilities are located
within the right-of-way. The portion of S. Aspen Street proposed for vacation is currently
used by pedestrians and skiers to access the mountain. Staff currently finds that these rights-
of -way serve a community purpose and that this criterion has not been met.
7. A Right-of-Way Dedication/Vacation Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval
Documents. The plat shall demonstrate how the lands underlying vacated rights-of-way
shall accrue to adjacent parcels in compliance with State Statute.
Staff Findings: If approved, a vacation plat meeting the city’s requirements shall be
required to be recorded. A condition to this effect shall be included in any approval
ordinance. Staff finds this criterion to be conditionally met.
8. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. This
requirement may be waived if no right-of-way construction is proposed.
Staff Findings: If approved, a development agreement meeting the city’s requirements shall
be required to be recorded specifically outlining any conditions of the vacation and the entire
project. A condition to this effect shall be included in any approval ordinance. Staff finds this
criterion to be conditionally met.
P42
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
1
26.412.050. Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of
development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of
the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards.
Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be
used to justify a deviation from the standards.
Staff Findings: The application does not fully meet the requirements of Section 26.412.060,
Commercial Design Standard, as discussed in the review criteria section following. Staff
requires the applicant to re-examine the proposed outdoor areas proposed for public and private
uses and to provide more detailed plans for the utility and mechanical equipment on the site.
Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required
to comply with this Section.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing an entirely new structure rather than converting an
existing structure. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to
be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal
is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards
and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways
of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must
determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
Staff Findings: Staff recommends the applicant revisit the review criteria for the Mountain Base
Character Area, particularly in regard to access through the site. Staff finds this criterion to not
be met.
26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district
design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use
development:
A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to
an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and
entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational
improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas.
P43
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
2
On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity,
the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method
or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to
the procedures herein and according to the following standards:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of
uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants
and uses.
Staff Findings: Although public amenity is not a requirement of either the existing zone
district (Conservation – C) or the proposed zone district (Ski Area Base – SKI), the
applicant is proposing commercial development and lodge uses, and public amenity is a
requirement for both of these uses. As a proposed development at the base of a ski lift,
creating a vibrant outdoor area for the public and private lodge guests is paramount to
creating a successful base area. With changes to the design of the project, the applicant
has not addressed how the new configuration of the building and exterior spaces will
contribute to the vitality and success of the area. Some features that are provided
include:
• The Lift Plaza area and stairway but at a smaller scale than originally proposed.;
• Improved access to the winter World Cup finish area;
• Right-of-way improvements to the terminus of S. Aspen St.; and
• The transit stop location at the north side of the property.
Staff requests the applicant re-examine the areas that are being considered as public
amenity to recalculate the amount being proposed. The transit stop at the north side of
the site is located on the pedestrian walkway, which is already being counted as public
amenity. The inclusion of the transit stop with bench and trash area would not be
counted twice towards public amenity space. Furthermore the transit area is being
proposed to mitigate trips to the site, as a requirement of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Likewise, the skier return area called out above as the Skier and Pedestrian Easement
through the Mountain Queen Condominium property is essential to the function of the ski
mountain and should not be counted towards public amenity space. Lastly, Staff is
unclear as to the specific area of the right-of-way improvements to the terminus of S.
Aspen St. and is requesting clarification to determine if this space would count towards
public amenity for the site.
The Lift Plaza area is located on the west side of the building and can be found to count
as public amenity space. The area may allow for a variety of uses, such as outdoor
seating, concerts, outdoor movies, and other vending opportunities for the public, such as
health fairs.
P44
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
3
The public amenity space proposed as the improved access to the winter World Cup
finish area is more limited on its uses outside of the intended winter use. The natural
grade in this area is quite steep and does not lend itself to a variety of use possibilities.
Staff recommends the applicant restudy the on-site public amenity space and work with
Staff to accurately calculate what should be counted as public amenity. Staff finds this
criterion to not be met.
2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
Staff Findings: The proposed plaza area provides a seating area and potential outdoor
dining space. The outdoor plaza has plenty of solar access and a view of the mountain to
the south.
The subject site is located at the terminus of South Aspen St. Although the area cannot be
viewed from the street, the plaza does promote activity in this area of the mountain base
but does not engage the street. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
3. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
Staff Findings: The site is proposed in a unique area that does not have walkways or
plazas. The adjacent properties are residential or lodge in use. The proposed plaza area
does not duplicate anything found in this area, and will not detract from the pedestrian
environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection
26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements.
Staff Findings: The applicant is not requesting any variations to the design and
operational standards for public amenity. Staff recommends a re-examination of what is
being considered by the applicant as public amenity space. Staff finds this criterion to be
not applicable.
B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of
a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success
of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding
properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The
following standards shall apply:
1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the
minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the
Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter.
P45
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
4
Staff Findings: The trash/recycling area is proposed to be located at the ground level, off
of the cul-de-sac, adjacent to the garage ramp.
The application has been reviewed by the Environmental Health Department who have
found that the development is subject to the requirements of Lodge development
containing over 60 rooms and food service. The applicant is required to provide 400 sq.
ft. of space to the storage or trash and recycling. Subsection 12.10.0.A(a) of the
Municipal Code states the standard configuration of such a space shall be 20’l x 20’d x
10’h. The applicant is proposing a trash/recycling space that is smaller. This
configuration will require Special Review from the Environmental Health Dept. prior to
approval. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum
standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric
Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established
according to said Codes.
Staff Findings: Staff is unable to determine the location of the utility area for this
development. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest
extent practical.
Staff Findings: Staff is unable to determine the location of the utility area for this
development. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be
along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid
Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review.
Staff Findings: This property does not adjoin an alleyway. Staff finds this criterion to be
not applicable.
5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the
street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title
12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All
fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be
no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter
26.430, Special Review.
Staff Findings: The applicant has indicated this area will be located within the building,
and therefore not visible from the street. The area is proposed to be accessed via
overhead doors. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an
alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise
allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade
and accessible to the alley.
P46
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
5
Staff Findings: This property does not have access to an alley. Staff finds this criterion
to be not applicable.
7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow
for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the
extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an
historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly
licensed.
Staff Findings: The applicant has not indicated the location of utility pedestals to allow
Staff to review this criterion. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area
shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be
accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of
the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City
of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or
dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized
as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International
Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building.
Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
Staff Findings: This property does not have access to an alleyway. A delivery area is
proposed at the cul-de-sac at the top of S. Aspen St., adjacent to the ramp for the parking
garage. The delivery area appears to allow pull-in access for vehicles. All non-ground
floor commercial spaces have access to an elevator for delivery access. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet
shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet
the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended
by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing a number of air locks for the property. The
applicant has indicated these entryways will include an air curtain that meets the
International Energy Conservation Code. Staff will require a plan for these air curtains.
Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical.
Staff Findings: The applicant has indicated mechanical exhausting including parking
garage ventilation will occur through the roof and will not output to the street. The
applicant has indicated an area on the roof plan dedicated to mechanical equipment, but
has not provided any concrete plans indicating area of venting, etc. Staff requires a
more detailed plan indicating the location of the venting. Staff finds this criterion to not
be met.
P47
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
6
11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
Staff Findings: The applicant has indicated mechanical and ventilation equipment will be
accommodated within the structure and will therefore not be visible from the public
right-of-way or pedestrian level. Staff requires a more detailed plan indicating the
location of the venting. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12,
Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be
varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area
provisions).
Staff Findings: The Environmental Health Dept. has indicated the trash/recycling service
area should measure 20’l x 20’d x 10’h. The applicant is proposing a trash/recycling
space that measures about 6 feet by 16 feet. The applicant is requesting Special Review
from Environmental Health to vary the dimensional requirements of the trash/recycling
area.
Environmental Health has advised the applicant that approval of the proposed
configuration and shared space with the receiving area would be contingent upon receipt
of plans that indicate this space is for the exclusive storage of trash and recycling and a
written commitment that the floor and walls would be painted to ensure this space was
reserved for these uses and no other purpose. Staff and Environmental Health require
plans for this area prior to any approval of Special Review can be made. Staff finds this
criterion to not be met.
Mountain Base Character Area
Conceptual Review Design Guidelines
4.1 Provide pedestrian ways through a property that will connect to public sidewalks and trails.
• The design and layout of a building on a large site should accommodate additional pedestrian
circulation links, including walkways to other parts of the street network and to open lands and
the public trail system.
Staff Findings: A pedestrian walkway is proposed to wrap the entry of the building from South Aspen
Street to the lift plaza. There are no additional pathways through the site to connect the western and
eastern sides of the property. Planning and Engineering Staff recommend additional pedestrian
walkways through the site to create better connections to pedestrian gathering points and the lift. Staff
finds this criterion to not be met.
4.2 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
• Parking shall be placed underground wherever possible.
P48
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
7
• Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the
property, behind the structure.
• Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and
landscaped to soften design of parking areas.
Staff Response: sixty-one on-site parking spaces are proposed in a fully subgrade structure that is
accessed via Aspen St. The subgrade condition minimizes the visual impacts of the parking on the site.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4.3 Structured parking access shall not have a negative impact on character of the street. The access
shall be:
• Located primarily off an alley when present or secondly on a secondary street when feasible.
• Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade.
• Integrated into the building design
Staff Findings: The proposed parking is accessed via South Aspen St. where the street terminates at the
site. There is no alley or secondary street to the site. The parking is in a subgrade structure, where the
entry is recessed from the cantilevered portion of the proposed lodge. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4.4 A building on a sloping site should be designed to reduce the perceived mass and scale and reflect
the natural slope of the site. This should be achieved in all of the following ways:
• Design the building to ensure that sections of the street facade(s) step in relation to the slope.
• Vary the height of the building modules to maintain a human scale of adjacent buildings.
• Vary the plane and height of the street façade to express the slope of the site and continue the
varied form in the roof profile(s).
• Use the roof form and profile to reduce the perceived scale of the street façade(s) and roof.
• Include a range of materials to express the modulation of the façade.
Staff Findings: The subject site is steeply sloped and the proposed development steps in increments to
follow the natural slope, thereby varying the height of the building’s five modules. The building is nine
stories, although the exposed height appears to range from two plus to four stories. The proposed roof
utilizes flat roof forms that are greenscaped. The building also employees two pitched roof forms as seen
from the west elevation. These roofs are also greenscaped.
The applicant has included a materials palette page that indicates the use of stone, wood, metal, and zinc
on the proposed building. However, the goal of achieving a sense of human scale is not achieved as
the building stretches some 330’ in length and 90’ in elevation up the hillside. Staff finds this
criterion to not be met.
4.5 Design a building to integrate with the natural landscape. This shall be achieved in three or more
of these ways:
• Face the building(s) toward the open landscape as well as the primary street.
• Create public access through and adjacent to the site.
P49
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
8
• Reduce the height and scale of the building modules.
• Reduce the building footprint and/or use smaller buildings adjacent to the open area.
• Use materials which are compatible with an open or natural setting.
Staff Findings: The proposed design faces the building towards S. Aspen St. and the open space of the ski
mountain. Like Lift One Lodge to the south, Gorsuch Haus should consider being broken into
two structures, either completely detached or with a meaningfully sized hyphen or ground level
pass through between the masses. Staff finds that the height and mass as proposed is
inappropriate given the site topography. The proposed materials of wood, stone and metal are natural
materials that integrate with the natural landscape. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
4.6 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is conveniently accessible.
• Provide a walkway from the street to assure public access.
Staff Findings: The site is currently zoned Conservation and the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the
property to SKI. Public amenity space is not required for either of these zone districts. However, the
applicant has proposed areas of Public Amenity Space that are mostly located along the eastern side of
the building. A walkway from the street to the amenity is provided. Staff finds this review criterion to be
met.
4.7 Locate Public Amenity Space such that it is visible from the public way and takes advantage of
solar potential for outdoor activities related to hotels.
• Positioning the space to abut a public sidewalk is preferred. If a space is located more internal to
the site, it should be clearly visible.
Staff Findings: The site is currently zoned Conservation and the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the
property to Ski. Public amenity space is not required for either of these zone district. As noted previously,
the applicant has designed Public Amenity into the project; however, the building blocks off most of the
amenity space from view. Staff finds this review criterion not met.
4.8 Provide pedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access.
• Walkway links should be a minimum of 12 ft. wide to provide a comfortable sense of space.
Staff Findings: The only pedestrian way that is provided on the property starts at the termination of S.
Aspen St. and wraps the northernmost side of the building towards the east. Planning and Engineering
Staff recommend more pedestrian ways be provided to accommodate more convenient access through the
site and for greater access to the ski lift. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
4.9 Provide Public Amenity Space which accommodates outdoor dining space adjacent or close to
and directly visible from the public way.
P50
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
9
Staff Findings: Although Public Amenity is not required in the current or proposed zone district, the
applicant is proposing an outdoor dining space along the eastern side of the building. This area is not
visible form the public way. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
4.10 Use setbacks to reduce building scale, enhance public access and accommodate landscaping
where appropriate. All of the following will apply:
• Front setbacks should provide for an additional or widened sidewalk and landscaping of the front
yard space.
• Side setbacks should provide the opportunity to create walkways or through courts to adjacent
streets and public trails.
Staff Findings: The proposed zone district (SKI) has no setback requirements. Landscaping is planned
for the site around the western and eastern sides of the building, although the draft landscape plan is very
limited in detail. Other than the walkway leading to the plaza, the development lacks any additional
walkways or through courts which may enhance the pedestrian experience and access through the site.
Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
4.11 Orient a primary entrance to face the street or an area of open space adjacent to the street.
Staff Findings: The primary entrance to the Gorsuch Haus is proposed to face S. Aspen St. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
4.12 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the
Mountain Base Area.
• Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property.
• A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher.
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
o In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building.
o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic
Building, Performing Hall, Fire station, etc.)
o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a
historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be
appropriate.
o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the
building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day-lighting.
Staff Findings: The second story varies as the building steps down to follow the topography; however,
the floor to ceiling height measures around 10’ or more at each level. With regard to the existing
content, it is apparent that the building will be taller than the existing context. Staff does not find this
criterion met.
4.13 Incorporate varied heights of building components in a development.
P51
VI.A.
Exhibit C
Commercial Design Review
10
• On a corner site, both street facades are defined as building frontage.
• Height variation and variation in profile should be expressed across the width and depth of the
site.
Staff Findings: Some height variation is achieved through the building; however, the building is a flat
roof building and the existing neighborhood context includes a gable roof forms. Staff finds this criterion
not to be met.
4.14 Provide variation in building height and roof profile through one or more of the following:
• Vary the heights for different sections of the development.
• Vary the setbacks and wall planes of difference building components.
Staff Findings: The height of the proposed building is varied from the front to the rear as the building
steps down in modules to follow the topography of the site. There are a number distinct modules
proposed for the building; however, the footprint of the proposed new building is substantially larger
than the surrounding development. Staff finds that the height and mass as proposed is inappropriate
given the site topography. Additional setbacks and height variation through different roof forms should be
explored. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
P52
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Growth Management Reviews
26.470.050. General requirements.
A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and
redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and
redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the
necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may
fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and
meet.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
Staff Findings: Sufficient growth management allotments are available for the project
with regard to affordable housing, commercial, and free market allotments. There are not
enough lodging pillows for the 2016 growth management year; however, the applicant is
requesting multi-year allotments for the lodge component which “shall not be required to
meet this standard.” Staff finds this criterion met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Findings: The land uses proposed for the project: lodging, multi-family residential
and commercial uses (restaurant and Aspen Ski Co. operations) are compatible with the
uses located within the neighborhood which includes an approved lodge and multi-family
development, some of which is used for short term rentals. The property is not subject to
any city adopted, regulatory plans. Staff finds this criterion met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Findings: The Ski Area Base (SKI) zone district is proposed as the zone district for
the redevelopment which does not have any underlying dimensional requirement, since
the dimensions of the project are set in a site specific approval via the Planned
Development process. Staff finds this criterion met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable.
P53
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Growth Management Reviews
Staff Findings: The Growth Management reviews are being combined with the design
review and the Planned Development review, so no approvals have been granted that
need to be reviewed for consistency. Staff finds this review not applicable.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant
chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to
Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90
Criteria for
Staff Findings: As a lodge project, mitigation requirements are outlined under lodge
development. Refer to the lodge development growth management review, below. Staff
finds this criterion not applicable.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at
least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for
which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is
higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100
Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Staff Findings: As a lodge project, mitigation requirements are outlined under lodge
development. Refer to the lodge development growth management review, below. Staff
finds this criterion not applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
P54
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Growth Management Reviews
Staff Findings: The applicant has agreed to make any necessary improvements to the
public infrastructure as required by the city which will be outlined in any approvals and
agreements. Staff finds this criterion conditionally met.
1. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Findings: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Guidelines have
minimum standards associated with the development of affordable housing units including
the minimum net livable area of a unit. The board’s recommendation is included as Exhibit I;
however, it does not follow income category requirements. APCHA recommends:
• The one unit on site be a rental unit.
• The off-site mitigation be a mix of housing credits and physical units and that any
physical units contain a mix of income categories. The Land Use code permits
mitigation at a Category 4 income level.
• Any units are approved as rental units.
Staff finds this criterion can be conditionally met, with appropriate conditions included in a
resolution or ordinance that outline the type and amount of mitigation recommended.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community
Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of
the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods.
Staff Findings: The affordable housing mitigation requirement for the lodge proposal is
53.17 (minus any credits) employees. Three (3) employees are proposed to be housed on site.
While the balance is proposed to be mitigated via off-site units or through the purchase of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Staff finds this criterion met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
P55
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Growth Management Reviews
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Staff Findings: The design of the on-site unit appears to meet this standard. Staff finds this
criterion met.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Findings: The one, on-site affordable housing unit is a three bedroom unit housing 3
employees. The applicant is requesting that unit be rental unit associated with the lodge
operations. APCHA supports the units as a rental and staff finds this criterion met.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such
non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff Findings: The applicant is not proposing any affordable units that are not required for
mitigation. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
6. Expansion or new commercial development. The expansion of an existing commercial
building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial
building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general requirements
outlined in Section 26.470.050.
Staff Findings: As a lodge project, mitigation requirements are outlined under lodge
development. Refer to the lodge development growth management review, below. Staff finds this
criterion not applicable.
7. New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. The
development of new free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050 above.
P56
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Growth Management Reviews
Staff Findings: As a lodge project, mitigation requirements are outlined under lodge
development. Refer to the lodge development growth management review, below. Staff finds this
criterion not applicable.
8. Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria:
b. If the project contains less than one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of
lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply:
1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-
market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable
housing.
2) Sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge,
exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph
26.470.050.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable
housing.
Staff Findings: The proposed lodge includes 81 keys on a proposed lot of 45,550 sq. ft. so the
lodge density is 1 lodge unit per 550 sq. ft. of lot area1, requiring 30 % of the free-market
residential net livable area to be mitigated and 60% of the employees generated by the lodge
and commercial uses to be mitigated.
• The six free-market residential units include a total of 10,943 sq. ft. of net livable
area for mitigation purposes. The following calculation shows that 3,282 sq. ft. or
8.21 employees are generated by the new residential development.
10,943 sq. ft. x .3 = 3,282 sq. ft. required for mitigation
1 FTE = 400 sq. ft.
3,282 sq. ft. / 400 = 8.21 FTEs
• The SKI zone district employee generation rate is .6 employees generated per lodging
bedroom. The following calculation shows that 29.16 employees are generated with
the development of 81 lodging bedrooms.
81 lodge bedrooms x .6 employees generated = 48.6 employees generated
48.6 employees x .6 required mitigation = 29.16 employees
• Commercial uses located on the site generate 4.7 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of net
leasable in the SKI zone district for Lot 1. The applicant represents that 6,810 sq. ft.
of net leasable area is programmed into the lodge and that the existing ski lift area
P57
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Growth Management Reviews
contains 2,117 sq. ft. of net leasable area. A total of 15,81 FTEs are generated by the
6,810 sq. ft. of commercial area propsed.
1. Multi-year development allotment. The City Council, upon a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, shall approve, approve with conditions or deny a multi-year
development allotment request based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed development is considered "exceptional" considering the following criteria:
(Note: A project need not meet all of the following criteria, only enough to be
sufficiently considered "exceptional.")
1) The proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing required for a standard
project.
Staff Findings: The applicant is not proposing to exceed its mitigation requirements. Staff
does not find this criterion met.
2) The proposed project represents an excellent historic preservation accomplishment.
A recommendation from the Historic Preservation Officer shall be considered for this
standard.
Staff Findings: This property is not a historically designated property. Staff finds this
criterion not applicable.
3) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as
priority through the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and
provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g.,
singles, seniors, families, etc.). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
Staff Findings: APCHA has requested that mitigation for the project be provided by a mix
of off-site units and affordable housing credits, which is what the applicant has suggested
in the application. Applicant should clarify the number, types and income categories
proposed for physical units to meet this criterion.
4) The proposal minimizes impacts on public infrastructure by incorporating innovative,
energy-saving techniques.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes to use low flow fixtures, native landscaping,
efficient HVAC systems and other techniques to minimize its impact on public
infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion met.
5) The proposal minimizes construction impacts to the extent practicable both during
and after construction.
Staff Findings: The applicant represents that construction impacts will be minimized by
incorporating best management practices by monitoring air quality and incorporating a
construction worker carpool plan.
P58
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Growth Management Reviews
6) The proposal maximizes potential public transit usage and minimizes reliance on the
automobile.
Staff Findings: The applicant represents that a transit solution will be worked on with
neighbors for this area; however, no solid proposal has been proposed or vetted by the
city. The city is looking to study a variety of options in 2017; however, the applicant is
currently proposing infrastructure improvements such as a bus stop at the site and the
addition of a shuttle. More information is needed to determine if the shuttle is a viable
option. Staff finds this criterion not met.
7) The proposal exceeds minimum requirements of the Efficient Building Code or for
LEEDS certification, as applicable. A recommendation from the Building Department
shall be considered for this standard.
Staff Findings: The applicant represents that the building will be certified for a Leeds
Silver rating. A condition to this effect will be included in any ordinance. Staff finds this
criterion conditionally met.
8) The proposal promotes sustainability of the local economy.
Staff Findings: The proposal offers a new vision for the original portal to the ski area by
proposing a lodge with a restaurant that would provide an additional option for lodging
in an area where lodging is expected. The need to increase the lodging bed base has been
a topic of much discussion and a new lodge would contribute to the sustainability of the
local economy. Staff finds this criterion met.
9) The proposal represents a desirable site plan and an architectural design solution.
Staff Findings: The site plan closes off the ski lift from the public and limits skier access
by building on the S. Aspen Street right-of way and creating a narrow skier return on the
eastern side of the site. Staff does not find this criterion met.
10) The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses
in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district.
Staff Findings: Staff finds that the uses proposed are compatible with the neighborhood
and the zone district proposed; however, the proposal limits access to the ski lift and
inhibits the skier return that is needed for this site. Staff finds this criterion not met.
b. The project complies with all other provisions of the Land Use Code and has obtained all
necessary approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council, as applicable.
Staff Findings: As proposed, the project does not comply with all provisions of the land use
code, additional design consideration is needed on some of the site improvements. Staff finds
this criterion not met.
c. The Community Development Director shall be directed to reduce the applicable annual
development allotments, as provided in Subsection 26.470.030.D, in subsequent years as
determined appropriate by the City Council.
P59
VI.A.
Exhibit D
Growth Management Reviews
Staff Findings: The applicant is requesting 50 lodge pillows (25 lodging bedrooms) from the
2017 Growth Management year.
P60
VI.A.
Exhibit E
Rezoning Review
1
26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from Conservation (C) to Ski
Area Base (SKI). The purpose of the SKI zone district “is to provide for areas which allow for a
mixture of uses related to ski area uses and operations, including skiing and appurtenant uses
and structures, ski area administrative offices, recreation, lodge/hotel, retail, restaurant and bar
uses, tourist-oriented service uses, residential uses, and short term vacation rentals.” The site is
located at the termination of S. Aspen Street, west of the Silver Queen Gondola, and this portal
provided the original access to the ski area. The proposal includes a new high speed ski lift,
administrative offices and skier services, lodge rooms, multi-family units, and a restaurant/bar.
Figure 1: Existing zone districts
Parcels adjacent to the property are zoned Lodge (L) and Lodge Preservation PD (LP/PD).
These zone districts permit lodge and multi-family housing among other uses, and the LP zone
district specifically permits uses associated with outdoor recreation facilities and events. Multi-
family housing is the predominant use in the surrounding area with the ability to short term rent
the units. These zone districts and uses are compatible with the SKI zone district proposed.
Staff finds the SKI zone district to be appropriate, and finds this criterion to be met.
P61
VI.A.
Exhibit E
Rezoning Review
2
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Findings: The applicant has commissioned a report from Sopris Engineering LLC to
determine the impacts of the proposed development on public facilities. This report states that
the utility upgrades associated with the recently approved One Aspen (South Aspen Street
Townhomes) development to the north of the subject site will provide the appropriate capacity to
accommodate several major utility systems associated with the proposed development, including
transporting potable water to the site and the removal of wastewater. The Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District has required a study to estimate the anticipated daily average and peak flows
for the project, and will require final approval of the on-site sanitary sewer utility plans, as well
as plans related to oil and grease interceptors, oil and sand separators, plumbing plans for the
pool and spa, and discharge plans for the glycol snowmelt and heating systems.
Staff anticipates minimal impact to the City’s parks, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
The City’s Engineering Dept. has identified a potential transportation issue with the drop off
area on Dean St. being underutilized with this new development. Engineering posits the majority
of drop off stops will occur at the cul-del-sac at the end of S. Aspen St. which is undersized for
city standards and will be unable to accommodate the anticipated traffic.
Engineering is also not supportive of the minimal pedestrian accommodations around S. Aspen
St. through the site. More pedestrian facilities should be proposed with the increase use to this
area.
Lastly, Engineering is requiring a drainage report that will integrate the drainage plans for the
proposed development with that of One Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Findings: The area is already disturbed by the existing ski lift and building on the site. The
proposed development is much larger in scope and will require extensive grading to
accommodate the ski lift and other development.
The site is located above 8040 feet mean sea level and is therefore subject to the heightened
8040 Greenline Review for development within an environmentally sensitive area. This will be
reviewed specifically in a different exhibit of review criteria.
To ensure the development does not exacerbate naturally occurring ground movement, the
Engineering Dept. has required inclinometers to be installed prior to and during construction to
monitor ground movement. An inclinometer will be required to remain on-site and bi-annual
readings taken. Furthermore, Engineering is requiring an agreement be put in place that should
a Stability Improvement District be created for the Strawpile slope, Gorsuch Haus will be
required to join the district. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P62
VI.A.
Exhibit E
Rezoning Review
3
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
Staff Findings: The proposed zoning amendment from Conservation (C) to Ski Area Base (SKI)
is consistent and compatible with the City’s community character and in harmony with the public
interest and intent of Title 26. Ski and hospitality industries are important to the success of
Aspen’s economy. The development proposes to enhance a currently underutilized ski area by
providing a faster, more modern ski lift, skier services, a bar/restaurant area for lounging, as
well as an outdoor seating area. The lodge and residential uses are consistent with the
character of the uses in the surrounding area, and will provide more options for visitors to
Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P63
VI.A.
Exhibit F
8040 Greenline Review
1
C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one
hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth
below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine waste
and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to
contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or,
where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the
City.
Staff Findings: The site is currently home to Lift 1-A and an associated operations building.
The applicant enlisted HP Geotech and Tetra Tech to evaluate the subject site for
development suitability, including risks related to rockfall, snow avalanche, slope
movements, mine waste deposits, earthquake and mudflow. The studies indicate little to no
risk for mountainside slope movements, mine waste and rockfall risks. While the studies
found potential risk of snow avalanche, the potential risk is mitigated by the existing
buildings located to the west of the site as well as the avalanche controlled Northway Slope
and Fifth Avenue ski runs.
The Mudflow Analysis that was completed by Tetra Tech does indicate Gorsuch Haus to be
located on the western side of a mudflow path. The results of the study anticipate minor
mudflow accumulations at the lodge. The applicant has suggested construction in
compliance with the City’s mudflow regulations to prevent additional impacts on downhill
and adjacent properties.
This application has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Dept. who notes all mountain
runoff is proposed to be diverted to the South Aspen St. storm water system. The drainage
report will need to coincide with both the Lift One Lodge and S. Aspen Street Townhomes
(One Aspen) drainage plans. Any alterations will need to be specifically called out and all
downstream impacts analyzed.
Engineering is also requiring an agreement to be in place that will require Gorsuch Haus to
be part of the slope stability Improvement District for the Strawpile Slope if one is created.
And lastly, ground stability must be monitored via an inclinometer prior and during
construction. Specific language outlining this requirement shall be included in the Planned
Development Agreement document. Conditions to this effect will be included in the draft
resolution. Staff finds this conditionally met.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
Staff Findings: The applicant has submitted a runoff, drainage and soil stabilization plan for
the site. As previously mentioned, the Engineering Dept. notes the Lift One Lodge PD shows
drainage passing through the center skier easement. Gorsuch Haus proposes to divert all
mountain runoff to the South Aspen St. storm water system. The drainage report will need to
coincide with both the Lift One Lodge and One Aspen drainage plans, with all alternatives to
P64
VI.A.
Exhibit F
8040 Greenline Review
2
be specifically highlighted and all downstream impacts analyzed. Until this is complete,
Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in
the City.
Staff Findings: The proposed development is not expected to have any significant adverse
effects on the City’s air quality. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with
the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Staff Findings: The design of the proposed development steps to follow the topography of the
site. There are no new roads or trails proposed with the application; however, the summer
access road is proposed to be relocated. The existing S. Aspen St. will be designed to
terminate in a paved bulb to facilitate skier drop-off and emergency services access to the
site. The paved area is approximately level with the existing paved parking area of the
Shadow Mountain Condominiums. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing a project that will require an extensive amount of
grading to achieve the proposed building, as well as the skier return. The applicant is
proposing to restore the property with a finished grade that generally follows the site’s
natural topography, but will do so in stepped modules of the building which will require
retaining walls.
This application has been reviewed by the Parks Department. Parks requires a more
detailed grading plan to show why the trees proposed for removal along the east service
road require removal. Parks has indicated an intent for these trees to be preserved.
Additional information on the grading is needed.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Staff Findings: The development proposed for the site is based on one structure, aside from
the addition of the new high speed ski lift, which is proposed to be next to the plaza at the
eastern side of the development. The area will be accessed from the existing S. Aspen St. and
a dirt access road is rerouted.
The project will require significant grading to accommodate the skier return along the east
side of the site. It is unclear as to whether views of the mountain will be maintained from S.
Aspen St. and through to the lift corridor based on the information provided. Staff finds this
criterion not met.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend
into the open character of the mountain.
Staff Findings: The proposed development is designed such that it is split into modules that
follow the grade changes of the natural landscape. No building module is greater than four
P65
VI.A.
Exhibit F
8040 Greenline Review
3
stories in height, as viewed above grade. To that extent the height of the building is
minimized; however, the design primarily utilizes flat roof forms, which can add bulk. The
green roofs will assist the structure in blending into the natural surroundings in the warmer
months. Overall staff believes the height and bulk of the building is not minimized. Staff finds
this criterion not met.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Staff Findings: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has reviewed this proposal and
is requiring the following in relation of sewer and water treatment:
• Service from the Sanitation District are contingent upon compliance with the
District’s rules, regulations and specifications, which are on file at the District’s
office. Staff expects the site to be served by this District, as well as electric
• A wastewater study flow will be required for this project which shall be funded by the
applicant.
• On-site drainage and landscaping plans shall require approved by the District.
• The applicant must work with the South Aspen Street condo project to determine the
location of the applicant’s proposed sanitary sewer line. This is also a requirement
of the Engineering Dept.
• The Aspen Ski Company’s on-mountain sewer line may need to be relocated to
accommodate the proposed building.
• Additional fees will be assessed for water collection and treatment systems when
flows are produced that exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system. If
the existing system is overwhelmed, the development will be assessed fees to cover the
costs associated with replacing the entire portion of the system that is overwhelmed.
The Engineering Dept. highly recommends the Gorsuch Haus project coordinate with One
Aspen on the water main alignment, as One Aspen plans for the waterline located further to
the west. Engineering also notes:
• Gorsuch Haus will need permission from Mountain Queen to change their drainage
and access easement. Maintenance of an open channel is very different than
maintenance of a road with pipe.
The above indicates a number of factors that will require resolution on the part of the
applicant prior to availability of services being confirmed. Staff finds this criterion to not be
met.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained.
Staff Findings: The proposed project will be served by the existing South Aspen Street and
terminates in a proposed cul-de-sac. The design of the cul-de-sac has been called into
P66
VI.A.
Exhibit F
8040 Greenline Review
4
question by the engineering department based on the diameter being substandard as well as
some of the improvements associated with it. Staff finds this criterion not met.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Staff Findings: The sole ingress and egress route available to the proposed development is
via existing S. Aspen St. The Engineering Dept. requires the proposed cul-de-sac at the
terminus of S. Aspen St. to be a minimum diameter of 100’, and to remain clear and free of
stopped vehicles at all times for fire access and vehicle turn around. The Engineering Dept.
also requires an eight foot passenger loading/unloading area as well as an ambulance
parking area be incorporated into the design.
Staff is concerned that the cul-de-sac will not remain clear of parked vehicles as the
applicant indicates the edge of the turn-around will be used for loading and unloading
associated with the lodge, and recommends further study of this area to meet the
requirements of access associated with emergency services, as the fire department has
concerns that the current design does not provide for adequate access. Staff finds this
criterion to not be met.
11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the
proposed development, to the greatest extent practical.
Staff Findings: Staff is unaware of any regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board
that would encumber this project. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
P67
VI.A.
Exhibit G
Mountain View Plane Review
1
C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a
mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that
the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below.
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum
allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed
according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Development so as to provide
for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height,
open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width,
yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the
Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed
as a Planned Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that
the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located
in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will
further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the
adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed
development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to
reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
exempt the development from the requirements of this Section.
Staff Findings: The proposed development site has been reviewed for impact on the Wheeler
Opera House View Plane (the site is outside the Main Street View Plane). The view plane
intersects the mountain and so some of the building would be outside of the view plane. The
applicant has said that the proposed development does not affect the Wheeler Opera House
View Plane, due to foliage and other structures in the foreground that obscure the site. Staff
would like additional study to be undertaken such as 3d modeling to provide additional ways
to study whether the effect on the view plan is minimal. Staff finds this criterion not to be met.
Figure 1: Wheeler View Plane, Cross-section and Plane (following page)
P68
VI.A.
Exhibit G
Mountain View Plane Review
2
P69
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
Gorsuch Haus – DRC Comments
Aspen Sanitation District (Tom Bracewell)
ACSD Review Requirements 5-11-2016
A “Collection System Agreement” will be required for this development, which is
an ACSD Board of Director’s action item. Once detailed plans for this application
are made available and approved by the district, we can initiate these
agreements.
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant.
The applicant’s engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated
daily average and peak flows from the project.
All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains)
including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages.
On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must
accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and
specifications.
On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing
establishments.
Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle
maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the o/s
interceptor.
Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the
applicant and approval prior to a building permit application.
Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the
district.
Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must
preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system.
Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be
required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
P70
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right
of ways to the lot line of each development.
All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Peg
in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been
made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be
collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the
improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned
capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will
be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that
would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve
capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line).
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once
detailed building and utility plans are available.
The Ski Company’s on mountain sewer line shall be shown on the utility plans. This
sanitary sewer service line may need to be relocated to accommodate the proposed
building.
The applicant will need to work with the South Aspen Street Condo project to determine
the location of the applicant’s proposed sanitary sewer line. That service connection
and stub into the property line can then be installed with the new utility lines and re-built
Aspen Street corridor.
Environmental Health (Liz O’Connell)
1- This space is subject to the requirements of a Lodge with over 60 rooms and
food service will need to provide 400 square feet of space to the storage of trash
and recycling. The standard configuration is 20’l x 20’d x 10’ h (Municipal Code
12.10.0 A (a)).
2- The current submission does not show the exact dimensions of the trash and
recycling space (pg A101)
a. Applicant met with Environmental Health staff and brought drawings of the
trash and recycling space measuring 43.6’ l x 9.5’d x +10’h. This meets
the square footage requirement, but this configuration of space requires
Special Review from the Environmental Health department prior to
approval.
P71
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
b. Applicant was advised that because of the unusual configuration and the
shared space with the receiving area that approval would be contingent
upon plans which indicated this space was for the exclusive storage of
trash and recycling and written commitment that the floor and walls would
be painted to ensure this space was reserved for trash and recycling and
not used for other purposes.
3- The original plans showed an overhead door and a man door to enter into this
area. Applicant was advised to use a double-overhead door in order to allow
access to the waste containers
Pitkin County (Suzanne Wolff)
Thanks for the opportunity given us to review the Gorsuch Haus proposal. All the
development is proposed within the City so our comments are not extensive. I have
attached the comments we submitted to the Forest Service regarding the Lift 1A
replacement. Several of these comments are relevant to the Gorsuch proposal,
especially those concerning the need to ensure that a new Lift 1A remains readily
accessible to the general public, and that it not be perceived as a private portal to the
Mountain. The Gorsuch proposal provides a public path to the lift, but it may not be
something that will be readily apparent to visitors, and it does not appear to make an
"open, welcoming" statement.
What is referred to in the application as "Parcel 4" is partially in the City and partially in
the County. All development is proposed in the City portion of the parcel. The proposed
plat, especially "page 2 of 4" , should have a note to make clear that the City/County
boundary line shown on the plat is not a subdivision line or parcel line. It should be
clarified that this parcel extends on in to the County and the parcel is not "divided" by
virtue of this plat.
The application on page 45 says that Parcel 3 is the parcel that is divided by the City/
County line. It is parcel 4 that is split
Engineering (Hailey Guglielmo)
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project
packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
ROW Vacation:
1. The Engineering Department does not support the ROW vacation due to
potential utility and access issues both current and future.
2. Abandoning the southern end of South Aspen St cuts off public access to Eames
Addition Block 12. The vacation would cut off City boundary limits.
3. Aspen streets serve as view corridors to the mountain. By vacating the Aspen St
ROW the property would cut off this view plane.
Transportation:
P72
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
4. The drop off area on Dean St that is a part of the Lift One Lodge PUD will be
greatly underutilized with the proposed Gorsuch Haus Development. The
majority of drop off stops will occur at the cul-de-sac which is undersized and
unable to accommodate the amounts of traffic that is foreseen with the proposed
development.
Cul-de-sac:
5. The minimum cul-de-sac diameter is 100’. The 100’ diameter needs to remain
clear and free of stopped vehicles at all times for fire access and vehicle turn
around.
6. A loading/unloading width of 11’ is required for public use not just hotel use.
Demonstrate shuttles can fit within that width. How many vehicles could be
stationed at once?
7. An 8’ passenger loading/unloading area needs to be incorporated in addition to
the vehicle loading area.
8. An 8’ walkway shall be maintained around the entire width of the cul-de-sac
including the west side along Shadow Mountain Condos property frontage.
9. What is the proposed slope of the cul-de-sac? Design standard maximum for
street cross slope is 4%.
10. An ADA accessible drop off area is required.
11. The bus stop requires a bus pull out.
12. Lift One Lodge has requirements to maintain four parking spots at the end of
South Aspen St. These parking areas shall not be removed by Gorsuch Haus
PUD.
13. Ambulance parking needs to be accounted for in the area.
14. An exhibit shall be submitted of the cul-de-sac area which shows the number of
loading spots available to vehicles and shuttles.
15. What encroachments from Shadow Mountain Condominiums would need to be
removed to accommodate the proposed cul-de-sac?
Pedestrian Facilities:
16. The Engineering Department is not in support of minimal pedestrian
accommodations around South Aspen St and through the site. As use in this
area increases, there needs to be sufficient pedestrian facilities.
Public Improvements:
17. The proposed ADA public access to the lift involves two elevators and an indirect
path. This route needs to be improved.
Drainage:
18. Lift One Lodge PUD shows drainage passing through the center skier access
easement. Gorsuch Haus proposes to divert all mountain runoff to the South
Aspen St storm system. The drainage report needs to coincide with both the Lift
P73
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
One Lodge and One Aspen drainage plans. Any alterations need to be
specifically called out and all downstream impacts analyzed.
Easements:
19. The Engineering Department supports an increase in public access easements
through the site. The proposed Development cuts off public access corridors.
20. The 15’ water pipeline easement located on the NE corner of the property needs
to be extended to 30’ to accommodate the steep slopes.
21. The private access easements and recreational use easements are described as
private, solely for the use of the owners of Lots 1,2,3,4. What public amenity
space, with public easements and public access is being proposed?
22. A 5’ easement to the Summit St corridor is not sufficient. A larger width and
proposed walkway shall be recorded with the PUD. This easement shall be open
to all public pedestrian and bicycle access.
23. Follow the utility easements dimensions found in section 2.5.2 of the Engineering
Design Standards. All rear and side lot lines shall have a 5’ utility easement.
24. The water and storm sewer easements on the northeast corner of the property
shall be wider than minimum to accommodate future maintenance in the area
with steeper slopes.
25. Provide easements for any required mud or debris walls.
26. Drainage easements need to incorporate channel flow, not just areas where
stormwater infrastructure is proposed.
27. Gorsuch Haus will need permission from Mountain Queen to change their
drainage and access easement. Maintenance of an open channel is very
different than maintenance of a road with pipe
TIA:
28. A full TIA review cannot take place until the following comments are addressed.
29. The project is taking credit for improvements that are proposed to South Aspen
St under Lift One Lodge PUD. The improvements need to be specific to Gorsuch
Haus.
30. A transportation option needs to be proposed and agreed upon to address the
traffic congestion that will occur at the cul-de-sac.
31. With the proposed improvements, the Dean St drop off loop will be greatly
underutilized. This has a negative impact on the transportation in the area.
32. Points shall be deducted for all negative impacts. For example, the attached
sidewalk, and placing a driveway through a pedestrian area.
33. A plan drawing which shows all MMLOS improvements is needed.
34. The project takes credit for a full bus stop, as well as individual bus stop
amenities. This is doubling points for the same MMLOS measure.
Stability:
35. An agreement shall be in place that should a slope stability Improvement District
be created for the Strawpile slope, Gorsuch Haus will join the district.
P74
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
Earth Retention:
36. Inclinometers will be required prior to and during construction to monitor ground
movement. Below is wording from South Aspen St PUD that shall be included in
the Gorsuch Haus PUD.
a. Ground Stability Monitoring. In order to ensure
that development of the Project does not exacerbate naturally
occurring ground movement, an inclinometer shall be installed
and maintained by Gorsuch Haus or its successors or assigns
with bi-annual readings taken through the time of issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. The first Building Permit application for
the Project shall include a report on the initial readings and a
subsequent report is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Utilities:
37. The location of the 16” waterline main does not coincide with the final alignment
of the waterline as proposed by One Aspen. The One Aspen plans have the
waterline located further west. The water alignment on the One Aspen plans may
affect the proposed Gorsuch retaining walls and stairways, and elevator. This
area needs to be reworked to ensure it functions and proper separation
distances are maintained.
38. It is highly recommended the Gorsuch Haus project coordinate with One Aspen
on the water main alignment.
39. All trees shall be planted a minimum of 10’ away from existing and proposed
utilities.
40. Fire flow calculations shall be submitted at building permit to demonstrate an 8”
line is necessary. Calculations for a 6” line shall also be submitted which show
the 6” line does not supply adequate fire sprinkler protection.
Additional Comments:
41. The property needs to accommodate snow storage, both onsite and for the cul-
de-sac. A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be
provided contiguous to the paved area and designed to accommodate snow
storage (unheated areas). For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced
to 10%.
Streets and Sidewalks/Cost Recovery:
1. The property is required to reimburse One Aspen for a pro-rata share of costs
associated with the reconstruction of South Aspen St and associated sidewalks,
public utilities, and drainage facilities. Reimbursement shall take place prior to
issuance of a building permit per Lift One Lodge Subdivision Agreement
Sections 3.3-3.5.
P75
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
Redline Comments from the Attached pdf:
Page: 5
1. How tall is this retaining wall?
2. Pedestrian area all the way around.
3. ADA unloading area
4. 100 ft diameter plus 11 loading unloading lane. Demonstrate shuttles can fit in
that loading unloading lane. Plus 8' passenger unloading and 8' pedestrian
walkway. 100' must stay clear for vehicle turn around and fire access.
5. What mechanism will keep vehicles out of pedestrian area except for those with
rights to use private maintenance and access road?
Page: 6
6. Streets are view corridors to the mountain - by vacating the row you are taking
away that view. Cutting off city boundary limits.
7. Directness factor needs to be measured from the furthest point on the site. i.e.
the upper patio.
8. A bus stop needs to have a bus pull out.
Page: 28
9. This easement needs to be extended to 30' width to accommodate the slopes in
the area.
Page: 29
10. What encroachments would need to be removed to accommodate proposed cul-
de-sac?
Page: 32
11. Trail easement needs to be more than 5 ft.
12. Public trail easement shall be built to fit within the easement, not altered at as
built.
13. The Engineering Department supports pedestrian and bicycle public access to
Summer Road.
14. It needs to be better laid out what constitutes Hotel Amenities and
improvements. Furniture? Snowmelt? Food services? W hat constitutes
landscaping? Is this easement for hotel guests only? Public easement? Public
amenity space?
15. Sheet 4 shows three different arrows for this easement. It is not defined the
extents of these easements. Needs to be clearly shown and width called out.
Built within easement, not amended at time of as built.
16. This should not be a private access easement solely for use by Lots 1, 2, and 4.
It should be a public access easement for access to Lift 1A and pedestrian
walkways to the mountain and Summit St corridor. Improve the public ADA
access.
17. This needs to be more legible.
18. This recreational easement needs to coincide with access easements described
in paragraph 7. What easements shall be private and what easements need to
be public?
P76
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
19. Drainage easements need to include drainage pathways where runoff sheet
flows. Not just areas where there are drainage improvements.
20. This paragraph is vague about where the drainage easements are located.
Blanket easement around all drainage improvements. Drainage areas need to be
better defined and called out. Including sheet and channel flows.
21. Improvements, structures, and tree plantings need to be placed outside of the
easement width.
22. Need to specifically call out transformer locations and easements.
Page: 33
23. Show portion proposed to be dedicated as ROW
24. Above Hatch for legibility
25. Encroachment license needs to be modified. It is the developments responsibility
to modify license.
26. This shaded area is not shown anywhere.
Page: 34
27. The dedicated ROW needs to be expanded to accommodate a full 100' diameter
cul-de-sac, and loading unloading area and sidewalk.
28. Are there encroachments on Lot 1 property?
29. What encroachments exist that would need to be removed for Aspen St
vacation?
Page: 35
30. This easement is for sheet flow and open channel, not pipe infrastructure.
31. Gorsuch Haus will need permission from Mountain Queen to change this
easement. Maintenance of an open channel is very different than maintenance
of a road with pipe
32. Must be more than 5'
33. Summer Road easement open for public pedestrians and bicycle access to Ajax.
34. Public not private
Page: 37
35. The location of this waterline does not coincide with the final alignment of the
waterline as proposed by One Aspen. The approved waterline is further west.
This area needs to be reworked and coordinated between the two projects.
36. Grading needs to be shown here that still provides access for Mountain Queen.
37. Separation with new water alignment. Electric separation for future line to pass
through the summit st corridor.
38. What's the proposed separation between the proposed stormline and Mountain
Queen waterline?
39. Are these drainage improvements permitted in Mountain Queens Access and
water easement?
40. Proposed drainage pathway from Lift One Lodge PUD passed through the center
41. How is this pipe routed within the underground building footprint? Greenroof over
parking garage?
42. Separation Distance of 10' is not maintained. The placement of the Lift One
Lodge retaining wall and Gorsuch Haus
P77
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
43. Building would make maintenance in this area incredibly difficult. The building
should be pulled back to accommodate separation distance.
44. This does not coincide with One Aspen Plans. Rip rap continues further south
and west.
Page: 38
45. Lift One Lodge drainage continued through skier easement. This pattern is being
altered. Is there sufficient capacity in South Aspen St?
46. This catch basin will have high sediment load during spring runoff. Will contribute
to sediment buildup in the system and vaults further downstream in the City
system. How will this be mitigated?
47. What is the slope of the cul de sac?
Page: 39
48. The location of this waterline does not coincide with the final alignment of the
waterline as proposed by One Aspen. The approved waterline is further west.
49. Fire suppression calc's are required to verify line size. Provide 8" calculations as
well as 6" calculations to show if a 6" line is not sufficient.
50. Transformer location and easement?
Planning (Jen Phelan)
• Site plan. The current site plan will be difficult for staff to support. The site plan
closes off the lift from the street for both views and access. The lower part of the
building pinches the ski corridor and closes the lot off.
• The lift moves higher up on site, making it less accessible.
• Odd Configuration of replatted lots, does not follow townsite or even the
somewhat rectangular lots along S. Aspen.
• Architecture/materials is nice, but need to look at roof forms, height of building
and massing
• Growth management: Based on 1 unit per 550 sq. ft. of lot area the mitigation
is 30% of net livable for free-market and 60% for lodging and net leasable.
Zoning (Claude salter)
1. Please provide a roof plan for the topmost level above the fitness, pool , service
and restroom area
2. Height shall be measured according to current Code section
26.575.020(F)Measuring Building Heights:
a. Measuring height along the perimeter of the building. At each location where
the exterior perimeter of a building meets the ground, the measurement shall
be taken from the lower of natural or finished grade. Building permit plans
must depict both natural and finished grades.
b. Measuring height within the footprint of the building. For the purposes of
measuring height within the footprint of a building, areas of the building within
15 horizontal feet of the building’s perimeter shall be measured using the
perimeter measurement, as described above. In all other areas, the natural
P78
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
grade of the site shall be projected up to the allowable height and the height
of the structure shall be measured using this projected topography.
Include information about items on the roof top which are exceptions to height
pursuant section 26.575.020(F)(4) Allowed Exceptions to height limitations. Include
information about other height related landscape features, retaining walls, planter,
walls, and similar features.
3. Setbacks are not applicable see, section 26.575.110 Building envelope:
26.575.110 Building envelopes
For the purposes of this Chapter, an approved building envelope shall have the
same requirements and allowances as the underlying zoning setbacks, unless
otherwise noted in a site-specific development plan.
For purposes of site-specific development plans, building envelopes may be
established to restrict development to protect slopes, important vegetation, water
courses, privacy or other considerations. Building envelopes required or designated
as part of a development approval shall be described on recorded plats, site-specific
development plans, ordinances, resolutions and building permit site plans.
4. Please provide information about landscape lighting, and lighting attached to the
building, see section 26.575.150(L) Procedures
L. Procedures.
1. Administrative review procedures. Lighting plans submitted in conjunction
with applications for subdivision, planned development, development within any
environmentally sensitive area or special review application shall be reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. Lighting plans submitted as a part of a building permit application for a
commercial or multi-family structure shall be reviewed administratively by the
Community Development Director. The Director shall have the authority to refer
an application to the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic
Preservation Commission if deemed appropriate.
3. Appeals. Any appeals related to decisions regarding outdoor lighting shall be
made to the Board of Adjustment compliant with the procedures in the Appeals
Chapter 26.316 of this Title.
5. Address for the development is required prior to building permit submittal.
Parks (Dave Radeck)
• Mitigation for trees and native vegetation will be determined by City Forester.
• Trees along west edge of property may be in Shadow Mountain Condo’s
approved easement. Define property boundaries to insure that trees being
proposed are on your property.
P79
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
• Parks desires a more detailed grading plan showing why the trees along the east
service road need to be removed. Parks would like to see these trees preserved,
please indicate the amount of fill or cut required up against the trunks of trees.
• Please indicate an alternative to preserve spruce trees along Caribou
Condominiums.
• Irrigation for Lift 1 Park, below the project must remain intact, although a different
location may be proposed for the backflow and controller.
APCHA
RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting
held June 1, 2016, and recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. Increase the vesting rights period to five years with a condition that the mitigation
requirement shall be readdressed to the Code and Guidelines in place at the time of
building permit approval.
2. The mitigation requirement shall be verified at the time of building permit by the
Community Development Department.
3. The balance of offsite affordable housing mitigation shall be reviewed and approved
by the APCHA Board prior to building permit approval and shall include at least a mix
of off-site units along with the use of the Housing Credits. The balance of the FTE
requirement should not be solely satisfied by the use of Housing Credits.
4. Since the applicant is requesting that a majority of their affordable housing mitigation
units be located off site, a mix of category units, 1-4, are preferred versus all Category
4.
5. The applicant shall have the right to maintain the units as rentals under the following
conditions:
a. The deed restriction shall require that all tenants are approved PRIOR to
tenancy through APCHA and must re-qualify every two years. If the tenants
work specifically for the Lodge, the income and assets shall be waived;
however, the rental rate charged cannot exceed Category 1-4 as stated in the
Guidelines.
b. Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-
301(1)(a) and (b), this Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement
and deed restriction to limit rent on the property subject hereto and to
otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives any right it may
have to claim that the Deed Restriction violates CRS 38-12-301.
P80
VI.A.
Exhibit H
Referral Agency Comments
c. The rental deed restriction will be recorded with the conditions required in
APCHA’s Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction.
6. If the owner requests the units to become ownership units, or any of the rental units are found
to be out of compliance for one year, the following shall apply:
a. All of the units shall be ownership units and sold through the APCHA lottery system.
b. The units will be classified as Category 3 or 4.
c. The condominium documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA.
P81
VI.A.
P82
VI.A.
P83
VI.A.
P84
VI.A.
P85
VI.A.
P86
VI.A.
P87
VI.A.
P88
VI.A.
P89
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Urban Design
120 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.925.8354
970-920-1387 fax
Asheville
Aspen
Austin
Chicago
Denver
Dubai
Houston
Lake Tahoe
Los Angeles
Shanghai
designworkshop.com
Sept. 1, 2016
Jennifer Phelan
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jennifer,
The Gorsuch Haus team has further refined the concepts and plans presented at the
Planning and Zoning Hearing on Aug. 16. This memo and the attached materials
demonstrate how the project has been revised in response to comments received from
Staff, P&Z commissioners and the public and build on the application amendments memo
dated August 15th. It also provides additional information supporting the rationale behind
some of the design decisions which have informed this proposal.
To date, the hearing process has been focused on the big picture elements of the project
including the site plan, public access and neighborhood compatibility. This memo
addresses the changes to these plan elements and provides additional updates to the
review criteria that have not been discussed in detail in the public forum including the
subdivision, right of way vacation request and affordable housing mitigation requirements.
As requested in your email dated Aug. 19, 2016, the following materials documenting the
amendments to the proposal have been uploaded to box.com at the following link:
https://designworkshop.box.com/s/oehp4ten3fwvrbb0un1ghtj3ct0iujej
1. Updated Site Plan – Identifies top of wall heights and proposed grading
2. Turnaround Enlargement
3. East and west elevations showing building height from interpolated natural or
proposed grade (whichever is lower)
4. Three site sections illustrating the grading changes to accommodate the hotel and
lift infrastructure and heights of the Gorsuch Haus project and adjacent parcels.
5. Floor area calculations and diagrams
6. Net livable/net leasable calculations and diagrams
7. Affordable housing mitigation strategy with the updated number of employees
generated by the project.
8. Updated subdivision / lot configuration
a. Updated Street and Easement Vacation Plat
P90
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
2
b. Updated Planned Development / Subdivision Plat – including updated
description of easements
9. Updated Utilities Plan and Drainage Evaluation Memo
10. Sketch Up views along South Aspen Street from the intersections with Dean Street,
Durant Avenue and Main Street
11. A working sketch up massing model will be available at the Sept. 20 P&Z meeting
Summary of Application Updates:
Subdivision and right of way vacation:
The Street and Vacation Plat and the PD/Subdivision Plat have been revised to reflect the
following changes in the subdivision and lot configuration:
Lot Configuration:
The Applicant is proposing revisions to the subdivision originally contemplated in the
March submission. The changes reflect a two lot configuration which aligns more closely to
the original townsite plat. Lot 1 incorporates the two existing parcels of the original
townsite plat and extends to the south on the gentler slopes within the City of Aspen
boundary. Lot 2 largely resembles the original configuration of Government Lot 31. The
review standards under the general subdivision and major subdivision are addressed in the
revised PD/Subdivision Plat, including the guaranteed access of both lots to a public way,
alignment with the original townsite plat, and the removal of non‐conforming site
improvements.
Lot 1 ‐ Lot 1 is the primary development lot for the mixed use lodge, the lift infrastructure
and associated site improvements. The Lot has access to a public way with its entrance
and driveway provided along the expanded South Aspen Street frontage. Lot 1 will total
75,446 sf, inclusive of a 201 sf area within the South Aspen Street right of way to support
the structural columns required for the porte cochere of the building. Additional air rights
for the porte cochere as described below will be retained through the subdivision process.
Lot 2 ‐ Lot 2 will comprise the remaining portion of the Planned Development and will
include site improvements such as the regrading of the mountain access road as well as
skiable terrain and open space. Lot 2 will total 213,303 sf. Guaranteed access to a public
way is provided with a non‐exclusive private access easement as described in the
PD/Subdivision Plat under the certificate of ownership, dedications and reservations, #5.
This mountain access road will traverse the north and northwestern portion of Lot 1
providing access to Lot 2. The mountain access road is seasonal in nature which supports
the use of Lot 2 as a ski area parcel. No changes to the use of this road are proposed.
P91
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
3
Public Access ‐ The proposed lot configuration and subdivision facilitate improved access
to the ski area from the public right of way at the terminus of South Aspen Street. The
right of way dedication facilitates significant improvements to the South Aspen Street
terminus to meet the City’s engineering standards, supporting a full 50’ radius for the
dedicated right of way. The additional use of private land will support public
transportation with an 11’ pull out for transit and vehicle drop off as well as a 13’ wide
sidewalk/permeable pavement area for enhanced pedestrian facilities, providing access to
skier services and the lift. Along the southern side of the turnaround a minimum 6’
sidewalk has been included to accommodate pedestrian traffic, primarily from existing
neighborhood uses located west of the turnaround. Public access through the site
connecting South Aspen Street to Summit Street is provided through a pedestrian
easement across Lot 1. The combination of existing rights of way and the dedication of
private lands for the turnaround will accommodate traffic circulation and improve access
for emergency service vehicles, with ambulance parking provided outside of the traffic
circulation area for on mountain emergency egress and loading. The minimum clearance
of the porte cochere and grades of the turnaround are a significant improvement for
emergency services over existing conditions.
Recreational Ski Access and Historic Views ‐ The site plan greatly enhances the visual
connection of the historic ski corridor from Dean Street towards the on‐mountain skiing as
well as improving the practical use of the ski corridor for return skiing into town. Skiing
along the western side of the building will remain possible for those skiing the western
edge of the Norway Ski run to the top of S. Aspen Street. The primary ski return will be
relocated to the eastern side of the lift where skiers will have the option of exiting at the
turnaround or returning through the Lift One Park ski corridor all the way to Dean Street.
This area has been widened and at its minimum width is 30’, a sufficient width to
accommodate skiing as well as the operational needs of the ski area. ADA access for
example will be accommodated with the integration of an ADA elevator and ramps, taking
skiers from elevation 7,999’ to the lift load elevation of 8016.5’ providing access to the site
where none currently exists as the lift is now only accessed by stairways.
Right of Way Vacation ‐ A number of criteria are considered in vacating the unimproved
vehicular rights of way, including the City’s requirements for vehicular and pedestrian
access, utility and drainage provisions, and recreational connections. When considered as
a whole, the vacation of the rights of way achieves the criteria to maintain or improve the
public health, safety and welfare of the community and has no negative impact on current
needs, with alternative accommodations provided with easements to support the current
and future public needs served by the existing rights of way.
The vacation of the rights of way adjacent to the parcel are important to facilitate a
functional site plan while accommodating community goals to re‐establish the historic ski
corridor of Lift 1 and create a welcoming public portal to Aspen Mountain. The applicant is
P92
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
4
proposing to dedicate private property to the city to accommodate expanded right of way
improvements at the terminus of South Aspen Street. The total land area of the
unimproved rights of way requested for vacation for S. Aspen Street, Summit Street and
Hill Street is 13,234 sf and the proposed private land dedication of the original lots to the
city for the public right of way is 2,828 sf.
The function of the rights of way to be vacated will be met through the use of permanent
easements to address the utility and drainage requirements typically fulfilled within the
rights of way. The proposed utility corridor improves upon the current conditions by
providing greater width and a more direct route for the city’s utilities across Lot 1 through
a perpetual easement. The waterline and utilities easement running across the northern
end of Lot 1 will be a minimum of 30’ wide, whereas currently the corridor is limited to the
25’ width of the Hill Street ROW. The width and more direct route are improvements over
the current conditions, providing additional separation between utilities within the sloped
site.
Process:
A two‐step process is required to create the lot configuration represented in the revised
site plan. The first step, as described on the Street and Easement Vacation Plat proposes
that the City of Aspen vacate all portions of the original platted S. Aspen Street, Summit
Street and Hill Street Rights of Way which are adjacent to Blocks 10 and 12 of the Eames
Addition. Upon vacation, the ownership of these strips of land vest with the owner of
Blocks 10 and 12, currently the Aspen Skiing Company. The subgrade public utilities will be
accommodated along the vacated rights of way in the form of wider and more practical
easements that satisfy the City’s existing and future needs.
In the second step, represented on the Final Plat for Gorsuch Haus PD/Subdivision, ASC
plats and dedicates a new, larger public right of way area for the expanded turnaround
area with a 50’ radius. To facilitate the construction and use of the building’s porte
cochere, the dedication language reserves the “doughnut hole” in the center of the radius
to accommodate the vertical structural support serving the porte‐cochere, as well as the
air space above the lowest point of the underside of the porte‐cochere. These elements
are illustrated and described on the revised final plat.
The air space reservation described in Step 2 is permitted under Colorado Revised Statute
Section 38‐12‐101, et. seq., which expressly allows for estates above the surface of the
ground to be created, owned, used, conveyed and encumbered in the same manner as any
other interests in real estate. This process and ownership structure meet the city’s desire
to terminate South Aspen Street within a public right of way incorporating the full 50’
radius. It also accommodates the private development improvements that will be
constructed and maintained in a fee simple ownership structure.
P93
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
5
Utility & Drainage Revisions:
While the right of way vacations are described above, the function of the utility corridors is
accommodated through the provision of utility easements. The utility plans and
corresponding easements have been revised to reflect the changes to the plan and a
greater width along the City’s main water line which benefits from a more direct alignment
shown in the plans than is accommodated under current conditions.
As described in the attached memo from Sopris Engineering, the “Revised building and
associated hardscape areas have been reduced from previously estimated 37,660 SF down
to 27,937 SF that equates to a 26% net reduction. Our drainage analysis and designs as
submitted are intended to assure that the proposed stormwater management system is
feasible and adequate to address the development impacts of this project. A more
detailed engineering study will be provided at next level of review with more information
and adequate design details, however, downstream changes are anticipated to be
insignificant and have no negative impacts on the proposed storm sewer trunk line
capacities and drainage appurtenances.”
Architectural Floor Plan Revisions:
- As previously described at the Aug. 16 P&Z hearing, the Building Footprint and
Floor Plans for the new mixed‐use building have been significantly revised to
accommodate a better visual connection and public access to the lift.
- The building efficiencies have been maximized with the relocation of the publicly
accessible restaurant from the southern end of the building to the eastern edge
adjacent to the skier plaza and the lift. This change allowed some duplicative lobby
spaces to be removed and consolidated back of house, kitchen and circulation
areas.
- A vary similar program is proposed within the mixed use building including:
o 81 lodging keys (7 condos with lock offs, and 60 regular hotel rooms and
suites), average lodging room size has gone up slightly but retains a
standard modest room size of 417 sf, flexible unit configurations and
suites.
o Restaurant, Après ski deck, and grab n’ go retail
o Ski Company operations, patrol locker room, ticketing and restrooms
The ticketing area and public restrooms have been relocated
adjacent to the lodge entrance at the level of the turnaround,
elevation 7,999’, and will be a visual signal to the public identifying
the ski area portal and skier services.
o Six (6) Free Market Residential Units – similar in size and configuration to
the previous plans.
o One (1) Affordable Housing Unit, now is a 3‐bedroom unit totaling 1,400 sf
is an increase from the original submission.
P94
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
6
o Accessory Lodging Facilities including: spa and fitness areas, meeting room
and pre‐function space, bar and lounge area, pool and roof deck, boot/ski
storage areas.
o 61 parking spaces – includes the code requirement for the proposed
development and four (4) public spaces.
The four public parking spots required within the right of way
improvements associated with Lift One Lodge approvals have
been accommodated within the subgrade garage (additionally,
temporary loading and unloading areas for skiers has been
accommodated outside of the 50’ right of way).
- Additional changes to the building’s configuration include:
o Loading Dock and parking garage entrance has been relocated to the
southern edge of the turnaround, further from the public ski entry and not
impeding the public arrival.
o The Trash / Recycling area complies with the sq. ft. requirements
identified in Title 12, Solid Waste of the city code for a Lodge building. This
area includes 420 sf or a 42’ long x 10 wide x 10’ height space for trash,
recycling and compost. Special Review is still required for the location and
configuration of this space, absent an alleyway on the site.
As the space is shared with the receiving dock, floor paint or
another strategy will be used to delineate between the loading
dock and the trash/recycling area.
o Condo‐Lodge floor plans are planned in a three key configuration with one
kitchen/studio module and two lock‐off bedrooms.
Floor Area Diagrams and Calculations:
- Revised Floor Area Diagrams and Calculations pages are included with the revised
materials as sheets A111 and A112.
- The total building square footage is 127,525sf
- The Gorsuch Haus’ total above grade floor area is 68,430sf with the additional
improvements for the lift canopy and the lift house totaling 1,703 sf for a total
Floor Area for Lot 1 of 70,133 sf.
- The following chart illustrates the floor area ratio for the proposed development
on Lots 1 and 2.
P95
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
7
FLOOR AREA RATIO 1 LOT 1 LOT 2
USE TYPE Proposed Program
Floor Area
(Including Sub‐grade
Reductions)
Proposed Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
Proposed Program
Floor Area
(Including Sub‐
grade Reductions)
Proposed Floor
Area Ratio
(FAR)
FAR Total2 70,133 1.50 ‐ ‐
Lodge 51,268 1.10 ‐ ‐
Affordable Multi‐Family
Housing
854 0.02 ‐ ‐
Free Market Multi‐Family
Housing
12,102 0.26 ‐ ‐
Commercial 4,398 0.09 ‐ ‐
Non‐Unit (Lift Canopy) 1,512 0.03 ‐ ‐
Commercial Parking
Facility3
N/A N/A N/A N/A
o Notes regarding the floor area calculations:
Floor assembly is excluded from both subgrade and above grade
wall sf calculations
Each face of the building including inside faces of balconies and
notches in the building are including in the surface area
calculations for the subgrade percentages.
The resident elevator is divided between lodging and free market
FAR and is counted on all levels.
The Lift Canopy on Lot 2 is classified as non‐unit space as this is
open air/mechanical use, the lift house/operations have been
included as commercial square footage.
Net Leasable/Livable Diagrams and Calculations
- The revised Sheet A113 illustrates the new net leasable and livable areas of the
building.
- The diagrams identify the basement/upper floor commercial areas that are subject
to the 25% reduction for GMQS and affordable housing generation. These areas
have been incorporated into the updated Affordable Housing mitigation
requirements.
Affordable Housing Generation:
- The Affordable Housing Mitigation credits have been recalculated pursuant to
code section 26.470.070.8.b for projects with less than one (1) lodge unit per 500
sf of lot area. The proposed project has one Lodge unit per 932 sf of lot area.
P96
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
8
- The calculations sheet included has been revised to reflect the percentages
required for this code section and also addresses the reconstruction credits
generated by the existing building and ticket shed. The ticket shed houses an
approximate 42sf of net leasable area which has been added to the replacement
credits for the existing building’s affordable housing mitigation purposes.
Additionally, the subgrade, basement level generates 25% less replacement FTEs
than the other three levels of the existing building which are each considered to
be a main floor. The total reconstruction credit is therefore 9.369 FTEs.
- The on‐site affordable housing unit has been enlarged to a net livable square
footage of 1,400 sf which can accommodate a three‐bedroom affordable housing
unit, mitigating for 3 FTEs.
- The additional 40.80 FTEs will be mitigated consistent with the strategy identified
in the March submission through a combination of Affordable Housing Credits and
New Affordable Housing Construction. As established previously, applicant will
work with the city and APCHA at the detailed design stage to establish the
category required for the employee mix of the mixed use development.
- There is no expected increase to the employee generation for the actual
replacement of the lift facility.
Neighborhood Compatibility ‐ Building Height, Mass and Scale
- City Staff, Planning and Zoning commissioners, as well as community members
have acknowledged that lodging is an appropriate use at this location. While
efforts have been made to minimize the building’s mass and scale to the greatest
extent possible, a minimum number of rooms and square footage is required to
develop an operationally successful hotel project.
- Additional materials provided at previous meetings verify that the heights of the
proposed Gorsuch Haus project are compatible with the adjacent neighborhood’s
existing and approved projects. The Lift One Lodge property, for example,
measures up to 53’3” in height. Other buildings in the neighborhood have heights
between 30’ and 40’. This is consistent with the proposed heights of the Gorsuch
Haus, which range from 22’ at the building’s south end to 47’ at the mid‐section of
the building.
- The height of the building is laid against the mountain with a combination of two,
three and four story sections and a decrease in the overall height of the building as
compared to the March submission.
- Additional design strategies have been incorporated to minimize the perceived
height of the building, including:
o Established a four bay rhythm setting up smaller facade modules that step
up with the natural slope of the mountain with sensitivity to the protected
view planes from town, with lower heights on the uphill portion of the
project.
P97
VI.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
9
o Removed balconies from the top most level to deemphasize mass on the
top portion of building.
o Created vertical recessed glass elements to break the horizontal mass of
the building, giving the perception of varying building elements.
o Reduced rooftop amenity / terrace space to reduce mass
o Relocated the mechanical screen to the lower southernmost roof to
spread perceived density
o Created two‐tone wood facade palette to compliment the one story stone
base and to articulate building divisions moving up the mountain. These
material variations create more individualized layering of the building.
- Three additional vies of horizontal sections of the building from the Mountain
Queen across to Shadow Mountain have been included to illustrate both the
height comparison and the existing and proposed grading.
P98
VI.A.
LEVEL 3 (8021')23' - 0"LEVEL 4 (8031'6")33' - 6"LEVEL 5 (8042')44' - 0"LEVEL 6 (8053'6")54' - 6"LEVEL 7 (8063')65' - 0"LEVEL 8 (8073'6")75' - 6"34' - 2 1/8"8' - 4"21' - 8"LEVEL 1 (7999')1' - 0"LEVEL 2 (8009'6")11' - 6"PARKING LEVEL(7989')-10' - 0"LEVEL 3 (8021')23' - 0"LEVEL 4 (8031'6")33' - 6"LEVEL 5 (8042')44' - 0"LEVEL 6 (8053'6")54' - 6"LEVEL 7 (8063')65' - 0"LEVEL 8 (8073'6")75' - 6"42' - 10 1/2"ISS. #4240 Architecture Inc.copyright 2015ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO. :DESIGNER:DRAFTER:CHECKER:APPROVED BY:DESCRIPTIONDATENOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOWNER9/9/2016 4:29:04 PMA202BUILDING ELEVATIONS21144.00DesignerAuthorCheckerApproverASPEN, CO 81611GORSUCH HAUSNORWAY ISLAND, LLCASPEN, CO 816114240 ARCHITECTURE Inc.3507 RINGSBY COURT, SUITE 117DENVER, CO 80216ARCHITECTURESTUDIO NYL2995 BASELINE RD, SUITE 314BOULDER, CO 80303STRUCTURALENGINEERBEAUDIN GANZE CONSULTING ENG.1626 COLE BLVD. SUITE 300LAKEWOOD, CO 80401MEPENGINEERSOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, CO 81623CIVILENGINEERDESIGN WORKSHOP120 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, CO 81611LANDSCAPEARCHITECTTAL STUDIO10801 W. CHARLESTON BLVD. #440LAS VEGAS, NV 89135INTERIORDESIGNER303.292.3388303.558.3145303.278.3820970.704.0311970.925.8354t:702.888.5000PLANNING AND ZONINGRESPONSE01 SEP 2016SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2SOUTHSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1NORTHP99
VI.A.
LEVEL 1 (7999')1' - 0"LEVEL 2 (8009'6")11' - 6"PARKING LEVEL(7989')-10' - 0"LEVEL 3 (8021')23' - 0"LEVEL 4 (8031'6")33' - 6"LEVEL 5 (8042')44' - 0"LEVEL 6 (8053'6")54' - 6"LEVEL 7 (8063')65' - 0"ABCDEFLEVEL 8 (8073'6")75' - 6"LEVEL 1 (7999')1' - 0"LEVEL 2 (8009'6")11' - 6"PARKING LEVEL(7989')-10' - 0"LEVEL 3 (8021')23' - 0"LEVEL 4 (8031'6")33' - 6"LEVEL 5 (8042')44' - 0"LEVEL 6 (8053'6")54' - 6"LEVEL 7 (8063')65' - 0"ABCDEFLEVEL 8 (8073'6")75' - 6"ISS. #4240 Architecture Inc.copyright 2015ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO. :DESIGNER:DRAFTER:CHECKER:APPROVED BY:DESCRIPTIONDATENOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOWNER9/9/2016 4:28:01 PMA201BUILDING ELEVATIONS21144.00DesignerAuthorCheckerApproverASPEN, CO 81611GORSUCH HAUSNORWAY ISLAND, LLCASPEN, CO 816114240 ARCHITECTURE Inc.3507 RINGSBY COURT, SUITE 117DENVER, CO 80216ARCHITECTURESTUDIO NYL2995 BASELINE RD, SUITE 314BOULDER, CO 80303STRUCTURALENGINEERBEAUDIN GANZE CONSULTING ENG.1626 COLE BLVD. SUITE 300LAKEWOOD, CO 80401MEPENGINEERSOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, CO 81623CIVILENGINEERDESIGN WORKSHOP120 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, CO 81611LANDSCAPEARCHITECTTAL STUDIO10801 W. CHARLESTON BLVD. #440LAS VEGAS, NV 89135INTERIORDESIGNER303.292.3388303.558.3145303.278.3820970.704.0311970.925.8354t:702.888.5000SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1EASTSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2WESTPLANNING AND ZONINGRESPONSE01 SEP 2016P100
VI.A.
EAST ELEVATION P101
VI.A.
WEST ELEVATION P102
VI.A.
8
0
6
0
807
0
8025
80
5
5
8045
8035
8030
808
0
80
8
5
8050
8020
8025
8040
80458050 8055806080658075
808
5
8040
8035
8030
80148050805580608065 807080758080
8
0
8
5
8035
80
4
0
804
5
TW
8080+TW
8087+TW
8084 +8010
8019.5+80
3
0803580408045 8
0
5
08055 8060809
0
806580
2
5
80208090
8008
8006
8004
TW
8007
+8025
8020
8018
FFE
8019.5
8065
8020
8012
8018
8016
8018
7999+807080758080808580908030
8017.5
SNOW
LOAD+8002
8000
7998
8016.5+TW
8002+BW
7998+BW
8006+8016.5+8018.5++HP
8017.5+8016.5+8000+8000+8000+8016.5
+79
9
6
79
9
5
7
9
9
4
7993
7992
799
0
7997
7996
7995
799
5 79987994
7991
7990
799
1
799
2
799
3
799
4
8009+TW
8041
+BW
8037+BW
8042+TW
8031
+TW
8029.5+TW
8001 +TW
7998
+TW
8018.5+BW
8029 +2%
TW
8001
+TW
8046
+TW
8020.5+TW
8050
+TW
8040
+TW
8030
+TW
8010 +TW
8021+TW
8005+TW
8010+TW
8018.5 +TW
8020.5
+8023.5+TW
8002 +TW
8004 +8019.5+TW
8027+7999 +2%
2%
7999+7999+2%
8017.5+7998.5+4%80158010NORTH
0 10'20'40'
1"=20'-0"
G o r s u c h H a u s
Site Plan
A s p e n , C o l o r a d o
WORKSHOPDESIGN 120 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81621
SEPTEMBER 1, 2016S. ASPEN STREETSNOW CAT
TURN AROUND
Lift One
Lodge
Shadow Mountain
Condos
Food Tent
Grandstands
Snow
Surface
Li
m
i
t
o
f
S
k
i
i
n
g
16'
Mountain Queen
Condos
Caribou
Condos
Lift One
Lodge
+
8015
+
8010
+
8015
+
8005
PORTE COCHEREFACE
SNOW
HOLDING
RETAINING
WALL 35' CABLE CLEARANCEProposed Lot 1
Subgrade
Building
NOTE: Spot elevations are for information
purposes and are subject to change
Lift One
Park
OF BUILDING
Proposed Lot 2
P103
VI.A.
8019.5+80
3
08035
80
2
5
8020FFE
8019.5
7999+8017.5
SNOW
LOAD+8016.5+8016.5+8000+8000+8000+8016.5
+7993
7992
799
0
7997
7996
7995
79
9
5 79987994
7991
7990
7985
799
1
799
2
799
3
799
4
8009+TW
8029.5+TW
8001 +TW
7998
+2%
TW
8001
+TW
8020.5+TW
8010 +TW
8021+TW
8005+TW
8010
+TW
8018.5 +TW
8020.5
+8023.5+TW
8002 +TW
8004 +8019.5+TW
8027+7999 +2%
2%
7999+7999+2%
8017.5+7998.5+4%80158010NORTH
0 5'10'20'
1"=10'-0"
G o r s u c h H a u s
Revised Site Plan - Turnaround Enlargement
A s p e n , C o l o r a d o
WORKSHOPDESIGN 120 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81621
September 1, 2016S. ASPEN ST.Lift One
Lodge
PORTE COCHERE
PLAZA
Building Above
Clearance: 17.10'
Parking
Garage &
Service Entry
11.0
0
'
Pedestrian
Area:
8' Sidewalk
+ 5' Buffer R50.
0
0
Public Access
to Lift
HOTE
L
ENTR
Y
6'
8'
6" ROLL CURB
10.5'AMBULANCE
PARKING
12' x 24'
ADA
LOADING /
UNLOADING
SNOW HOLDING
CURB
20'
20'25'2
1
'11'ADA
Ramp
Transit
Pull-out
ADA
Elevator
7999' to
8019.5'
ADA Ramp to Lift
TRANSIT STOP INCLUDING:
BENCH, LIGHT,SIGN & TRASH
BIKE RACKS
UPPER LOBBY
ENTRY
RESTAURANT ENTRY
ACCESS AT 8019.5
NOTE: Spot elevations are for information
purposes and are subject to change
FACE
OF BUILDING
Affordable
Housing
Entry
Tickets, Restroom, & Ski Patrol
Access at Elevation 7999'
P104
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’FLOOR PLAN Parking Level - 7988’LODGE - GUESTROOMSPARETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL 57 HOTEL PARKING SPACES4 PUBLIC SPACESPUBLIC SPACESP105
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’FLOOR PLAN Level 1 - 7999’LODGE - GUESTROOMSPARETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL 42’X10’ = 420sf801440
80108
5
80088008
8006800 6
80048004
8012018
8018018
8016016
000000000000800800880080808080088008008800800+80020080
8000
709870987
8017.5017++000000000808+++++8000
7999++++70967096
7095
709494744 7993
7992
79977
79967996
79957995
7995 998898987998779979797979777994
07991
7990900’07
7991
7992
7993
7994
00404409.49.4999999 +++2222.2299 +FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
00
+22222+..99999
OW
4040 +.4.499
O
99
9
0
99+++000
7
8
OF
000080++88+0000 0000
++944009
000
+99..99
9+9+7997
S. ASPEN STREETS.PN RETETRN SPSNOW CATNOW
C
A
T
NOW
C
TURN ARO
U
N
D
URN
A
UNDDUND
QueenneneenueeQueQu Q
dossosdod
CaribouuouboboribarCaC
CondossosdondonCoCC
Lift OneeLiOn
LodgedgeLod
+
8015
+++
80100
++
8015
PORTE COCHEREPORTECOCHRPPOORTRTETE CCOOCCHEHERREEEREEREHCHOCOCE CETRTORPOPSNOWSNOWWWOWOONNNSSSSOWOWOWWWSSNN
HOLDINGHOLDINGGGGGNNNIIIDLOOOOHHHININNNIGGGHOOHOLLODD
CURBCURBBRURURUUCCCRRRBBCCCCCCUUUUU
SNOWNOWNOSNOSNOOOOOWOWOWS
HOLDINGOLDGOLDDIINNGGHOHOLDHO
CURB ATCBARBBATTCCCUCURCURB
RETAININGTAING
REETAAINTAIETNIN
WALLWALWALW Air Rights BoundaryARigBnaAdditional ROWitROWROLL CURB
BLL C
7800 5
+P106
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’FLOOR PLAN Level 2 - 8010’LODGE - GUESTROOMSPA / FITNESSRETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL open to belowopen to beloweowwwwlontobeln tn tbebepeppeeeenn801440
80108
5
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
80088008
8006800 6
80048004
8012018
0000000000008008080088080800808008+80020080
8000
709870987
000000000808+++++8000
7999++++70967096
7095
709494744 7993
7992
79977
79967996
79957995
7995 99889898799877997797979777994
07991
7990900’07
7991
7992
7993
7994
00404409.49.4999999 +++2222.2299 +FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
00
+22222+..99999
OW
4040 +.4.499
O
99
9
0
99+++000
7
8
OF
000080++88+0000 0000
++944009
000
+99..99
9+9+7997
S. ASPEN STREETS.PN RETETRN SPSNOW CATNOW
C
A
T
NOW
C
TURN ARO
U
N
D
URN
A
UNDDUND
QueenneneenueeQueQu Q
dossosdod
CaribouuouboboribarCaC
CondossosdondonCoCC
Lift OneeLiOn
LodgedgeLod
+
8015
+++
80100
++
8015
PORTE COCHEREPORTECOCHRPPOORTRTETE CCOOCCHEHERREEEREEREHCHOCOCE CETRTORPOPSNOWSNOWWWOWOONNNSSSSOWOWOWWWSSNN
HOLDINGHOLDINGGGGGNNNIIIDLOOOOHHHININNNIGGGHOOHOLLODD
CURBCURBBRURURUUCCCRRRBBCCCCCCUUUUU
SNOWNOWNOSNOSNOOOOOWOWOWS
HOLDINGOLDGOLDDIINNGGHOHOLDHO
CURB ATCBARBBATTCCCUCURCURB
RETAININGTAING
REETAAINTAIETNIN
WALLWALWALW Air Rights BoundaryARigBnaAdditional ROWitROWROLL CURB
BLL C
88
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
P107
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’FLOOR PLAN Level 3 - 8021’LODGE - GUESTROOMSPA / FITNESSRETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL Guestrooms: 5 5 Kings 802080801440
80108
80252580
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
80088008
8006800 6
8004800480188010182% SLOPEOPE8012018
8018018
8016016
000000000000800800800+017.5017.58080
SNOWSNOWS
LOAD++++80020080
8000
709870987
8016.5+8016.5+8018.5808.5++8017.58017++8016.58016.5+000000000808+++++8000
7999++++80
70967096
7095
709494744 7993
7992
7997
79967996
79957995
7995 9988989898989899899899899999999999898999999999997997797777994
07991
7990900’07
7991
7992
7993
7994
00404409.49.4999999 +++2222.2299 +FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
00
+22222+..99999
OW
4040 +.4.499
O
99
9
0
99+++000
7
8
OF
000080++88+0000 0000
++944009
000
+99..99
9+9+7997
S. ASPEN STREETS.PN RETETRN SPSNOW CATNOW
C
A
T
NOW
C
TURN ARO
U
N
D
URN
A
UNDDUND
SnowSn
Surfaceface
QueenneneenueeQueQu Q
dossosdod
CaribouuouboboribarCaC
CondossosdondonCoCC
Lift OneeLiOn
LodgedgeLod
+
8015
+++
80100
++
8015
RERERRRREEEEHHHHCCCOCOCOOCOCOCCE ETETEERTRTRRRROOOOCCCCPOPOPPOOOORRCCPPPEHEREETETTPORTE COCHEREPOPOEEEEORTE COCHERTRTPORTE COCHEREPPE COCHEEEEORTE COCRCPORTE COCHEREPPPPPPOROROEETETTETOOCOHHCRRRPPOOPOPPPPRTRRROOEETETEERTRTRCCETEEETOOCOCCCCCOEEHHECHRRRRHERREEEREREREREEHHCHCOCOOOCCE CEEEETTTTRTRTRTROROPOPOPPPPSNOWSNOWWWOWOONNNSSSSOWOWOWWWSSNN
HOLDINGHOLDINGGGGGNNNIIIDLOOOOHHHININNNIGGGHOOHOLLODD
CURBCURBBRURURUUCCCRRRBBCCCCCCUUUUU
SNOWNOWNOSNOSNOOOOOWOWOWS
HOLDINGOLDGOLDDIINNGGHOHOLDHO
CURB ATCBARBBATTCCCUCURCURB
RETAININGTAING
REETAAINTAIETNIN
WALLWALWALW Air Rights BoundaryRigBnaAdditional ROWitROWROLL CURB
BLL C
P108
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’FLOOR PLAN Level 4 - 8031’ - 6”LODGE - GUESTROOMSPARETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL Guestrooms: 18 11 Kings 3 Queen/Queen 4 Suites620801440
80108
8019.5+80308030880308
803
5
803
5
803
5
80
4
0
80
4
0
80
4
0
5
80252580
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
80088008
8006800 6
8004800480188010182% SLOPEOPE8012018
8018018
8016016
000000000000800800800+017.5017.58080
SNOWSNOWS
LOAD++++80020080
8000
709870987
8016.5+8016.5+8018.5808.5++8017.58017++8016.58016.5+000000000808+++++8000
7999++++8016.5
+70967096
7095
709494744 7993
7992
7997
79967996
79957995
7995 987994
07991
79900’0’7
7991
7992
7993
7994
8009+00.40.4409.49.4999999 +++2222.2299 +FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
8019.5+++++00
+22222+..99999
OW
4040 +.4.499
O
99
9
0
99+++000
7
8
OF
000080++88+0000 0000
++944009
000
+99..99
9+9+7997
90+08080++808080 00
5.5
5
9
9
01+8
99++0 +08 +++88 01990
+001 955955
SS. ASPEN PEN STREETPSS.PN RETETRN SPSNOW CATNOW
C
A
T
NOW
C
TURN ARO
U
N
D
URN
A
UNDDUND
SnowSn
Surfaceface
eenneneenee
CaribouuouboboribarCaC
CondossosdondonCoCC
Lift OneeLiOn
LodgedgeLod
+
8015
+++
80100
++
8015
SNOWSNOWWWOWOONNNSSSSOWOWOWWWSSNN
HOLDINGHOLDINGGGGGNNNIIIDLOOOOHHHININNNIGGGHOOHOLLODD
CURBCURBBRURURUUCCCRRRBBCCCCCCUUUUU
SNOWNOWNOSNOSNOOOOWOWOWS
HOLDINGOLDGOLDDIINNGGHOHOLDHO
CURB ATCBARBBATTCCCUCURCURB
RETAININGTAING
REETAAINTAIETNIN
WALLWALWALW Air Rights BoundaryRigBnaAdditional ROWitROWROLL CURB
BLL C
P109
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’FLOOR PLAN Level 5 - 8042’LODGE - GUESTROOMSPARETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL Guestrooms: 2 1 Suite 1 KingCondo Lodge Units: 3Free Market Units: 3 Gu eCs1Crr1 SCoooCoFm SonmondFr1umsus: it1 KndFre2e Kindore2Kingo Leeeo LoeMnggLodMLodgeMadge UMarUarkee UnrUnitketet UnitsUns: nit 3nits3ts: 3s: 3 3 tros: Sui1 Cone UrkengLoe MitsUn8020801440
80108
8019.5+803003880308
803
5
803
5
803
5
80
4
0
80
4
0
80
4
0
8045558045808050805080805550558058
80252580
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
80088008
8006800 6
80048004
80258002525 80208002020880188010182% SLOPEOPE80208020
8012018
8018018
8016016 60' @ 15% SLOPEPESL@ 1560'SL80188018
000000000000800800800+017.5017.58080
SNOWSNOWS
LOAD++++80020080
8000
709870987
8016.5+8016.5+8018.5808.5++8017.58017++8016.58016.5+80800000000000+++++8000
7999++++8016.5
+70967096
7095
709494744 7993
7992
7997
79967996
79957995
7995 9887994
07991
799000’0’7
7991
7992
7993
7994
8009+9999999.49.49.40440000 ++99.222222+FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
.5599801++++00
+22222+..99999
OW
4040 +.4.499
O
99
9
0
99+++000
7
8
OF
000080++88+0000 0000
++944009
000
+99..99
9+9+7997
90+08080++808080 00
55.55
55
9
99
01+8
99+0 ++08 +++88 01990
+001 955955 oomms ooms S. ASPEN STREETS.PN RETETRN SPSNOW CATNOW
C
A
T
NOW
C
TURN ARO
U
N
D
URN
A
UNDDUND
SnowSn
Surfaceface
QueenneneenueeQueQu
ossos
CaribouuouboboribarCaC
CondossosdondonCoCC
Lift OneeLiOn
LodgedgeLod
+
8015
+++
80100
++
8015
SNOWSNOWWWOWOONNNSSSSOWOWOWWWSSNN
HOLDINGHOLDINGGGGGNNNIIIDLOOOOHHHININNNIGGGHOOHOLLODD
CURBCURBBRURURUUCCCRRRBBCCCCCCUUUUU
SNOWNOWNOSNOSNOOOOWOWOWS
HOLDINGOLDGOLDDIINNGGHOHOLDHO
CURB ATCBARBBATTCCCUCURCURB
RETAININGTAING
REETAAINTAIETNIN
WALLWALWALW Air Rights BoundaryRigBnaAdditional ROWitROWROLL CURB
BLL C
P110
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’FLOOR PLAN Level 6 - 8052’-6”LODGE - GUESTROOMSPARETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL Guestrooms: 8 6 King 2 SuitesCondo Lodge Units: 3Free Market Units: 16LG GLe ueeCs6Co6r66 ConFoFK2onFooFrKin2 Sndmndreing SdoSdo eegSug8uito Le uitesLoe MesLodMaMaodgasdge arge Unrke Unikeitet UUnits:tits: 3tUnUnits: 3itss:s: 11GG6Com68gSundo FrUnit UsdgeMar: 3ts802580258035803580308030
80208030880330
801440
80108
8019.5+803080308
803
5
803
5
803
5
8040804080408045558045808050805080805550558058
80252580
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
80088008
8006800 6
80048004
80258002525 80208002020880188010182% SLOPEOPE80208020
8012018
8018018
8016016 60' @ 15% SLOPEPESL@ 1560'SL80188018
000000000000800800800+017.5017.58080
SNOWSNOWS
LOAD++++80020080
8000
709870987
8016.5+8016.5+8018.5808.5++8017.58017++8016.58016.5+0000000000808+++++8000
7999++++8016.5
+70967096
7095
709494744 7993
7992
7997
79967996
79957995
7995 9887994
7991
79907
7991
7992
7993
7994
8009+00.40.4409.49.4999999 +++2222.2299 +FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
8019.5+00
+22222+..99999
OW
4040 +.4.499
O
99
9
0
99+++000
7
8
OF
000080++88+0000 0000
++944009
000
+99..99
9+9+7997
90+08080++808080 090
55.55
5
9
9
01+8
99+0 +08 +++88 01990
+001 955955 ms:86K6ms: 8K6S. ASPEN STREETS.PN RETETRN SPSNOW CATNOW
C
A
T
NOW C
TURN ARO
U
N
D
URN
A
UNDDUND
SnowSn
SurfacefaceLimit of SkLtf kkLQueenneneenueeQueQuQ
ossoso
CaribouuouboboribarCaC
CondossosdondonCoCC
Lift OneeLiOn
LodgedgeLod
+
8015
+++
80100
++
8015
SNOWSNOWWWOWOONNNSSSSOWOWOWWWSSNN
HOLDINGHOLDINGGGGGNNNIIIDLOOOOHHHININNNIGGGHOOHOLLODD
CURBCURBBRURURUUCCCRRRBBCCCCCCUUUUU
SNOWNOWNOSNOSNOOOOWOWOWS
HOLDINGOLDGOLDDIINNGGHOHOLDHO
CURB ATCBARBBATTCCCUCURCURB
RETAININGTAING
REETAAINTAIETNIN
WALLWALWALW35' CABLE C35' CCABLEE CBLProposed SPropposed SPropLot 1Lot 11
Air Rights BoundaryRigBnaAdditional ROWitiROWROLL CURB
BLL C
oooooPro
P111
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’LODGE - GUESTROOMSPARETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL Guestrooms: 12 9 King 2 Queen/Queen 1 SuiteFree Market Units: 2Condo Lodge Units: 10GueFt2Fr92 QFreKoKCi Q1reimeCongQu1 eesgse Cogue1 S S MonueeSue2een/SuMandn/QuitMandoQuiteardo o LerkLueeekeLoenet ULodt UnodnnUndgnitsdgeits: es: 2ge Un2e Unit2nits: ts: 1: 11u2msKisCee Suee CnnidgeQuerkedo L 2nit802580258045804580358035803080308050850
802080408004408045804545480450505 8040804080358003558030880330
801440
80108
8019.5+803080308
803
5
803
5
803
5
8040804080408045558045808050805080805550558058
80252580
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
80088008
8006800 6
80048004
80258002525 80208002020880188010182% SLOPEOPE80208020
8012018
8018018
8016016100' @ 30% SLOPEOP% S@ 30060' @ 15% SLOPEPESL@ 1560'SL80188018
000000000000800800800+017.5017.58080
SNOWSNOWS
LOAD++++80020080
8000
709870987
8016.5+8016.5+8018.5808.5++8017.58017++8016.58016.5+808000000000000+++++8000
7999++++8016.5
+70967096
7095
709494744 7993
7992
7997
79967996
79957995
7995 98987994
7991
79907
7991
7992
7993
7994
8009+9999999.49.49.40440000 ++99.222222+FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
9.59010110101180808888+00
+22222+..99999
OW
4040 +.4.499
O
99
9
0
99+++000
7
8
OF
000080++88+0000 0000
++944009
000
+99..99
9+9+7997
90+08080++808080 00
55.55
5
9
9
01+8
9999+00 +0088 +++88 901011090
+001 955955 ng2in221ngKi2 S. ASPEN STREETS.PN RETETRN SPSNOW CATNOW
C
A
T
NOW C
TURN ARO
U
N
D
URN
A
UNDDUND
SnowSn
SurfacefaceLimit of SkiingLitf kgkiLggQueenneneenueeQueQuQ
dossosdo
CaribouuouboboribarCaC
CondossosdondonCoCC
Lift OneeLiOn
LodgedgeLod
+
8015
+++
80100
++
8015
SNOWSNOWWWOWOONNNSSSSOWOWOWWWSSNN
HOLDINGHOLDINGGGGGNNNIIIDLOOOOHHHININNNIGGGHOOHOLLODD
CURBCURBBRURURUUCCCRRRBBCCCCCCUUUUU
SNOWNOWNOSNOSNOOOOWOWOWS
HOLDINGOLDGOLDDIINNGGHOHOLDHO
CURB ATCBARBBATTCCCUCURCURB
RETAININGTAING
REETAAINTAIETNIN
WALLWALWALW35' CABLE CLEARANCE35' CCABLEE CLEARANCENBLProposed SubdivisionPropposeed SSubbdivvisiionPropLot 1Lot 11
Air Rights BoundaryRigBnaAdditional ROWitiROWROLL CURB
BLL CFLOOR PLAN Level 7 - 8063’P112
VI.A.
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’LODGE - GUESTROOMSPARETAIL / RESTAURANTHOTELBOHPARKINGASPEN SKI COMPANYCIRCULATIONVERTICAL CIRCULATIONAFFORDABLE HOUSINGUSE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL Guestrooms: 15 11 King 2 Queen / Queen 2 SuiteGuet2r12 1Q2KmKiQu2 imngue2 S::gueeSu1Sueennen /uit/ QiteQueeueeeennne2 s:KienSuinQu80258025804580580358035803080308050850
80208040800440804580454548045050 8040804080358003558030880330
801440
80108
8019.5+803080308
803
5
803
5
803
5
8040804080408045558045808050805080805550558058
80252580
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
80088008
8006800 6
80048004
80258002525 80208002020880188010182% SLOPEOPE80208020
8012018
8018018
8016016100' @ 30% SLOPEOP% S@ 30060' @ 15% SLOPEPESL@ 1560'SL80188018
000000000000800800800+017.5017.58080
SNOWSNOWS
LOAD++++80020080
8000
709870987
8016.5+8016.5+8018.5808.5++8017.58017++8016.58016.5+000000000808+++++8000
7999++++8016.5
+70967096
7095
709494744 7993
7992
7997
79967996
79957995
7995 9887994
7991
79907
7991
7992
7993
7994
8009+00.40.4409.49.4999999 +++2222.2299 +FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
8019.5+00
2+2222+.999
OW
4040 +.4.499
O
99
0
9
0
99+++0
7
8
OF
000080++88+0000 0000
++9440409
000
+99..99
9+9+7997
90+08080++808080 00
55.55
5
901+8
99+0 +08 +++88 01990
+001 955955 g5inK5ngKi K2S. ASPEN STREETS.PN RETETRN SPSNOW CATNOW
C
A
T
NOW
C
TURN ARO
U
N
D
URN
A
UNDDUND
SnowSn
SurfacefaceLimit of SkiingLtf kgkiLggQueenneneenueeQueQuQ
dossosdo
CaribouuouboiboribarCaC
CondossosdondonCoCC
Lift OneeLiOn
LodgedgeLod
+
8015
+++
80100
++
8015
SNOWSNOWWWOWOONNNSSSSOWOWOWWWSSNN
HOLDINGHOLDINGGGGGNNNIIIDLOOOOHHHININNNIGGGHOOHOLLODD
CURBCURBBRURURUUCCCRRRBBCCCCCCUUUUU
SNOWNOWNOSNOSNOOOOWOWOWS
HOLDINGOLDGOLDDIINNGGHOHOLDHO
CURB ATCBARBBATTCCCUCURCURB
RETAININGTAING
REETAAINTAIETNIN
WALLWALWALW35' CABLE CLEARANCE35' CCABLEE CLEARANCENBLProposed SubPropposeed S ubPropLot 1Lot 11
Air Rights BoundaryRigBnaAdditional ROWitROWROLL CURB
BLL CFLOOR PLAN Level 8 - 8073’ - 6”P113
VI.A.
P114
VI.A.
P115
VI.A.
P116
VI.A.
P117VI.A.
P118VI.A.
P119VI.A.
P120VI.A.
P121VI.A.
P122VI.A.
P123VI.A.
P124VI.A.
P125VI.A.
P126VI.A.
P127VI.A.
P128VI.A.
P129VI.A.
P130VI.A.
P131VI.A.
P132
VI.A.
P133VI.A.
P134
VI.A.
P135
VI.A.
P136
VI.A.
P137
VI.A.
P138
VI.A.
P139
VI.A.