Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990629 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIA£ MEETING TUESDAY JUNE 29, 1999, 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM, CITY HALL L MINUTES II, PUBLIC HEARING 4:4~7:oo A. Aspen Mountain PUD Conceptual, Lots 3 and 5, Mitch Haas IV. ADJOURN Times are approximate. We recommend applicants arrive at least ½ hour prior to the scheduled time. ot)pwe►GI Y'4L.AGofTJC)17 U - e Q�'CI� �C� ice" c t� �qN d \U = I YQ VALET PreS le. .. . ................. . ........ ...... ....... I hV rftrw TAIt7 g lAQmm %�Arz L 0 T 5 Main Level Plan ✓ ®ram G r a n d A r p. n / T o p o f M i 1 1 R e d e T• 1 Aspen Mountain P.U.D. PHASE 2 asL rom a AMMOCUTU p �Ilf TAI�D �x L 0 T 5 Garage Plan Top cf fif )t R e d e T e 1 o p m e G r a d A pen / T• T T• j� • Asper. Mountain Y U jf PHASE 2 Y� • � PI•TI=mQ S � :!"r� "�F TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ?e FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner DATE: June 15, 1999 RE: Lots 3 and 5 - Aspen Mountain PUD, Conceptual Review — Public Hearing. SUMMARY: Savanah Limited Partnership ("the applicant," or "Savanah") is coming before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to present their Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for development of Lots 3 ("Top of Mill") and 5 ("Grand Aspen Site") of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD. While the application will require approval of requests for Conceptual and Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS Scoring and Allocations, GMQS Exemptions, Rezoning, Special Review, Text Amendments, 8040 Greenline Review, and Mountain View Plane Review, only the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application is being considered at this time. Thus, Savanah is before the Commission for the first time with a new application seeking Conceptual PUD approval for both Lots 3 and 5. The Lot 3 and 5 proposals can be summarized as follows, with greater detail provided in the main body of and exhibits to this memorandum: Proposal for Lot 5, Grand Aspen site: • Lot size of 86,610 square feet, of which 13,540 square feet lie within vacated Dean Street, leaving a net lot area of 73,070 square feet; • 150 hotel units (132 standard rooms, and 18 suites); • On -site housing for 12 employees (four one -bedroom units and four studios); • 8,000 square feet of meeting space; • 2,750 square feet of restaurant space; • 800 square feet of bar space; • 2,400 square feet of kitchen space; • 500 square feet of accessory commercial space; • Customary lobby and support spaces; • 106,780 square feet of external FAR floor area; • 22,000 square feet of open space (plus an additional 25,000 square feet on Lot 6 that counts toward the Lot 5 open space total per the existing PUD Agreement); and, • 106 below grade parking spaces. Proposal for Lot 3, Top of Mill: • Lot size of 242,810 square feet, of which 2,680 square feet lie within vacated Mill Street, 3,810 square feet lie within a Summit Street access easement, and 106,150 square feet lie within the portion of Lot 3 zoned Conservation (C), leaving a net lot area of 130,170 square feet; • Creation of 8 development parcels and 2 open space parcels, as follows: ➢ PARCEL 1: 51,680 square feet of land containing 2 triplexes (6 free market dwelling units) with a total of 27,000 square feet of FAR floor area; ➢ PARCEL 2: 26,520 square feet of land containing 2 duplexes (4 deed restricted dwelling units) with a total of 7,500 square feet of FAR floor area; ➢ PARCEL 3: 14,260 square feet of land containing 1 duplex (2 free market dwelling units) with a total of 9,000 square feet of FAR floor area; ➢ PARCEL 4: 13,290 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,200 square feet of FAR floor area; ➢ PARCEL 5: 10,370 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 5,200 square feet of FAR floor area; ➢ PARCEL 6: 10,380 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 5,200 square feet of FAR floor area; ➢ PARCEL 7: 18,920 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,500 square feet of FAR floor area; ➢ PARCEL 8: 18,390 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,500 square feet of FAR floor area; ➢ OPEN SPACE PARCEL A: 28,740 square feet of land (of which 18,710 square feet lie within an access road easement; and, ➢ OPEN SPACE PARCEL B: 50,230 square feet of land. • Total of 17 residential units; • Total of 73,100 square feet of FAR floor area; • Total of 60,260 square feet of land meeting the City's definition of "open space" The staff recommendations may be summarized as follows, with greater elaboration provided in the "Recommendation" section at the end of this memorandum: with regard to Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site), staff recommends approval with conditions; and, with regard to Lot 3 (Top of Mill), staff recommends tabling of the application until further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept are completed by Savanah and reviewed by staff. APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by: Vann Associates (planner), Bill Poss and Associates (architects), Lawrence Green (attorney), Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers and Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (engineers), TDA, Inc. (transportation), Alpine Surveys, and Waste Engineering, Inc. (environmental). LOCATION: (See attached Vicinity Maps, Exhibit A.) EXISTING ZONING, LOT 5: Lot 5 is zoned Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory Planned Unit Development overlay (L/TR-PUD). ON PROPOSED ZONING, LOT 5: Same as existing, no rezoning is proposed for Lot 5. EXISTING ZONING, LOT 3: Lot 3 is zoned L/TR-PUD, Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay; R-15 (PUD)(L), Moderate -Density Residential with PUD and Lodge overlays; and, C, Conservation. Consequently, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 26.40.070 of the Municipal Code, which governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. See "Zoning" sub -section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." PROPOSED ZONING, LOT 3: Savanah proposes to rezone the 87,120 square feet of R- 15 zoned lands to L/TR-PUD, and leave the lands zoned Conservation as currently designated. The result would be 136,660 gross square feet of L/TR-PUD zoning and 106,150 square feet of Conservation zoning. LOT SIZE: See "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit F, referral comments from the City Zoning Officer. The figures contained in the cited locations will be subject to further review and verification by the City Zoning Officer during review of building permit applications. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: In addition to the following, see "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit F, referral comments from the City Zoning Officer. Additional discussion involving floor area can be found in the "Zoning' sub -section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." Lot S, Grand Aspen Site: Pursuant to Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement, the maximum allowable floor area on Lot 5 was reduced to one -hundred fifteen thousand (115,000) square feet, with the aggregate floor area of Lots 1 and 5 limited to three -hundred five thousand (305,000) square feet. This figure (115,000) was arrived at by including Lot 6 (the Silver Circle Ice Rink) in the calculation of allowable floor area for Lot 5, the purpose of which was to compensate Savanah for the development of the public ice rink and park on Lot 6 of the PUD. The Regulations preclude the inclusion of vacated rights -of -way in the calculation of allowable density or floor area, so the Dean Street right-of-way does not increase the allowable density or floor area. Lot 3, To of Milk Savanah is basing their calculation of allowable floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 that would be zoned L/TR at a 1:1 (floor area : lot area) ratio to arrive at an allowable aggregate external floor area of 97,630 square feet. This figure does not assume any floor area credit for the 106,150 square foot portion of the lot zoned C, Conservation. Further, approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area would remain on Lot 5 under the current proposal, and said floor area could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the PUD regulations. If included, this would provide for 105,850 square feet of allowable floor area, exclusive of the unlimited floor area potential of the lands zoned Conservation (see pages 73-74 of application packet, Attachment 1). Although it probably will not be applicable, please note that on July 6, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a text amendment to the Conservation zone district that would place a "cap" on allowable floor area. 3 Staff takes a different approach to the calculation of allowable floor areas for the proposed subdivision parcels of Lot 3. Staff believes the allowable floor areas discussed in the PUD Agreement contemplate a potential maximum that could be attained, provided the proposed subdivision lots could be successfully sized and configured (and no lot area reductions were required) so that all of the floor area could be constructed while meeting all other applicable and unvaried dimensional requirements. As explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (see Exhibit F), staff feels it would be more appropriate to base its calculations of not only permitted floor area but also allowed density and required open space on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Consequently, further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. Additional discussion involving floor area can be found in the "Zoning" sub -section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." BACKGROUND: The background and history of this case is far too extensive and complex to adequately summarize in the body of this memorandum. While the "Background" section of the written application booklet (Attachment 1) provides a fairly detailed summary of the case history, staff finds it to be somewhat biased in Savanah's favor. Exhibit I, History of Aspen Mountain PUD, is a memo prepared by Savanah outlining the highlights of the case history. Staff believes this summary (Exhibit I) to be fair, but suggests also reviewing the PUD Agreement and its Section M. Amendments (included in the written application booklet, Attachment 1). PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW*: The proposal is being processed as follows: Step One: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Review (Lots 3 and S) a. Housing Board review for recommendations regarding (1) the adequacy of the proposed housing mitigation, (2) the merits of the proposed employee generation factors, (3) the merits of the proposed unit sizes and category mixes, and (4) the appropriateness of the proposed locations for housing mitigation. b. Review for recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing; and, c. Review for decision by the Aspen City Council (two readings with a public hearing at second reading). Step Two: GMQS Scoring and Competition for Tourist Accommodations Allocations a. Growth Management Commission Scoring Recommendation at a public hearing, and recommendation regarding requested GMQS Exemptions; b. Acceptance of recommended scoring by the Board of County Commissioners; and, c. Acceptance of recommended scoring and granting of tourist accommodation allotments by City Council. Step Three: Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Text Amendments, GMQS Exemption, Special Review, 8040 Greenline, and Mountain View Plane reviews, as follows: a. Housing Board for final recommendations to City Council; b. Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendations regarding the Final PUD, Subdivision, Text Amendments, and Rezoning requests (public hearings), and decisions regarding the Special Review, 8040 Greenline, and Mountain View Plane requests (public meetings); and, 4 c. City Council for decisions regarding the GMQS Exemptions and the method by which mitigation will be provided, Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Text Amendments (two readings with a public hearing at second reading). * Note that the above -provided outline provides an estimate of a likely sequence of the necessary reviews, but the exact order may be altered provided all due process requirements are met. Also, this sequence does not take into account the potential for denials and appeals. CURRENT PROPOSAL, LOT 5: See "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit B, "Lot 5, Main Issues." The PUD Agreement states that (Book 574, Page 828) "the Lot 5 component shall be comprised of not more than 50 hotel rooms (with the aggregate number of hotel rooms on Lots 1 and 5 not to exceed 342), and no more than 47 residential units between Lots 3 and 5, the exact number of such units to be established in the amended review process for Lot 5." As indicated above, while the number of residential units proposed falls below the maximum allowed, the proposed development of Lot 5 contemplates 150 hotel rooms, exceeding the 50-unit Lot '5 limitation, and when combined with the 279 units approved for Lot 1, also exceeding the overall limitation of 342 lodge units (by 87 units). Savanah intends to earn the right to develop the extra 100 units on Lot 5 (and extra 87 in total) via the City's Tourist Accommodation GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. Regardless of how many hotel rooms receive final approval (if any at all), the PUD Agreement would need to be amended to reflect whatever final approvals are granted. Savanah describes the proposed facility as a 3.5-star, moderately priced, upscale hotel with a 4-star restaurant. As indicated in the Site Plans of the application, the primary mass of the proposed hotel would be located along the vacated Dean Street. Dean Street would be converted into a limited passenger and valet parking drop-off driveway (no longer a public access or through street) and landscaped pedestrian area, which would link the St. Regis Hotel and Lot 5 with the Aspen Mountain Gondola Plaza and the Little Nell Hotel: The remainder of the "inverted `J'-shaped" hotel would be located in the central and southwestern portions of the site. The rear portions of the structure would be recessed into the climbing grade of the site, maintaining a uniform height from the Dean Street facade to the southernmost portions of the building. The main entrance to the hotel would be located adjacent to the vacated Dean Street right-of- way, with a secondary pedestrian entrance at the corner of Dean and Galena Streets. The hotel's lobby and restaurant have been designed to front on former Dean Street and the ice rink. Street trees would be planted along both sides of vacated Dean Street as well as along the site's Galena and Mill Street frontages. Plantings would also be provided along the site's southern property line and within the two courtyard areas. Of the 150 proposed hotel units, 132 would be "standard" rooms and the remaining 18 units would be "suites." The standard rooms would contain approximately 390 square feet of gross area each while the average suite would contain some 650 square feet. The suites would be configured as studio units with enlarged seating areas, but in no case as separated bedrooms and living areas. The application explains that an "undetermined" amount of hotel units would be configured with lock -off doors to allow for the possibility of two adjoining units to function as a single suite. 5 The structure would also contain 8 affordable housing units (4 studio and 4 one -bedroom units) on its main level. The studio units would each contain a minimum of 400 square feet of net livable area while the one -bedroom units would each contain at least 600 square feet of net livable area. In addition, the proposed hotel would contain roughly 8,000 square feet of meeting/conference space and approximately 500 square feet of accessory commercial space. Savanah represents that the kitchen and related support services are not intended or designed to accommodate large conferences or banquets, and that the accessory commercial area is intended to accommodate customary hotel support uses (i.e., newsstand, etc.) as opposed to larger retail operations. Off-street parking would be accommodated in a sub -grade garage accessed from Galena Street. The garage would contain a total of 106 parking spaces, or approximately 0.7 spaces per bedroom, limited storage areas, mechanical equipment, and stairways and elevators providing access to the lobby. The delivery and service area for the hotel would be located on the Mill Street frontage and would be covered by the building above as well as enclosed by an overhead door when not in use. On Dean Street, the 9 existing parking spaces would be lost with the proposed design of the vacated area. Savanah proposes to provide the replacement spaces within the sub -grade garage, or in some other yet -to -be -determined but mutually acceptable location. CURRENT PROPOSAL, LOT 3: Lot 3, the Top of Mill site, is proposed to be subdivided into eight (8) development parcels and two (2) open space parcels, and would contain a total of seventeen (17) dwelling units (See "Summary," above for break -down). Parcel I 's six free market, three-story townhouse units would front on Mill Street but with vehicular access from Summit Street, and would each contain four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcel 2's four duplex units would be deed restricted with three of the four units each containing three bedrooms and approximately 1,500 square feet of net livable area, and the fourth unit containing four bedrooms and approximately 1,700 square feet of net livable area. Parcel 3 would have a single free market duplex structure with each unit containing four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 would each have a free market, detached single-family dwelling unit with five bedrooms, and the units' sizes would range from approximately 5,200 square feet to 6,500 square feet of floor area (see "Summary," above). Savanah represents that the duplex to be constructed on Parcel 3 and the five single-family residences to be developed . on Parcels 4 through 8 would each contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) unless, alternatively, the owners of these lots choose to pay the applicable cash -in -lieu fees at the time of their development (see "Housing" sub -section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues"). Vehicular access to the triplex units on Parcel 1 would be provided along the rear of the lot via a common driveway from Summit Street. Vehicular access to all units on Parcels 2-8 would come from a private access road extended from the end of Mill Street. The proposed private access road would be semi -circular in shape and terminate in a roundabout variety cul-de-sac; this access road is part of the "Access and Design" discussion included within Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." 2 Open Space Parcel A would be located at the end of Mill Street, between Parcel 1 and the other development parcels, and includes the Mill Street extension cul-de-sac (access easement) described in the previous paragraph. The proposal indicates a fairly extensive landscaping treatment of Open Space Parcel A, most likely to help screen the residential development from downtown. Open Space Parcel B would reside to the west of Parcels 1, 7, and 8, and be buffered from the Parcels 7 and 8 residences by substantial amounts of coniferous and deciduous tree plantings. Open Space Parcel B contains the ski easement providing access from Aspen Mountain to Summit Street. ` The ski easement would be maintained and formalized. Also on Open Space Parcel B, Savanah proposes to vacate the other trail easement, known as the "Top of Mill Trail" (as indicated on the "Seventh Amended Plat, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development"), across the southern side of Parcel 1 and the northern side of Parcel 2. The Parks Department is adamantly opposed to the vacation of the Top of Mill Trail, and this issue is discussed at length in the "Trails and Easements" portion of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." MAIN ISSUES: Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and/or deserve special attention. While other issues exist, these core issues are outlined in Exhibits B (Lot 5) and C (Lot 3), and referred to elsewhere throughout this memorandum and associated exhibits. The issues discussed in Exhibits B and C are referred to, and other issues are explained in the PUD reviews (Exhibits D and E as related to Lots 5 and 3, respectively). The summaries contained in Exhibits B and C have been organized by categories of issues rather than by the review processes which deal with the issues, and are intended to provide further detail and elaboration of certain topics, as well as information related to issues not raised through review of the PUD standards. Exhibit B, "Lot 5, Main Issues, " includes discussion of the following issue areas: density and lodging growth; housing; traffic and parking; design and height; and, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues, " includes discussion of the following issue areas: zoning (including rezoning, code amendments, and dimensional requirements); housing; drainage and natural hazards; trails and easements; access and traffic generation; architecture and site design; and, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: Conceptual Planned Unit Developments are reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.84.030(B), Review Standards. The PUD review standards and staff s analyses of the proposals relative thereto are contained in Exhibits D and E, with the Lot 5 review in Exhibit D and the Lot 3 review in Exhibit E. LOT 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation to grant Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Lot 5 with the following conditions: 1. Any and all Conceptual PUD approvals for Lot 5 shall be fully contingent upon receipt of the necessary GMQS allotments. 2. The recommendations of the Housing Office and Housing Board with regard to Lot 5, as . contained in the June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum to Mitch Haas of the 7 Community Development Department, shall be considered part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Conceptual PUD recommendation to City Council. 3. All housing mitigation shall be provided on -site and/or in an off -site location approved by City Council after receipt of a recommendation from the Housing Board. 4. If any off -site housing receives approval, Savanah shall be required to purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on -site. 5. For Final PUD submission, a revised traffic study shall be provided, and it shall assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards and directly respond to each applicable PUD review criteria. 6. For the Final PUD and GMQS Scoring and Competition applications, the proposed 106 -spaces should be augmented by the addition of 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council) of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. It might also be worthwhile to consider providing some parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on a semi -regular basis. 7. Savanah shall commit to providing a shuttle to and from the airport for the hotel's customers, and shall make a good faith effort to do so through the use of an alternative energy source vehicle. 8. A plan for the enforcement of the passenger drop-off/valet parking drive as a one way, non -through street shall be provided, and plans to provide neck -downs at the corners of said drive shall also be provided. 9. The exit from the underground garage on Galena Street shall include a means of precluding right turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan shall show no vegetation 30 feet to the south or 20 feet to the north of the exit. 10. The service/delivery area shall be provided with a means of precluding exiting vehicles from turning left onto South Mill Street. Time limitations for deliveries shall be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks shall also be provided. 11. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood concerns. 12. Any and all variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review, but prior to GMQS Scoring and Final PUD Review, Savanah shall provide accurate "story poles" at the new building corners and at roof height changes to reflect the peaks of the proposed roof. 13. A detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application, and staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. It is suggested that, in order to help buffer the visual impacts of the hotel structure from the adjoining property to the south, species for tress proposed along the site's southerly property line should be selected to provide mature heights closely approximating the height of the hotel in this area. 14. Additional lighting details will be provided with the Final PUD application, and if any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will the swimming pool area be lighted beyond the minimum required for safety reasons. 15. Any and all internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 16. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be 8 considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. LOT 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission table the Lot 3, Conceptual Planned Unit Development application until further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept are completed by Savanah and reviewed by staff. In the alternative, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation to grant Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Lot 3 with the following conditions: 1. Any and all Conceptual PUD approvals for Lot 3 shall be fully contingent upon subsequent rezoning hearings. That is, should the necessary rezoning request(s) be denied, the applicant would have to come back through the Conceptual PUD process with a proposal that meets the requirements of the existing zone districts. 2. For the Final PUD application, the applicant will, in good faith, explore and potentially pursue a rezoning request different from that currently proposed. Instead, the applicant will consider applying to rezone all portions of Lot 3 for which development is proposed to L/TR(PUD); if this is done, the request to amend Section 26.40.070 will be withdrawn. 3. If, pursuant to condition 2 (above), the applicant revises the parameters of the rezoning request and withdraws the request to amend Section 26.40.070 of the code, a new request to amend the list of permitted uses in the L/TR zone district to eliminate the "only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less" language will be included with the Final PUD application. 4. For the Final PUD application, the proposed Parcel 1 development envelope will be adjusted to eliminate the need for a front setback variance, or such a variance will be requested. 5. The Final PUD application will contain further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, to determine compliance with all applicable zone district and dimensional requirements. 6. The recommendations of the Housing Office and Housing Board with regard to Lot 3, as contained in the June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum to Mitch Haas of the Community Development Department, shall be considered part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Conceptual PUD recommendation to City Council. 7. In the Final PUD application, proposed building mass and related impermeable surface layout will closely conform with the final .outcome of the AMDBMP design and construction criteria. It shall be the developer's or its successor's responsibility to fully comply with the drainage criteria and perform within the parameters set forth in the report. 8. Savanah Limited Partnership's (owner/developer) representative agreed to provide necessary drainage easements and shall continue to provide these easements for safe conveyance of surface runoff and debris through the site. 9. In the Final PUD application, the developer's representative will make necessary adjustments to building footprints to ensure that the requirements of the AMDBMP and the above mentioned conditions are met. 10. The City will use the funds put in escrow to study and develop a master plan with design and construction criteria and utilize the balance of these funds to implement an interim drainage mitigation project to control runoff only to the extent the remaining escrow funds will support. W 11. In the Final PUD application, the site layout must be such that it will in no way pose a significant blockage in the natural stream bed or drainage path. 12. The development must comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The existing site must be carefully studied and evaluated to ensure a proper design and correct selection of BMP(s). 13. The Final PUD application shall include, further grading and excavation plans as well as geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the current design concept with suggested conditions for development. 14. For the Final PUD application, Savanah shall work cooperatively with the Parks _.Department to relocate and replat the Top of Mill Trail, where Savanah further agrees to have any agreed upon alignment of the relocated trail staked and approved by the Parks Department. The relocated trail must have a legal description, be shown on the Final Amended Plat, and be dedicated/conveyed to the City of Aspen Parks Department. 15. With the Final PUD application, plans must be provided for the construction phase and after to address any and all problems associated with the grade of South Mill Street. 16. Savanah shall commit, in the Final PUD application, to construct a detached/separated sidewalk along the South Mill Street frontage of Lot 3, and to plant appropriately spaced street trees in the area between the sidewalk and the curb. 17. For Final PUD submission, a revised traffic study shall be provided, and it shall assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards and directly respond to each applicable PUD review criteria. 18. All residential structures will be subject to the provisions of the Residential Design Standards. When more detailed architectural renderings are submitted in conjunction with the Final PUD application, staff will conduct the Residential Design Standards review under the provisions applicable at that time. Staff suggests a different roof form for the Parcel 3 duplex. 19. Prior to Final PUD review, the applicant will provide staff with at least two site plan alternatives that would eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac layout. While the alternatives should be more consistent with mountain community design and that traditionally associated with the area at the base of Aspen Mountain, it is also essential that the alternatives take into account soil conditions, geotechnical findings, drainage patterns and mitigation needs, fire and emergency access, and neighborhood impacts. 20. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood concerns. 21. Any and all variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review. 22. A detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application, and staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 23. Additional lighting details will be provided with the Final PUD application, and if any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not . cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will any light be directed up the mountain. 24. Any and all internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 25. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. 10 EXHIBITS: • Exhibit A: Vicinity Maps • Exhibit B: Lot 5, Main Issues • Exhibit C: Lot 3, Main Issues • Exhibit D: Lot 5, PUD Review • Exhibit E: Lot 3, PUD Review • Exhibit F: Referral Memos • Exhibit G: Housing Office Memos, Housing Board Recommendations • -Exhibit H: Letters from Neighbors/Citizens • Exhibit I: History of Aspen Mountain PUD memo, prepared by Savanah ATTACHMENTS: • One: Written Application Materials • Two: Proposed Plan Sets • Three: TDA, Inc. Transportation Report 11 i tl1 v 4 UTAVC J Rube Park ! • ! \ �"-`` % � 1, �.. Silver circle LO Lo / J _ t ; , Gondola �-4- ,f ( EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues Main Issues Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 5 Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and/or deserve special attention. While other issues exist, the core issues are outlined in this Exhibit and referred to elsewhere throughout the main body of the staff memorandum and its associated exhibits. The summaries contained in this Exhibit have been organized by categories of issues rather than by the review processes which deal with the issues, and are intended to provide further detail and elaboration of certain topics, as well as information related to issues not raised through review of the PUD standards. This Exhibit includes discussion of the following Lot 5 issue areas: density and lodging growth, housing, traffic and parking, design and height, and consistency with the AACP. When reading this Exhibit B, it will be important to keep in mind that Savanah will need to apply for GMQS Scoring and Competition (see Exhibit D, criterion number 4) prior to proceeding with a Final PUD application, and that any and all Conceptual approvals for Lot 5 would be fully contingent upon receipt of the necessary allotments, including a finding that the proposal constitutes an "Exceptional Project" to qualify for a multi -year allocation. Density and Lodging Growth Savanah explains their basic design concept for Lots 3 and 5 as an attempt to vary the density and massing of development so as to reflect the location of the parcels within the context of the surrounding area and the City. Thus, the highest density and the largest structure (the hotel) is proposed adjacent to vacated Dean Street on the northernmost portion of Lot 5. As summarized in the main body of the staff memorandum, Savanah proposes to develop a 150 unit hotel (132 standard rooms and 18 suites) on Lot 5. The structure would also include 8 employee units (4 studio units and 4 one -bedroom units); 8,000 square feet of meeting space; 2,750 square feet of restaurant space; 800 square feet of bar space; 2,400 square feet of kitchen space; 500 square feet of accessory commercial space; customary lobby and support spaces; and, 106 underground parking spaces. There is no minimum lot area requirement for the development of hotel units in the L/TR zone district; therefore, the number of units that may be accommodated on a specific site is a function of the amount of available floor area and the proposed unit sizes. Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement limits Lots 3 and 5 to a combined total of 47 free market residential units, with the actual number of units to be determined in connection with a development application for Lot 5. In addition, Lot 5 is limited to a maximum of 50 lodge units with the aggregate number of lodge units on Lots 1 (St. Regis) and 5 not to exceed 342. The proposed 150 hotel units exceeds the 50-unit Lot 5 limitation (by 100), and when combined with the 279 units approved for Lot 1, also exceeds (by 87) the overall limitation of 342 lodge units. Savanah intends to earn the right to develop the extra 100 units on Lot 5 via the City's Tourist Accommodations GMQS Scoring and Competition Procedures (see "Procedural Overview" in the main body of the staff memorandum). Irrespective of the procedural obstacles, there are a few perspectives from which to view the proposed 150 unit hotel development. ' From the standpoint of anticipated growth and density, the community had valid reason to believe the Ritz/St. Regis was the end of EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues significant lodge growth, and the Grand Aspen would be eliminated and replaced with no more than 50 hotel units. From this perspective, all impacts and increased densities would be considered new growth (no netting out of existing conditions) irrespective of both the Grand Aspen's continued existence and subsequent, incremental changes in the community's small lodge bed base. From the perspective of actual growth, on the other hand, the community has more or less absorbed the impacts of the Ritz/St. Regis development with the Grand Aspen continuing to operate. Prior to the winter of 1995-`96, the Grand Aspen Hotel provided 150 unrestricted lodge rooms while the Ritz -Carlton began operation in December of 1992 (as the "Continental Inn," the Grand Aspen structure contained 178 units until its 1988 renovation). The Grand Aspen also included 1,510 square feet of restaurant space, 860 square feet of bar space, and 3,060 square feet of kitchen space, for a total of 5,430 square feet of food and beverage space (520 square feet less than that proposed). Since the winter of 1995-'96 and through present day, the Grand Aspen Hotel's 150 units have been restricted as follows: in the winter, 50 can be rented without restriction, 38 are reserved for Savanah employees, and 62 can be rented only to groups needing a minimum of 20 rooms; and, in the summer, 50 can be rented without restriction, and 100 are reserved for music students or Savanah-employees (minimum of 75 for music students). Therefore, the Grand Aspen operated at its full, unrestricted capacity for almost three years (December of '92 through Fall of '95) while the Ritz -Carlton was open for business, and in its restricted capacity for another three years since then. Given these facts, the proposed density on Lot 5 could be looked at in terms of the new proposal versus the facility it would replace. Under such an approach, the density of hotel units would be a wash, and there would be an increase of 8 employee dwelling units, 520 square feet of food and beverage space, and 8,000 square feet of meeting space. While not specific to the subject site but still important from a community -wide perspective, it should be noted that while the St. Regis and the Grand Aspen continued to operate at the same time, there has been a considerable reduction in small lodge rooms. For instance, since 1990 a total of 264 lodge rooms have been added (7 at L'Auberge and 257 at the Ritz) to Aspen's lodging bed base while Community Development Department records indicate the following losses to the Aspen lodging bed base since the start of the 1990s: Alpine Lodge 11 units Copper Horse 13 units Cortina 16 units Little Red Ski Haus 20 units Fireside Lodge 20 units Northstar 22 units Aspen Country Inn 84 units Aspen Manor 21 units Bell Mountain Lodge 22 units Brass Bed Inn 29 units Alpina Haus Lodge ' 40 units Buckhorn Lodge 9 units Carriage House 10 units TOTAL 317 units ME EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues These numbers do not account for changes in: (1) the lodging bed base of the unincorporated Metro Area of Pitkin County (such as the Heatherbed Lodge — 40 units, the Highlands Inn — 46 units, or the Maroon Creek Lodge — 11 units), which staff believes to represent a net loss, too; nor, (2) facilities such as the Bavarian Inn (15-20 units) or the Red Roof Inn, a/k/a Trsucott (50 units) that have been included in other similar counts/analyses. Consequently, staff believes the numbers provided in the tabulation represent a conservative estimate. Given the numbers above, there have been 264 lodging units added in Aspen since 1990 while at least 317 units have been lost, resulting in a net loss of at least 53 lodging rooms. This still does not account for the October, 1999, scheduled demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel's 150 units, which will bring the net loss for the 1990s up to at least 203 lodging units ([317 + 150] — 264). Furthermore, all of the hotel units lost (including those to be demolished at the Grand Aspen) were in the economy -to -moderate categories while all of the Ritz/St. Regis rooms are in the deluxe/luxury category. It should also be noted that the 22 units in the Christiania Lodge were leased to the Aspen Ski Company last winter and will likely be converted to employee housing in the near future while the Christmas Inn (26 units) and the Ullr Lodge (23 units) are both listed for sale; the Christiania Lodge, the Christmas Inn, and the Ullr Lodge are all in the economy -to -moderate categories. Similarly, an "Aspen Area Pillow Count Survey" was recently completed by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) and Aspen Central Reservations. This survey included the following findings (quoted from a Diane Moore memorandum to the ACRA Board of Directors dated March 2, 1999): ➢ "...the number of pillows available for short term occupancy have decreased over the past few years by approximately 100-200 pillows. While ... [their information] reflects that 393 pillows (economy properties) have been lost, there have been some gains in the number of pillows via property management companies, specifically with the rental of single family homes. The loss of 393 pillows is significant because these rooms were probably more accessible and affordable than a single family home rental." ➢ "Conversations with local property management companies indicate that the owners of condominiums are reducing the number of days that their condo's are available for short term vacation rentals." ➢ "All of the properties that have been converted from lodge use to another use were economy properties." ➢ "There is increased pressure to convert older, `economy properties' to affordable housing units due to the strong need for employee housing." ➢ "Only a few properties, such as the L'Auberge de Aspen and the Beaumont Inn, have added rooms to their properties (total of 16 additional pillows). Both of these properties are considered moderate lodging." The existing infrastructure is sufficient to support the proposal and the cost of any upgrades that might be required would be borne by Savanah. Furthermore, the adopted "Purpose" of the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist -oriented detached, duplex and multi family residential dwellings." Considering all the factors discussed above and the stated purpose of the L/TR zone district, it is staffs opinion that the proposed density does not represent an unacceptable level of growth. Of course, density -related impacts include traffic and design concerns as well, and these topics are addressed below. In total, though, staff supports the proposed density on Lot 5, provided all M. EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues housing mitigation requirements are met. Meeting the housing mitigation requirements may result in the elimination of a few hotel units which, in turn, would result in less employee generation, but these issues are addressed at length below, under "Housing." As mentioned in the first paragraph of this sub -section, the amount of floor area to be developed is also related to the topics of density and lodging growth. Pursuant to Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement, the maximum allowable floor area on Lot 5 was reduced to one -hundred fifteen thousand (115,000) square feet, with the aggregate floor area of Lots 1 and 5 limited to three -hundred five thousand (305,000) square feet. As per the provisions of the PUD Agreement, this figure (115,000) was arrived at by including Lot 6 (the Silver Circle Ice Rink) in the calculation of allowable floor area for Lot 5, the purpose of which was to compensate Savanah for the development of the public ice rink and park on Lot 6 of the PUD. The Land Use Code precludes the inclusion of vacated rights -of -way in the calculation of allowable density or floor area, so the Dean Street right-of-way does not increase the allowable density or floor area. There are no applicable reductions associated with slopes. The proposal calls for the development of approximately 106,780 square feet of external FAR floor area, which is 8,220 square feet less than that allowed. The L/TR zone district also requires compliance with an internal FAR requirement stating that the maximum lodge rental space is capped at 0.5:1, but may be increased to 0.75:1 provided one-third of the additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The minimum internal FAR for non -unit space is limited to 0.25:1. As summarized in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (Exhibit F), the minimum non -unit space to be provided is 28,750 square feet. The proposed non -unit space of 35,840 square feet exceeds this minimum and, therefore, complies with the requirement. As also explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (Exhibit F), the 0.5:1 maximum internal rental space limitation results in 57,500 square feet of allowable rental space (based on a permitted floor area of 115,000 square feet), which can be increased to 0.75:1 (86,250 square feet) provided that one-third of the additional floor area is restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The proposal indicates that 65,940 square feet of rental space would be developed, requiring that 2,813 square feet be restricted to affordable housing ([65,940 — 57,500] _ 3). With approximately 5,000 square feet of affordable housing proposed, the hotel meets the requirements .for the increased internal FAR as it pertains to rental space. Since these rental space calculations are undoubtedly confusing, try thinking of the calculation as follows: to figure out how many square feet of affordable housing would be required to permit the increase in allowable rental space to the level of 0.75:1, subtract the maximum amount of rental space under the 0.5:1 ratio (57,500 square feet, or 115,000 x 0.5) from the proposed amount of rental space (65,940). This results in a figure of 8,440 square feet. Thus, the affordable housing requirement to increase the FAR is at least one-third of the additional 8,440 square feet, or 2,813 square feet (8,440 _ 3). 5,000 square feet of affordable housing is proposed, thereby exceeding the requirement by 2,187 square feet (almost 78%). NO EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues Housing See Exhibit G, Housing Office memos and Housing Board Recommendations. Exhibit G includes three separate Housing Office memos dated May 5, May 14, and June 4, 1999. Exhibit G also includes the employment projection figures provided by Savanah as an attachment to the May 5, 1999 Housing Board memorandum. The June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum contains the Housing Office and Housing Board's final recommendations with regard to the Conceptual PUD for Lots 3 and 5. The Lot 5 recommendations start on page 3 of said memorandum, and may be summarized as follows: Housing Office staff and the Housing Board recommend approval of the proposed Lot 5 development based on the understanding that the applicant has agreed to an obligation to provide housing for the new net number of employees generated by the development (40.9 net new employees to be housed). That number is based on the total employment generated by the new hotel, minus the employment attributable to the existing hotel, which is outlined in the table provided on page 3 of the June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum (Exhibit G). The Housing staff and Board recommendation of approval comes with the following conditions: 1. The numbers provided by the applicant will be accepted subject to an audit system, with the provision of additional housing should actual employment exceed projected employment, and "penalty" housing requirements. For a description of the .audit and penalty systems, please refer to pages 4-5 of the June 4th memorandum (Exhibit G). 2. The Board recommends that no provision be made for the applicant to obtain a credit should the number of actual employees fall short of the projected number of employees. They recommend that no credit be possible as it would be difficult to identify at what point of the audit sequence the credits would be granted, and due to the fact that staff and the Board are relying on the applicant to provide an accurate projection of net new employees generated. 3. The Bavarian Inn was proposed by the applicant in the 1990 ballot language as an additional benefit unrelated to any mitigation of Phase 1 or Phase 2. The Bavarian Inn was an additional affordable housing inducement to. the voters to pass the Amended Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. The ballot language was approved stating that a suitable affordable housing project must be built at the Bavarian Inn site regardless of whether or not anything is ever built in Phase 2. There was nothing found in the record regarding the use of the Bavarian Inn for future mitigation; therefore, the Bavarian Inn site should not be available for use of any employee mitigation. The Housing Board and staff agreed that the Bavarian Inn is part of a long -overdue obligation to the electorate and recommends denial of the use of the Bavarian Inn for any kind of mitigation. Of course, Savanah disagrees with the Housing Board's position regarding the ability to use the Bavarian Inn site to help meet its housing mitigation requirements. Savanah's position on the Bavarian Inn issue is too lengthy to adequately summarize here, but is outlined in detail in a memorandum from Savanah to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board, which is included with Exhibit G. EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues In summary, should City Council accept the Housing Board recommendations, Savanah would be required to provide housing for 40.9 employees. Since none of these employees could be housed at the Bavarian Inn site, Savanah would need to house them on -site and/or in another off -site location approved by City Council upon recommendation of the Housing Board. The current proposal would provide housing for 12 employees in the hotel, leaving a shortfall of housing for an additional 28.9 employees. Housing some or all of these employees on -site would likely require a reduction in the proposed number of hotel units. Should the proposed number of hotel units be reduced, one effect would be a proportional reduction in the number of employees generated (at a rate of 31 employees per bedroom). There are numerous ways the numbers could be crunched to arrive at an acceptable way to house the employees. For instance, if the hotel proposal were to be decreased by 20 units with an average size of 400 square feet per unit eliminated, the 130 unit hotel's employee generation would be reduced from 40.9 to 34.7 (@ .31 employees per bedroom). As the existing proposal provides housing for 12 employees, the remaining shortfall would be 22.7 employees (34.7 — 12). Assuming an average hotel unit size of 400 square feet, the 20 eliminated units would provide roughly 8,000 square feet of space that could be used to provide housing. The average minimum size for Categories 1-4 studio units is 450 square feet; thus, approximately 17 studio units could be provided within the space vacated by 20 hotel units. 17 studio units would provide housing for 21.25 employees under the provisions of the Housing Guidelines. The remaining 1.45 employees could be accommodated by varying the unit mix within the space described. Similarly, credit for housing 1.75 employees is gained for each one -bedroom unit provided and the average minimum size for Categories 1-4 one -bedroom units is 650 square feet; thus, twelve (12) one -bedroom units could be provided within the space vacated by 20 hotel units. 12 one -bedroom units would provide housing for 21 employees (1.7 employees short of total requirement). Given these examples, staff is fairly confident that the entire housing mitigation requirement can be met on -site by eliminating 20 hotel units and converting the space to a mix of studio and one - bedroom units. On -site housing is clearly a goal of the AACP, and given that the proposed development will need up to 100 tourist accommodations allocations through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures, it would seem that complying with this staff position (and thereby providing greater consistency with the provisions of the AACP) should greatly aid Savanah in its bid for the additional allocations, especially since a multi -year allotment available only for "Exceptional Projects" will be needed. Note that the numbers and very basic analysis provided in the preceding paragraph are purely hypothetical. The unit sizes and mix would be subject to the final recommendation of the Housing Board and the approval of City Council. This sort of methodology may very well be unacceptable to the Housing Board and City Council, but is included here just as a basic way of explaining that compliance with the housing requirements is certainly possible. Nevertheless, one -bedroom and studio units may make the most sense since, as discussed above in reference to the internal FAR requirements, the additional FAR must be used to house employees of the lodge. On -site housing within a lodge is probably not appropriate for families. Traffic and Parking The Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) provides both city and down valley transit service. The Rubey Park transit station is located across Durant Avenue from and within one block of EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues the proposed Lot 5 development. The transit station is served by all summer and winter routes run by RFTA, and service is available from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. RFTA recommends (see Exhibit F) that Savanah be required to purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on site. Employees housed on site will not have to commute, but the purchase of bus passes for those housed elsewhere will encourage the use of transit. The Savanah-commissioned TDA, Inc., Transportation Report assumed no net gain in trip generation from the existing Grand Aspen Hotel to the proposed hotel. For instance, page 25 of the report shows a summer p.m. peak hour trip generation -rate of 21 trips in and 27 trips out per hour for the existing hotel and the exact same projections for the replacement hotel. The TDA Report uses the Sixth Edition of ITE to establish trip generation rates for the various uses. Under ITE rates, the classification of "Hotel" includes such accessory uses as restaurants, bars, meeting rooms, and accessory shops. However, there does not appear to be any accounting for the amount of space dedicated to these accessory uses, or net increases in such spaces as may be applicable under the current proposal, which includes 3,550 square feet of 4-star restaurant/bar space, 8 employee units, 500 square feet of accessory commercial space, and 8,000 square feet of meeting space. Under City standards, hotels that de-emphasize automobile usage by providing hotel transit service can reduce the overall trip generation by basing it on the number of parking spaces provided rather than on the number of rooms. For example, a 150 room hotel with just 106 guest parking spaces and a hotel transit service could apply for a thirty (30) percent reduction before using any of the standard reductions (proximity to shopping and transit, affordable housing, etc.), although the automobile disincentive reduction factor would probably not apply if the underground parking became available to the general public. Nevertheless, the Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit F) has determined that the proposed development on Lots 3 and 5 (combined) will generate 743 trips per day, but the Environmental Health Department has not netted out any existing/background trips or credits for demolished structures, nor applied any potentially applicable reductions. Even though there has been no netting out of existing trips or credits and City standards allow for trip reductions applicable to Lots 3 and 5 for being conveniently located to the Rubey Park transit stop, the commercial shopping core, and the Aspen Mountain ski lift, there is still a large discrepancy between the findings of the Savanah-commissioned Transportation Report and the preliminary expectations and data of the City's Engineering and Environmental Health Departments. In their referral memo (see Exhibit F), the Engineering Department comments that, for final submission,. a revised traffic study needs to be provided and it needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards; this memo also states that the report, "as is," predicts a net increase of only 18 trips for Lots 3 and 5 combined, which seems to be underestimated. The Community Development Department agrees that a projected net increase of just 18 trips per p.m. peak hour (summer and winter) for Lots 3 and 5 combined seems exceedingly low. Furthermore, staff believes the hotel should provide an airport shuttle, perhaps using an alternative energy source. While the subject site is conveniently located to transit and the downtown, and City standards allow for reductions in projected trip generation rates for automobile disincentives such as a limited amount of on -site parking, staff of the Community Development Department is concerned that the proposed 106 underground parking spaces may be insufficient to meet demand and offset the loss of spaces on Dean Street. There are nine (9) existing spaces on EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues Dean Street dedicated for use by Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons. The Land Use Code requires at least 0.7 off-street parking spaces per bedroom for lodge uses in the L/TR zone district. With the 150 hotel units proposed, 105 parking spaces are the minimum required. There is no provision in the code stating that accessory uses and spaces are included in the 0.7 off- street parking spaces required per bedroom for lodge uses in the L/TR zone district. However, the L/TR zone district does require 4 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area (which may be provided via payment in lieu). Under the formula of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area, the 8,000 square feet of meeting space, 500 square feet of accessory commercial space, and 3,550 square feet of restaurant and bar space could be said to generate a requirement of 48 off-street parking spaces. The nine (9) Dean Street parking spaces must be replaced, and approximately 8 parking/car storage spaces should be provided on site for the 12 employees to be housed. The 48 spaces for net leasable area, 9 Dean Street spaces, and the 8 employee unit spaces, combine for an additional demand of 65 off-street parking spaces. Some percentage of the net leasable area's demand for parking would undoubtedly overlap with the lodge rooms' demand for parking, and commercial spaces in the downtown area usually do not have designated parking but, instead, utilize the paid parking in the streets. Consequently, and considering the excellent access to transit, staff does not believe the applicant should be made to provide 170 (105 + 9 + 8 + 48) parking spaces. Rather, the proposed 106 spaces should be augmented by the addition of 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Commission and Council) of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. It might also be worthwhile to consider providing some parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on a semi -regular basis. The final topic related to traffic circulation and parking involves access: to/from the hotel, the garage, and the service and delivery areas. As proposed, vehicular access in front of the hotel would be limited to passenger drop-off and valet parking. No through traffic would be permitted. The underground parking garage would be accessed from South Galena Street via a ramp located wholly within the property, and the service/delivery area would be accessed from South Mill Street (approximately half way between vacated Dean Street and the St. Regis garage access). The service area would be covered by the building above and enclosed by an overhead door when not in use. Freight elevators would be provided to accommodate deliveries and oversized luggage. While the use of Dean Street for a passenger drop-off and valet area seems reasonable, there remain concerns. First, enforcement of maintaining limited use and preventing through traffic will require preventative measures and planning. Second, the proposed layout could be problematic if stacking distances for valet services prove too short, or if service is not fast enough to prevent the drop-off area from becoming a virtual parking lot. This area should be signed for one-way traffic only (from west, to east --- from Mill Street to Galena Street) and neck -downs should be provided at the corners to discourage improper vehicular turning movements while shortening pedestrian crossing distances. Staff believes the proposed locations for the garage access and service/delivery areas to be appropriate, but feels that a few minor adjustments should be made. For instance, exiting movements from the garage on South Galena Street should be limited to left turns only. This ftm EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues would funnel all traffic directly toward Durant Avenue, which provides access to the downtown and all other destinations. If right turns from the garage exit onto Galena Street are allowed, unnecessary traffic would flow through the steeper and more narrow streets and intersections of a predominantly residential neighborhood just to wind back around to Durant Avenue. To maintain adequate sight distances for these left turning movements out of the garage, no trees or other vegetation should be planted within thirty (30) feet to the south or twenty (20) feet to the north of the exit. Similarly, but with regard to the service/delivery area, exiting vehicles should be restricted to right turns only back onto South Mill Street. Time limitations for deliveries should be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks should also be provided. Both access points would be located toward the foot of the hill, before the grades of Galena and Mill Streets begin to substantially climb. In addition, the final application should include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan should consider neighborhood concerns. This "Traffic and Parking" discussion provides multiple recommendations for Savanah, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council, which can be summarized as follows: • Savanah should purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on -site. • A revised traffic study assessing impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards should be provided with the Final PUD/GMQS application. • Commitment to provide an airport shuttle, perhaps using an alternative energy source, should be provided. • Additional off-street parking spaces should be provided, including 105 spaces dedicated to hotel guests, 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink and park patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Commission and Council) of spaces dedicated to the hotel's accessory uses. It might also be worthwhile to provide parking for contractors that would be present at the hotel on a semi -regular basis. • A plan for the enforcement of the passenger drop-off/valet parking drive as a one way, non -through street should be provided, and plans to provide neck -downs at the corners of said drive should also be provided. • The exit from the underground garage on Galena Street should include a means of precluding right turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan should show no vegetation 30 feet to the south or 20 feet to the north of the exit. • Similarly, the service/delivery area should be provided with a means of precluding exiting vehicles from turning left onto South Mill Street. • Time limitations for deliveries should be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks should also be provided. • Finally, the Final application should include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan should consider neighborhood - concerns. Given that the proposed development will need up to 100 tourist accommodation allocations through the 1999-2000 GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures and the criteria include revitalizing the permanent community, providing transportation alternatives, promoting environmentally sustainable development, and maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character, it would seem that complying with these staff recommendations should greatly aid Savanah in its bid for the additional allocations, EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues especially since a multi -year allotment available only for "Exceptional Projects" will be needed. Design and Height Lot 5 is relatively flat with its topography rising gently from Dean Street to the rear of the parcel, and bears few encumbrances or other site specific design constraints. There is a twenty (20) foot utility easement and an "Alpine Trail" easement on the southerly end of the Lot 5 property. The utility easement abuts the southern boundary of Lot 5 and accommodates an eight inch sanitary sewer line. The eight foot "Alpine Trail" easement, intended to provide pedestrian access between Lots 4 and 5 of the PUD and Aspen Mountain, runs within the utility easement and to its north, but Savanah proposes to straighten the "Alpine Trail" easement to coincide with the utility easement. As indicated in the Site Plans of the application, the primary mass of the proposed hotel would be located along the vacated Dean Street. The proposed layout would maintain the historic alignment of the Grand Aspen Hotel along Dean Street. Dean Street would be converted into a limited passenger and valet parking drop-off driveway (no longer a public access or through street) and landscaped pedestrian area, which would link the St. Regis Hotel and Lot 5 with the Aspen Mountain Gondola Plaza and the Little Nell Hotel. The remainder of the "inverted `J'-shaped" hotel (a "J" shape spun 180' clockwise) would be located in the central and southwestern portions of the site. The rear portions of the structure would be recessed into the climbing grade of the site, maintaining a uniform height from the Dean Street facade to the southernmost portions of the building. To help buffer the visual impacts of the new structure from the adjoining property to the south, species for the trees proposed along the site's southerly property line would be selected to provide mature heights closely mirroring the height of the hotel in this area. The main entrance to the hotel would be located adjacent to the vacated Dean Street right-of- way, with a secondary pedestrian entrance at the corner of Dean and Galena Streets. The hotel's lobby and restaurant have been designed to front on former Dean Street and the ice rink in an effort to enhance the vitality of the area while providing a more interesting pedestrian experience. The hotel structure would be set back further than required from the ice rink and park located on Lot 6 in order to visually reduce the perceived mass of the structure from Durant Avenue. Street trees would be planted along both sides of vacated Dean Street as well as along the site's Galena and Mill Street frontages. The inverted "J" shape of the hotel allows for open terrace areas along both Mill Street and Galena Street. The terrace area along Mill Street would contain a swimming pool and hot tub, landscaping in raised planters, and a pergola structure between the terrace and the street. This would result in a substantial portion of the Mill Street elevation being recessed or set back more than 100 feet from the street. Another landscaped courtyard would encompass more than 100 feet of the Galena Street frontage. The architectural style of the proposed hotel has been selected to reflect the Victorian character of Aspen's older structures, albeit at a somewhat larger scale. Fronting on Dean Street and framing the ice rink from Durant Avenue, the hotel design has been given a symmetrical form with central massing to provide an interesting and pleasing visual backdrop for the area. The roof contains multiple and symmetrically balanced dormers and is steeply EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues pitched throughout, with the bulk of the upper floor units integrated into the roof form. With the central massing and symmetrical design, the hotel steps down along the Dean Street frontage as it approaches Galena and Mill Streets. The central Dean Street mass is framed by matching turrets, and the entire -Dean Street facade is similarly framed with set back turrets that front on Galena and Mill Streets. Arcades provide for covered pedestrian areas while also varying the wall planes to help further break up the mass of the structure. Relatively small portions of the structure front on Mill and Galena Streets due to the placement of large courtyards. For instance, climbing Galena Street from north to south, the street frontage would be developed as follows: a ninety (90) or so foot segment of the building would front on the street, followed by almost 130 feet of courtyard (including the garage ramp), and finally, a 70 foot portion of the building. The South Mill Street frontage would be developed in a very similar manner. ` Sufficient open space would be provided to meet the 25% requirement of the L/TR zone district. A minimum of 18,270 square feet of area (25%) meeting the City's definition of "open space" is required for Lot 5. The proposal would provide for approximately 22,010 square feet of "open space" on Lot 5 and another 25,730 square feet of open space on Lot 6 (Silver Circle Ice Rink and park), for a combined total of 47,740 square feet of open space. Savanah's ability to utilize Lot 6 for open space purposes is specifically provided for in the February, 1993 Section M. Amendment to the PUD Agreement. The proposal meets the minimum requirement for open space without including Lot 6, but exceeds the requirement by more than 38% when included. With the exception of maximum building height, the proposal complies with all applicable dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district. The L/TR zone district has a maximum height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, and the proposed structure would have a peak height of forty-seven (47) feet --- nineteen (19) feet above the limit. As mentioned above, the proposed structure would be cut into the rising grade of Mill and Galena Streets to maintain a uniform height from front to back while the measurable height would decrease along this path; nonetheless, the height of the hotel at the rear (south side) of the site would range from approximately twenty-one (21) to thirty-four (34) feet above existing grade, with the tallest portion in the center. The extent of the additional height is minimized to the degree that fourth floor hotel units would be built into the roof form. Permission to vary the L/TR zone district's height limitation is requested as part of the PUD review. The surrounding structures include, from east to west, the Little Nell, the North of Nell, and the St. Regis Hotel. All of these structures are more than 28 feet in height and combine to form a visual break between the downtown commercial area and the residential and ski areas behind. The proposed hotel would make this "visual break" continuous while providing an attractive urban form and transitioning into the residential uses to the south. The proposal includes a fourteen (14) foot tall first floor, which is consistent with the way older "Victorian" commercial spaces were designed. Staff believes this helps to maintain a high degree of architectural integrity while aiding in the creation of a strong street presence; staff feels that this portion of the proposed design should not be compromised for the sake of maintaining a height limitation. In general, staff is prepared to support a height variance at this location, but the extent of such a variance remains an outstanding issue. That is, staff is recommending that more employee housing be provided on site, which may result in the loss of some lodge rooms. ME EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues Staff is also recommending that additional parking be provided in the underground garage. Given the conceptual nature of the design and the potential for it to change based on staff, Commission, Council, and neighborhood concerns, staff advises that the Commission and then Council not take formal action on the height variance request until review of a Final PUD application. However, the Commission and Council should provide the applicant with an indication (without reliance) as to what may or may not be acceptable. In the interim and to help make an educated decision on the height issue, staff suggests that, prior to GMQS Scoring and Final PUD Review, Savanah be required to provide "story poles" at the new building corners and at roof height changes to reflect the peaks of the proposed roof. There will also be a Mountain View Plane review proceeding concurrently with the Final PUD application, provided all necessary prior approvals are obtained, including the need to obtain a multi -year tourist accommodations allotment as an -"exceptional project" through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. "Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character" is one of the scoring categories. Consistency With The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) The 1993 AACP contains no specific recommendations with respect to Lot 5 of the PUD, but does contain statements that support the proposal as well as statements that support many of the staff recommendations. The text below contains statements from the AACP in italics, followed by staff s description of how the statement relates to the Lot 5 proposal. "It is this unique balance between all sectors of the community that we are striving to retain and enhance. ... Our goal is to be a community that is environmentally responsible and economically sustainable. Tourism is the economic force of the community. Recognizing the interdependence between the local community and the tourism industry is a valuable key to understanding this community. " (Page 5, Community Vision.) Similarly, the "Intent" of the Growth Action Plan, as stated on page 16 of the AACP, is to "Encourage land' uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and the tourist base." Also, while the specific words are not included, the AACP's "Commercial/Retail Action Plan" hints at the need for managed strategic growth in the community's lodging sector. Given the changes in Aspen's lodging inventory since the beginning of the 1990s and earlier, as described above in the "Density and Lodging Growth" section of this Exhibit, staff believes the proposed hotel would help to reestablish some of the losses to the unique balance between all sectors of the community while increasing economic sustainability. One -hundred percent of the net new employees would be provided with affordable housing, and the loss of the Grand Aspen's 150 economy -moderately priced lodge units would be countered by the development of a new 150 unit "moderately priced, upscale hotel." Guests at the hotel would help support local merchants, dining establishments, the ski industry, the arts, and other important sectors of the community and local economy. Similarly, while the Growth Action Plan includes a "Policy" of not permitting "development beyond the projected peak buildout of 30, 000 persons (inclusive of permanent and visitor population)," the new 150 unit hotel would replace the 150 unit Grand Aspen Hotel, which is scheduled for demolition in October of 1999. Thus, the proposed hotel is not expected to add to the permanent and visitor population. The AACP Housing Action Plan contains statements encouraging "infill development within the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues employees ... [to] live close to where they work, and "promoting more on -site affordable housing." It is also stated in the "Growth Action Plan" that the community should "Give a higher priority to on -site housing in the commercial core, such as providing additional points, in the Growth Management scoring system." Since the Grand Aspen will be demolished before a replacement would be approved or built, the proposed hotel should be considered an infill development request. The proposal includes on -site housing for twelve (12) employees with a suggestion that all other net new employees could be housed at the Bavarian Inn redevelopment. As explained above in the "Housing" section of this Exhibit, it is staff and the Housing Board's position that the Bavarian Inn site is not available for mitigation purposes. Rather, staff is of the opinion that all of the net new employees can and should be housed on the hotel site. Given that the proposal will need up to 100 tourist accommodations allocations through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures, it would seem that complying with the staff position, and thereby providing greater consistency with the provisions of the AACP, should greatly aid Savanah in its bid for the additional allocations, especially since a multi -year allotment as an' "exceptional project" will be needed. The "Philosophy" of the Transportation Action Plan suggests that "reducing dependency on the automobile requires offering alternatives both for automobile use and storage and other means of transport." The staff recommendations provided above, in the "Traffic and Parking" section of this Exhibit, are supported by this goal of the AACP. For instance, staff has recommended that the underground garage include designated car storage spaces for the employee units to be located on site. Staff and RFTA have also recommended that Savanah provide all employees that are not housed on site with monthly bus passes. Another staff recommendation would require that the hotel have its own airport shuttle, perhaps utilizing an alternative energy source. Note that complying with these recommendations will also greatly help with meeting the minimum thresholds of the GMQS Scoring and Competition criteria. The "Philosophy" of the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan states that, "Implicit in development and growth of the other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is the continued acquisition and preservation of open space within our developed area, as well as the further development and management of parks and trails." As explained above, sufficient open space would be provided to meet the requirements of the L/TR zone district. A minimum of 18,270 square feet of area meeting the City's definition of "open space" is required for Lot 5. The proposal would provide for approximately 22,010 square feet of "open space" on Lot 5 and another 25,730 square feet of open space on Lot 6 (Silver Circle Ice Rink and park), for a combined total of 47,740 square feet of open space. Savanah's ability to utilize Lot 6 for open space purposes is specifically provided for in the February, 1993 Section M. Amendment to the PUD Agreement. The proposal provides both open space and a park, meets the minimum requirement for open space without including Lot 6, and provides 138% of the required open space when all available lands are included. With regard to trails, the "Alpine Trail" easement would be retained and improved by Savanah. Finally, the Intent of the "Design Quality and Historic Preservation" section of the AACP is "To ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features. " Also, the Philosophy of this section states that, "The importance of quality infill design within the larger historic setting is recognized as being a vital component to our economic well being. " See the "Design and Height" section of this Exhibit, above, for a complete discussion of the proposed design. Consistency with this portion -of the AACP B-13 EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues will be required in order to meet the minimum thresholds necessary to obtain the needed tourist accommodations allocations through the Growth Management scoring and competition procedures, especially since a multi -year allotment as an "exceptional project" will be needed. ME EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues Main Issues Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 3 Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and/or deserve special attention. While other issues exist, the core issues are outlined in this Exhibit and referred to elsewhere throughout the main body of the staff memorandum and its associated exhibits. The summaries contained in this Exhibit have been organized by categories of issues rather than by the review processes which deal with the issues, and are intended to provide further detail and elaboration of certain topics, as well as information related to issues not raised through review of the PUD standards. This Exhibit includes discussion of the following Lot 3 issue areas: zoning (including rezoning, code amendments, and dimensional requirements); housing; drainage and natural hazards; trails and easements; access and traffic generation; architecture and site design; and, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. As there are many recommendations provided throughout this Exhibit, all recommendations are indicated by the use of underlining, and the logic behind the particular recommendation can be found just before of after the underlined portion. Also, the beginning of sub -topic areas are indicated by the use of bold print. Zoning (including Rezoning, Code Amendments, and Dimensional Requirements) Lot 3 is zoned L/TR(PUD), Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay; R-15 (PUD)(L), Moderate -Density Residential with PUD and Lodge overlays; and, C, Conservation. Consequently, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 26.40.070 of the Municipal Code, which governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. Section 26.40.070(B)(1) requires that the dimensional requirements of each underlying zone district be compared and that the most restrictive be utilized in the development of the parcel. In addition, Section 26.40.070(A)(2) requires that the allowable density and floor area of the proposed development be based solely on the land area of the zone district in which the use is a permitted or conditional use. When a proposed development is not allowed in all of the underlying zone districts, Section 26.40.070(A) limits the location of the use to those portions of the parcel in which the proposed development is either a permitted or conditional use. As a portion of proposed Parcel 1 (the area containing the two sets of triplexes) lies within the area of Lot 3 that is presently zoned R-15(PUD)(L), and multi -family residential is not a permitted or conditional use in the R-15 zone, a rezoning is required. For this reason, Savanah proposes to rezone all R-15 portions of Lot 3 to L/TR(PUD). Even if the rezoning is approved, subdivided Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 would continue to have portions in the Conservation zone and other portions in the L/TR zone while Parcels 6 and 7 would be wholly within the Conservation zone. For purposes of the proposed Conceptual PUD application, Savanah has assumed that the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district will govern the development of Lot 3. The. minimum lot area per single-family dwelling unit is 6,000 square feet in the L/TR zone district, and ten (10) acres (435,600 square feet) in the Conservation district (the maximum lot area per single-family dwelling unit in the L/TR zone is also 6,000 square feet). Since the above -cited code section requires that the most restrictive dimensional requirements of the various applicable zone districts shall apply, the minimum lot area requirement per dwelling unit in the Conservation zone (10 acres) would arguably govern the development of single- family dwelling units on Lot 3. Since more than 75% of Lot 3 is and would continue to be (after approval of the requested rezoning) zoned Conservation and Lot 3 contains less than ten acres, this provision would limit the total development of Lot 3 to one (1) single-family residence. This limitation would effectively preclude the applicant from achieving both the C-1 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues proposed development mix and the forty-seven dwelling units previously agreed to in the Amended PUD Agreement, and upheld by the voters. Thus, a code amendment is proposed by Savanah as a means of addressing this issue. The proposed code amendment would provide City Council with discretion in determining which dimensional requirements shall apply when a parcel is encumbered by multiple zone districts, and the application of the most restrictive requirements would be unreasonable given the circumstances, or would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. To provide some measure of control, the applicant proposes to make this flexibility available to Council only if the project in question is being processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In summary, Savanah believes the portion of Lot 3 that is presently zoned R-15 would have to be rezoned to L/TR(PUD) in order to accommodate the proposed development. That is,. the proposed density exceeds that allowed in the existing underlying zone district. Thus, if approval of the proposed Conceptual PUD for Lot 3 is granted, it should only be done conditioned upon the outcome of the ensuing rezoning hearings. To clarify, should the rezoning request be denied, the applicant would have to come back through the Conceptual PUD process with a proposal that meets the requirements of the existing zone districts. Rezoning and Code Amendment. Staff believes the only reason Savanah needs to request a code amendment is the fact that the parameters of the rezoning request are not adequate. That is, Savanah is requesting to rezone all portions of Lot 3 currently zoned R-15(PUD)(L) to L/TR(PUD). The rezoning of the R- 15(PUD) lands to L/TR(PUD) is probably appropriate, but would still leave portions of subdivided Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 in the Conservation zone with other portions of these parcels in the L/TR(PUD) zone (i.e., remaining as parcels with more than one underlying zone district). Also, Parcels 6 and 7 would remain wholly within the Conservation zone. Thus, even if the proposed rezoning is approved, the proposed development plan still would not comply with the provisions of the Land Use Code unless the requested code amendment is approved and Council subsequently allows for the use of the L/TR dimensional requirements based on a finding that application of the most restrictive requirements (those of the Conservation zone) would be unreasonable given the circumstances, would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. This would leave the Lot 3 proposal riddled with contingencies. Instead, staff is of the opinion that all portions of Lot 3 for which development is proposed should be rezoned to L/TR(PUD), thereby eliminating the applicability of Section 26.40.070 of the Municipal Code, which governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. This would require that some of the lands currently zoned Conservation, along with all the lands currently zoned R-15(PUD)(L), be rezoned to L/TR(PUD). Given staffs position with regard to the application of dimensional requirements, as explained below and in the City Zoning Officer's referral comments, it would be advisable to place all development lands within the same zoning and thereby eliminate both the applicability of Section 26.40.070 and the need for the proposed code amendments. Furthermore, the staff recommended rezoning would effectively eliminate two sets of contingencies: first, review of the proposed code amendment, and second, the need for Council to allow use of the L/TR dimensional requirements based on a finding that application of the most restrictive requirements (those of the Conservation zone) would be unreasonable given the circumstances, would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. Note that if Conceptual PUD approval is granted, the rezoning request would be reviewed concurrently with the Final PUD application. In summary, staff recommends that the parameters of the rezoning request be changed and the C-2 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues code amendment request be withdrawn since, if the staff recommended rezoning is pursued and approved, the code amendment becomes unnecessary. Dimensional Requirements. A site specific building envelope has been proposed for each of the development parcels on Lot 3. These envelopes would provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate future architectural refinement. The proposed building envelopes for Parcels 2-8 meet or exceed all applicable setback requirements of the L/TR zone district, but not necessarily those of the current/existing zone districts. The proposed building envelope for Parcel 1, however, would provide a seven (7) foot front setback where a minimum of ten (10) feet is required. As no variance is requested to accommodate the Parcel 1 envelope and the plan has enough room to simply move the front setback portion of the envelope back by three feet, staff is assuming the applicant will provide a complying envelope in the Final PUD application. Otherwise, a variance will need to be requested. The lot area of all eight proposed parcels also substantially exceeds the L/TR district's minimum lot size requirement. All structures proposed on Lot 3 would comply with the L/TR zone district's maximum height limitation. It should be pointed out that, in planning for compliance with the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district, the applicant is relying heavily on approval of their rezoning request. The L/TR zone district's list of permitted uses includes "detached residential or duplex dwellings, only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less." While this sets a de facto maximum lot area of 6,000 square feet for single-family residential uses (including duplexes), it is not a dimensional requirement, but a use. Parcels 2-8 would include detached residential or duplex dwellings and be greater than 6,000 square feet. As this would entail a variance from the list of permitted uses, and not from a dimensional requirement, this requirement cannot be varied through the PUD process. Rather, a code amendment would be required to eliminate the "only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less" language. Savanah is basing their calculation of allowable floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 that would be zoned L/TR at a 1:1 (floor area : lot area) ratio to arrive at an allowable aggregate external floor area of 97,630 square feet. This figure does not assume any floor area credit for the 106,150 square foot portion of the lot zoned C, Conservation (there is no floor area limitation in the Conservation zone district). Further, approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area would remain on Lot 5 under the current proposal, and said floor area could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the PUD regulations. If included, this would provide for 105,850 square feet of allowable floor area, exclusive of the unlimited floor area potential of the lands zoned Conservation (see pages 73- 74 of application packet, Attachment 1). Staff takes a different approach to the calculation of allowable floor areas for the proposed subdivision parcels of Lot 3. Staff believes the allowable floor areas discussed in the PUD Agreement contemplate a potential maximum that could be attained, provided the proposed subdivision lots could be successfully sized and configured (and no lot area reductions were required) so that all of the floor area could be constructed while meeting all other applicable and unvaried dimensional requirements. As explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (see Exhibit F), staff feels it would be more appropriate to base its calculations of not only permitted floor area but also allowed density and required open space on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Consequently, further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. ft EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues Based on individual lot sizes of the subdivided parcels, as opposed to the total size of Lot 3, the proposed floor areas for the duplex and single family dwellings are well in excess of the permitted floor areas for parcels of equal size in the L/TR zone district, and would likely be even further in excess once slope reductions are accounted for. For example, the proposed floor area for Parcel 4 is 6,200 square feet on a 13,290 square foot lot. However, the allowed floor area for a single family residence on that size lot in the L/TR zone district would be 3,917 square feet, less any applicable slope reductions (Parcel 4 would contain slopes in excess of 20 and 30 percent). Similarly, the L/TR zone district requires that at least 25% of each building site remain as "open space" meeting the City's definition. The proposal contemplates a 25% open space requirement for Lot 3 rather than for each subdivided parcel. Thus, further information will be required from the applicant before staff can accurately assess each of the proposed subdivision parcels' compliance with the dimensional requirements, especially those associated with floor area, density, and open space. The required open space can be varied through the YUll process, and given the size and configuration of the proposed open space parcels, staff -would likely support such a request if found to be necessary. Housing For a summary of Savanah's position and proposal with regard to Housing mitigation requirements for Lot 3, please refer to pages 81 through 86 of the written application booklet (Attachment One). The Housing Office and Board's recommendation with regard to housing mitigation for Lot 3 is summarized on the first two pages of the June 4, 1999 memo included with Exhibit G, attached hereto. To summarize, although Savanah's position has held that no further mitigation is required for the PUD's residential reconstruction credits, they have nonetheless proposed to mitigate the Lot 3 development in a manner that complies with the City's current regulatory requirements with respect to the demolition and reconstruction of existing single-family, duplex, and multi- family residential units. Thus, four (4) deed restricted duplex units have been proposed to mitigate the prior demolition of various multi -family dwelling units located throughout the PUD, and six (6) accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are proposed to mitigate the seven reconstruction credits that would be utilized to develop the five detached single-family residences and one duplex proposed on Lot 3. The proposed housing replacement units would, in total, consist of 13 bedrooms and approximately 6,200 square feet in four (4) duplex units. The four units would be divided as follows: three 3-bedroom units and one 4-bedroom unit, where one 3-bedroom unit would be deed restricted to Category 2, the other two 3-bedroom units would be deed restricted to Category 3, and the 4-bedroom unit would be deed restricted to Category 4. As proposed, all four units would be sold pursuant to applicable APCHA Guidelines in effect at the time of Final PUD approval. The six (6) ADUs would be deed restricted pursuant to applicable regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance for their associated free market residence. The Housing Office and Housing Board discussed the proposal on May 5, 1999, and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Floor plans of the deed restricted units shall be reviewed and approved by Housing Office Staff. 2. The units shall be deed restricted prior to building permit approval with the deed restriction provided by the Housing Office. C-4 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues 3. All deed restricted units shall be sold by the Housing Office under the general lottery system. 4. All accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted according to the Land Use Code in effect at the time of building permit approval. 5. Site visits by the Housing Office staff shall be done on all deed restricted units prior to approval of Certificate of Occupancy. Drainage and Natural Hazards Drainage. New thirty-six (36) inch storm sewers have been installed in Mill Street between Cooper Avenue and Durant Avenue; in Durant Avenues between Mill and Galena Streets; and, in Galena Street between Durant Avenue and the southern boundary of Lot 5. The Galena Street storm sewer has also been extended approximately one hundred and fifty (150) feet to the south to tie-in the storm sewers which had been installed by the City in connection with the implementation of the Galena Street Improvement District. Additional storm sewers and detention structures have subsequently been installed in Dean Street, Monarch Street and Durant Avenue to accommodate storm water flows attributable to the Ritz-Carlton/St. Regis Hotel. Additional improvements will likely be required in connection with Savanah's development of Lots 3 and 5 should such developments be approved. In 1989, Savanah contributed $250,000 to the City toward the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive drainage plan for Aspen Mountain. This contribution was required pursuant to Section H.10. of the Amended PUD Agreement (Book 574, Pages 835-837), and relieved the applicant of Roberts' prior commitment to provide on -site detention facilities on Lot 3 of the PUD. That is, the contribution was provided in lieu of providing storm water detention facilities on Lot 3. This contribution, which until recently had been held in escrow by the City, is presently being used to prepare the "Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Plan." While this new plan has yet to be completed, a substantial amount of work has been performed to date (see the Exhibit F "Report on Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development (PUD Lot #3, known as `Top of Mill')"). Drainage and natural hazard concerns are not specifically identified in the criteria for Planned Unit Development review, but are more closely related to Subdivision review. Nevertheless, drainage and natural hazard concerns remain important issues for the review of the Lot 3 proposal. With regard to the PUD criteria, drainage and natural hazards are related to potential affects on the future development of the surrounding area. Please refer to the Exhibit F for a detailed review of drainage concerns as related to the proposed development. As mentioned above and in Exhibit F, the Engineering Department is currently preparing its final phase of the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (AMDBMP) and mitigating criteria that will assist in identifying potential hazards resulting from the Aspen Mountain basin runoff and its impact on downstream developments situated within the naturally developed flow patterns. The Engineering report contained in Exhibit F explains that buildings, walls, and solid structures above ground would perform as blockage in the drainage flow ways and would result in flood rise and alteration of flow patterns that could impact adjacent and especially downstream properties and developments. One of the goals of the AMDBMP is to develop a set of reasonable mitigation criteria that can acceptably minimize and mitigate the potential hazards resulting from development of any parcel of land within the drainage basin, EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues considering typical development practices and surface runoff (whether from snow melt, rainfall, or a combination of rain on snow for a given return frequency). The final phase of the AMDBMP report and drainage criteria is scheduled for completion in the fall, which should substantially precede submission and review of a Final PUD/Subdivision application for Lot 3. Promoting environmentally sustainable developments in Aspen must be given a high priority. In the opinion of the City Engineering Department, developments at the bottom of a slope that meets a relatively flatter plain are generally subject to potential hazards. Such hazards become more serious when evidence of property damage in the surrounding areas have been observed. Examples of these types of observations include the mudslide at the Aspen Music School and localized landslide/caving events on the slope directly southwest of the proposed development site and west of Aspen Street. The Engineering Department believes that developments with moderate densities can be implemented with adequate mitigation for the above -mentioned potential hazards. In previous submittals and public hearings for the development of Lot 3, the Planning and Zoning Commission set certain conditions that would protect the proposed development as well as adjacent and downstream properties, including the City's infrastructure, from flood and debris flow damages. After completion of the AMDBMP, a new set of mitigation criteria will be recommended as conditions of Final PUD and Subdivision approval, but staff of the Community Development and Engineering Departments feel that, in the interim (until the final phase of the AMDBMP is completed and until Final PUD/Subdivision review) and for purposes of Conceptual PUD review, the following previously used conditions would provide the necessary protection to adeauately address drainage related concerns: 1. Proposed building mass and related impermeable surface layout will closely conform with the final outcome of the AMDBMP design and construction criteria. It shall be the developer's or its successor's responsibility to fully comply with the drainage criteria and perform within the parameters set forth in the report. 2. Savanah Limited Partnership's (owner/developer) representative agreed to provide necessary drainage easements and shall continue to provide these easements for safe conveyance of surface runoff and debris through the site. 3. The developer's representative will make necessary adjustments to building footprints to ensure that the requirements of the AMDBMP and the above mentioned conditions are met. 4. The City will use the funds put in escrow to study and develop a master plan with design and construction criteria and utilize the balance of these fiends to implement an interim drainage mitigation project to control runoff only to the extent the remaining escrow funds will support. Also, the Engineering memo provided in Exhibit F suggests the following additional conditions of Conceptual PUD approval: • The site layout must be such that it will in no way pose a significant blockage in the natural stream bed or drainage path; and, • The development must comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The existing site must be carefully studied and evaluated to ensure a proper design and correct selection of BMP(s). C-6 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues Grading & Site Disturbance. The applicant states that the areas proposed for development are essentially flat and can accommodate the proposed site plan. No development is proposed on the steeply sloping hillside which occupies the southwestern portion of the parcel. The proposed developments' grading plan, to accommodate building foundations and the proposed access road, would be designed to minimize, to the extent practical, any adverse impact on existing mature vegetation and original landforms. While grading would certainly be required to remove portions of the prior fill material, the resulting grades would more closely approximate the parcel's original topography. Grading would be reviewed iri detail in connection with the 8040 Greenline Review that would proceed concurrently with a Final PUD application, should all prerequisite approvals be obtained. Geologic and Geotechnical Studies. The PUD Agreement (Book 574, Page 794) states that "Lot 3 ... requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration." It can be argued that this language is in effect, is binding on the applicant, and determines that the Top of Mill parcel can receive no further preliminary development consideration until such geologic studies have been completed. To date, further geologic studies and evaluations have not been done. Instead two firms, as discussed below, have been hired by Savanah to review the numerous reports that have been prepared since 1983, but these firms have not completed "further geologic study and evaluation." The Land Use Code, at Section 26.84.070, provides that development of the property is limited by the conditions of the PUD Agreement. Following is a summary of the key points from the Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Review for the Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Redevelopment Project, prepared by Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (January 12, 1996): • Soil and foundation conditions have not been specifically studied at the Grand Aspen site. • Fills on the Top of Mill site are not suitable for foundation support and should be removed. • The structures of Lot 3 may be founded on spread footings designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 2,500 psf (pounds per square foot). • Grading plans for Lot 3 should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. • Mine dump materials which may contain lead may be present on the Lot 3 site. [reclamation should be completed before development commences, if needed] • It is recommended that additional soil and foundation studies be done at the Top of Mill to evaluate site -specific subsurface and foundation conditions at the proposed building sites. A soil and foundation study should also be made at the Grand Aspen site. • There may be a mining tunnel at a bearing of about S22°E, and its portal may be located near the eastern side of the proposed building site on Parcel #3 of Lot 3; the possibility of this tunnel portal should be further evaluated. If a tunnel portal is present, then mitigation of potential subsidence hazards may be needed. • It is recommended that debris flow hazard mitigation be evaluated in conjunction with development of the storm water management plan. • The previous hazard studies and Colorado Geological Survey reviews concluded that the potential flash flood and debris flow hazard at the Top of Mill and elsewhere on the Pioneer Gulch fan, including the existing development in the city, was severe enough to warrant hazard mitigation. • Both sites [Lots 3 and 5] are in potential flash flood and debris flow hazard areas. Mitigation should be considered in project planning and design for both lots. • Site -specific debris flow mitigation plans should be developed for both sites. The previous debris flow mitigation concepts and design recommendations should be reviewed and updated if necessary. 30 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues • Slope movements which increase in rate during the spring snowpack melt are known to be present on Aspen Mountain upsweep of the project area. Long-term movement monitoring at Strawpile has been done between 1987 and 1995. The Aspen Skiing Company has also done some work to improve slope stability during this period. However, most of the remedial actions recommended in 1985 for Strawpile have not been implemented. The skiing company should be approached to determine if they are willing to cooperate by making available the information they have developed over the years to the redevelopment project. • Rockfall hazards were not discussed in the previous studies. We are a aware of a potential rockfall source area in mine dump material in a road cut along the summer road upslope of the redevelopment project. Temporary concrete barriers were placed along the road last spring. It is our understanding that a rockfall barrier engineering company has been -contacted to design and construct a permanent cable fence barrier for the site which may be installed next spring when the site is accessible. • We do not anticipate major problems with on -site construction -related slope instability for the proposed construction at either Lot 3 or Lot 5, if the grading is properly designed and extensive grading is not done on the steeper slopes. Site -specific grading recommendations should be developed as part of geotechnical studies at both sites. • All occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. • The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon review of previous studies and experience in the area. These studies reviewed are now about 11 years old, address a different design concept and do not cover parts of the currently proposed redevelopment projects. Additional site specific studies should be done to address the geotechnical and geologic aspects of the two sites for the proposed site -specific building plans. Staff feels that an updated study, based on today's conditions and the current design concept, covering all parts of the current proposal, should be done to address the geotechnical and geologic aspects of the site. The May 17, 1996, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Lot 3 - Top of Mill study that was prepared for Savanah by Waste Engineering, Inc., had the following conclusion/recommended action: • We believe the methods and cleanup should be established for the Top of Mill site to criteria established at the Smuggler Mountain Superfund site adopted by the City of Aspen. On -site management of contaminated material should take precedence over possible off -site disposal. Should a balance of material exist following calculation of cut/fill quantities, off -site disposal may then be considered. Based on the various environmental analyses that have been completed to date, Savanah claims to be aware of no environmental problems which cannot be either avoided or reasonably mitigated in connection with the development of the proposed project. However, based on the applicant's submittal and the findings of the studies cited above, there is no certainty that the area can or should accommodate the proposed site plan. Specifically, the required grading and excavation has not been studied, nor have the necessary, updated geologic and geotechnical studies been completed. In summary, the applicant has adequately dealt with storm drainage concerns, but further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the current design concept must be completed before compliance with Subdivision standards can be ensured, and under the terms of the PUD Agreement, before the proposal "can receive preliminary and final development consideration." Given the "Lot 3 . . . requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration" language of the PUD agreement and the fact that it is well known and C-8 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues documented that the adjacent Fifth Avenue Condominiums have structural problems, including cracking walls, due in large part to the soils of the area, staff recommends that the City err on the conservative side by deciding not to consider the Lot 3 Conceptual PUD application until such study and evaluation has been completed by qualified experts (paid for by Savanah) and reviewed by City staff. If the City should decide to move forward with the review process, staff recommends as an alternative and as a minimum, that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council require Savanah to complete all necessary studies, as suggested by the geotechnical engineering study that was commissioned by the applicant, and include such with the Final PUD/Subdivision application. . Trails and Easements As depicted on the Seventh Amended Plat, Lot 3 is encumbered by several easements. An open space easement was dedicated on the original Roberts subdivision plat for the use and benefit of the owners of the lands within the PUD, subject to certain easement rights which were granted to the Aspen Skiing Company for. skiing purposes. Two separate trail easements are also depicted on the plat: the "Aspen Mountain Trail" easement, which traverses Lot 3 within the open space easement, was dedicated to the public for skiing and pedestrian purposes; and, the "Top of Mill Trail," which traverses Lot 3 from east to west and was dedicated to the public for pedestrian purposes only. The "Top of Mill Trail" dedication does not become effective until such time as public trail easements have been procured through adjacent lands; no such easements are presently available. Finally, a twenty-five (25) foot road easement was dedicated to the public to accommodate the extension of Summit Street. With respect to the "Top of Mill Trail," Savanah proposes to vacate the previously dedicated easement across Lot 3 "due to topographic limitations and the City's apparent decision to relocation of the proposed trail to a new alignment." Savanah bases its belief that the City apparently decided to relocate the trail on the 1993 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map and the 1990 Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan which depict the trail alignment within the Summit Street and Galena Street right-of-ways. Savanah postulates that the decision to locate the trail in these right-of- ways may have been due to the severe topographic constraints which presently exist at the terminus of the existing Top of Mill Trail easement. Regardless of location, the Top of Mill Trail easement does not become effective until such time as additional, connecting trail easements are obtained across adjacent parcels. The applicant concludes this introduction to their argument by stating on page 58 of Attachment One that, "Given the original intent of the Top of Mill trail (i.e., the creation of a pedestrian link between Shadow Mountain and Ute Avenue), the topographic limitations which exist within Lot 3, and the absence of adjacent connecting easements, the logical alignment for the proposed trail would appear to be in the vicinity of one of the existing access roads which presently traverse the lower Aspen Mountain hillside. Savanah will agree to work with the City and the Aspen Skiing Company to accomplish the proposed relocation in exchange for the proposed vacation of the existing trail easement." No trail alignments are presently proposed across Lot 3. The Parks Department's referral memorandum included with Exhibit F explains that the Parks Department has conveyed to the applicants on several occasions that vacation of the Top of Mill Trail easement is not acceptable and that there is no logical reason for the City to accept the vacation as proposed. The Parks memo goes on to explain that it is an existing platted easement and remains valid even though the trail cannot be constructed until connecting easements are acquired. The proposal for Lot 3, Parcel 1 shows a building on top of the easement (the southernmost triplex building). Throughout the years, City Council has C-9 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues directed staff to maintain existing trail easements and to ensure their viability for future development needs. If Savanah agrees to relocate and re -plat the easement, then the proposed building layout for Lot 3, Parcel 1 may be acceptable. It appears as though there may be opportunity to relocate a trail between proposed Parcels 1 and 8, then cut across Open Space Parcel A and the street to, finally, connect with and cross the construction and utility easement between proposed Parcels 2 and 3. If the trail is relocated, the applicants will be required to grade an 8-10 foot platform for the trail, and no planting of vegetation would be permitted within the easement. Additionally, a rough graded trail needs to have proper drainage and any necessary retaining structures. If the applicants do not agree to relocate the trail, then the Parks Department strongly recommends the Conceptual PUD be denied based on the fact that a proposed building is shown on top of an existing trail easement. The Parks Department would like to work with Savanah to relocate the trail, but any agreed upon alignment of a relocated trail needs to be staked and approved by the Parks Department. A relocated trail must include a legal description, be shown on the final amended plat, and be dedicated/conveyed to the City Parks Department. The Lot 3 proposal contains two open space easements. Open Space Parcel A is located at the end of Mill Street between the triplexes and the remainder of the development parcels. Open Space Parcel B is located in the southwest corner of Lot 3. While the open space easement that was dedicated on the original plat (described in the first paragraph of this section, above) for the use and benefit of the PUD's residents would be retained, its description would be revised to more accurately reflect the boundaries of Open Space Parcel B and the ski run located thereon. Likewise, the ski easement that was previously granted to the Aspen Skiing Company would be formalized as provided for in the original easement grant. On page 57 of their submittal, the applicant states that the "Aspen Mountain Trail Easement will also be retained and improved by Savanah in connection with the development of Lot 3." The applicants have committed, on page 102 of their submittal, that "easements to accommodate utility extensions will be provided in compliance with the applicable provisions of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(b) of the Regulations as may be required by the individual utility companies." All utility easements to be conveyed by Savanah would be depicted on the project's final subdivision plat. Access and Traffic Generation Access. All of the proposed dwelling units on Lot 3 would have access to a public street. Vehicular access to the two triplexes and their parking ' (Parcel 1) would be provided via a private, common driveway from Summit Street, and said driveway would be owned and maintained by their condominium association. Vehicular access to the remaining parcels on Lot 3 would be gained via a private access road which would extend from the end of Mill Street and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The new road extending from the end of S. Mill Street would be semi -circular in shape to accommodate the required grade change and to increase vehicular safety. Both proposed access roads are designed to accommodate fire protection and snow removal vehicles. It is a well known fact that the grade of South Mill Street in the subject area is fairly steep. As Mill Street acts as a sort of conveyance route for the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin and there remains a substantial amount of fill material on the Top of Mill site, gravel and drainage are often washing down the north -facing street. As a result, and as explained in C-10 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues multiple testimonies and letters from neighbors that live in the area, S. Mill Street is often very icy during the winter months and cars regularly have tremendous difficulty traveling up or down the street without sliding. During the summer of 1998, while the Ski Company used the Top of Mill as a construction staging site, silt -like debris flowed in large quantities from the site all the way down the hill across Durant Street and into the pedestrian mall. Once dried, the silt -like material results in dust in the air and pm 10 generation. Although the proposed development would remove the fill material from the Top of Mill, the drainage flows would continue to run down the north -facing slope and the winter icing conditions would not be alleviated. Additionally, the construction phase of the project would require significant measures to eliminate or at least minimize the impacts on the neighborhood. Staff can find no plans, either for the construction phase or after, in the submitted application materials that would address any or all of the problems related to the grade of South Mill Street. Staff recommends that Savanah be required to provide such plans as described in the previous sentence with their Final PUD application. Potential plans/solutions might include, but are in no way limited to rebuilding South Mill Street from the bottom of the slope upward to smooth the grade and/or providing geothermal (energy efficient) heating/melting for the street. Geothermal street heating would also greatly aid in the reduction of pm 10 generation from the area. In terms of pedestrian access, it appears as though there are sidewalks proposed only along the west side of Mill Street, in front of the triplexes on Parcel 1, with no sidewalks up to or around the proposed cul-de-sac. Trails and sidewalks provide enhanced pedestrian facilities that foster and are conducive to walking. Enhanced pedestrian facilities and decreased dependency upon the automobile are both important goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, as discussed below. The proposed sidewalks appear to be of the attached variety, immediately adjacent to the curb. As mentioned above, Mill Street is exceptionally steep and fairly narrow, making it essential that pedestrians have a safe place to walk. Thus, a separated/detached sidewalk should be constructed on both sides of Mill Street, if feasible, and extend around the cul-de-sac area on the side of the street with the houses. Provision of such sidewalks should be required as part of the proposed development; however, Savanah cannot be held responsible for providing sidewalks along those portions of the Mill Street right-of-way that their property does not abut (i.e., the west side). Along with the detached walks. annronriately spaced street trees should be planted between the sidewalk and curb. Traffic Generation. The Savanah-commissioned TDA, Inc., Transportation Report assumed no net gain in trip generation from the existing Grand Aspen Hotel to the proposed hotel. For instance, page 25 of the report shows a summer p.m. peak hour trip generation rate of 21 trips in and 27 trips out per hour for the existing hotel and the exact same projections for the replacement hotel. For further discussion of this issue, refer to the "Traffic" section of Exhibit 13, but with regard to the TDA study's analysis of Lot 3, it was concluded that the total development would generate twelve (12) new trips in and six (6) new trips out during the summer, p.m. peak hour, for a total net increase of 18 trips during the summer, p.m. peak hour. The same conclusions were reached for the winter p.m. peak hour, and all analyses were based on an assumed 90% occupancy rate. The Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit F) has determined that the proposed development on Lots 3 and 5 (combined) will generate 743 trips per day, but the Environmental Health Department has not netted out any existing/background trips or credits for demolished structures, nor applied any potentially applicable reductions. Even though there has been no netting out of existing trips or credits and City standards allow for trip reductions applicable to Lots 3 and 5 for being conveniently located to the Rubey Park transit C-11 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues stop, the commercial shopping core, and the Aspen Mountain ski lift, there is still a large discrepancy between the findings of the Savanah-commissioned Transportation Report and the preliminary expectations and data of the City's Engineering and Environmental Health Departments. In their referral memo (see Exhibit F), the Engineering Department comments that, for final submission, a revised traffic study needs to be provided and it needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards; this memo also states that the report, "as is," predicts a net increase of only 18 trips for Lots 3 and 5 combined, which seems to be underestimated. The Community Development Department agrees that a projected net increase of just 18 trips per a.m. and p.m. peak hour for Lots 3 and 5 combined seems exceedingly low. Architecture and Site Design Architecture. As presently envisioned, Savanah proposes to construct and sell the residential units proposed on Lot 3. Conceptual floor plans and elevations for the townhouse units proposed on Parcel 1 and the duplex units proposed on Parcels 2 and 3 are provided with the application (see Attachments One and Two). Conceptual floor plans and elevations have also been provided for one of the single-family residences that would be developed on Parcels 4 through 8. The purpose of the submitted architectural drawings is to illustrate the basic design concepts which Savanah proposes to utilize in the development of Lot 3. More detailed architectural drawings would be provided in connection with the Final PUD application. The intent of the architectural treatment of the proposed triplexes on Lot 3 is to provide a transition to the proposed single-family homes to the south by making the triplexes appear less. urban in character than the hotel proposed for Lot 5. That is, the proposed design of the triplex units reflects their location between the existing high -density multi -family structures to the north and west and the low -density single-family and duplex units which are proposed for the upper portion of Lot 3. The proposed triplexes would have articulated, barn -like roofs with facades that step up the slope of the site in an effort to help create the appearance of smaller scale massing in a multi -family building configuration. These articulated roof forms would be different from those of the surrounding structures, but considering the fact that the surrounding structures utilize a variety of architectural styles, the proposed townhouse styles would fit within the varied yet basic, eclectic character of the neighborhood. The proposed architecture of the duplex units on Parcels 2 and 3 is intended to maintain a single-family scale by breaking the forms into smaller masses, or "modules." Parcel 2 would contain the deed restricted units (two duplexes), and their architecture would not be a "downgrade" from that of the free market units. In fact, the proposed architecture for Parcel 2 would employ what might be best described as the "Colorado mountain vernacular," and would be highly compatible with the architecture approved for the yet to be constructed Tippler Townhomes. Parcel 3 would contain the free market duplex, and it would have steeply pitched roofs that are fairly simple in shape, but in the opinion of staff, the roofs will dominate the overall form. While the Parcel 3 duplex structure would be broken up into two smaller modules in an attempt to avoid the appearance of being one large residential mass, staff feels the proposed roof forms would detract from or completely thwart this attempt. The use of multiple exterior materials is proposed on all three duplexes (Parcels 2 and 3) to aid in breaking down the scale and mass of the structures. The applicant is attempting to use siting techniques and topography to generate sensitive architectural treatments for the single-family residences proposed on Parcels 4 through 8. For instance, they have attempted to locate the structures snugly into the hillside at the upper C-12 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues end of the lot to allow the grade of the foreground and proposed landscaping to obscure and screen the residences from town. Furthermore, the single family residences would utilize design techniques to fragment the primary masses, or break them up into "modules" by connecting them with low linkages intended to result in a site and buildings with a more visually open feeling. The proposal attempts to further minimize the scale and mass of these residences through the employment of multiple exterior materials and the inclusion of a lower level that would appear as a landscape wall or foundation base. The overall intention of the design considerations is to produce a resulting architecture, in combination with landscaping, that would minimize visual impacts on the surrounding area. No height variances are requested in connection with the Lot 3 proposal. The structures will be subject to the provisions of the Residential Design Standards. When more detailed architectural renderings are submitted in conjunction with the Final PUD application, staff will conduct the Residential Design Standards review under the provisions applicable at that time. In general terms, the proposed architecture seems acceptable for Conceptual PUD review purposes, but staff would suggest a different roof form for the Parcel 3 duplex. Site Design. The applicant has attempted to cluster the proposed development in an effort to preserve site features and to reduce its impact on neighboring properties. The resulting site plan preserves a significant amount of open space. Once the fill material on Lot 3 is removed, the areas proposed for development would be essentially flat and able to accommodate the proposed site plan. No development is proposed on the steeply sloping hillside which occupies the southwest portion of the parcel. Staff feels that the proposed site plan does not represent an appropriate layout or development pattern for the base of Aspen Mountain. The plan proposes a cul-de-sac design typical of modern suburban developments, but contrary to typical mountain community design, in general, and to traditional Aspen development patterns, specifically. While it is true that cul-de-sacs can be found in Aspen, staff believes it would be particularly inappropriate at the given location, being close to the downtown and the base area of Aspen Mountain. Fire and emergency access can be provided and maybe even improved with alternative, more appropriate design solutions. For instance, while drainage, grading and other functionality concerns would have to be studied, staff can envision a plan concept where the driveway behind the Parcel 1 townhomes could extend to follow the perimeter of the development parcels (but fully to the east of Open Space Parcel "B") around to where it could loop back into the private road connecting with the top of South Mill Street. Such a design could, theoretically, provide a flow -break and conveyance path for drainage from Aspen Mountain while protecting the homes from property damage. To accommodate the climbing grade from the top of South Mill Street to the home sites, the access road could curve up to its connection with the suggested "alley" behind the homes. This type of design would also provide the ability to locate garages to the rear of structures, thereby improving the streetscape for pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists alike. Such a design would certainly be more in keeping with Aspen's traditional layout and development patterns. Even if not using the suggested concept, staff recommends that, prior to Final PUD review, the applicant be required to provide at least two site plan alternatives that would eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac layout. While the alternatives should be more consistent with mountain community design and that traditionally associated with the area at the base of Aspen Mountain, it is also essential that the alternatives take into account soil conditions, geotechnical findings, drainage patterns and mitigation needs, fire and emergency access, and C-13 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues of course, neighborhood impacts. To the degree that the shape and layout of the proposed subdivision lots must change, the construction and permanent impacts on residents of the Fifth Avenue Condominiums must be considered (i.e., the greatest setback from these structures that can be reasonably accommodated). Also, given staff s position with regard to the application of dimensional requirements (as explained above), the applicant is advised to configure and dimension the proposed lots such that compliance with all requirements (including FAR) can be achieved. Consistency With The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) [On September 3, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the proposed Conceptual PUD for Lot 3 (Top of Mill), largely based on a finding of inconsistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Note that the 1996 plan was different than that currently proposed: it did not contain the four "for sale" Category units, but instead contained free market duplexes in their place, and the new plan proposes the development of six accessory dwelling units where none were proposed previously.] The 1993 AACP contains no specific recommendations with respect to Lot 3 of the PUD, but does contain statements that support the proposal as well as statements that support many of the staff recommendations. The text below contains statements from the AACP in italics, followed by staff s description of how the statement relates to the Lot 3 proposal. The stated vision which underlies the AACP is "to revitalize the permanent population, to bring back local serving businesses into the Aspen Area and to revive the vitality that previously characterized Aspen." The AACP Housing Action Plan also contains statements encouraging "infill development within the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more employees ... [to] live close to where they work, " and ` promoting more on -site affordable housing." Given the location of the proposed development and its inherent ability/opportunity to 'significantly advance this vision, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan is a review standard of paramount importance. The current Lot 3 proposal would provide thirteen (13) free market units, four (4) deed restricted single-family homes, and up to six deed restricted accessory dwelling units, for a total of ten (10) deed restricted units. As mentioned above, in the "Housing" section of this exhibit, the Housing Office and Board have found the proposal to meet with their standards, which provides a strong indication of consistency with the "Housing" element of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The "Growth Action Plan" states that its intention is to "encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and tourist base." The free market homes could serve wealthier individuals/families that would live in, relocate to, or retire to Aspen on a year-round basis. If not all, some of the free market units would certainly be used as second homes, occupied on a somewhat sporadic basis, but these same units would have accessory dwelling units that could be occupied by residents on a year-round basis. Many second homes are occasionally rented out to visiting tourists. Thus, the second homes with accessory dwelling units would serve both the local community and the tourist base. Also, with regard to the goal of managing the rate of and overall numbers associated with growth, the development allotments proposed for utilization on Lot 3 come from reconstruction credits obtained by demolition of previously existing units; therefore, at least in theory, the proposed development represents change, but not growth. The "Philosophy" of the Transportation Action Plan suggests that "reducing dependency on the automobile requires offering alternatives both for automobile use and storage and other means of transport." The staff recommendations provided above, in the "Access and Traffic Generation" and "Trails and Easements" sections of this Exhibit, are supported by this C-14 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues section of the AACP. Sufficient parking is proposed. Trail easements and connections would have to be maintained and enhanced, and detached sidewalks would have to be provided. Trails and sidewalks provide enhanced pedestrian facilities that foster and are conducive to walking. Enhanced pedestrian facilities and decreased dependency upon the automobile are both important goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Also, by virtue of the site's proximity to the downtown shopping and dining, the gondola plaza, and the Rubey Park Transit Center, reducing dependency on the automobile is inherently facilitated. The "Philosophy" of the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan states that, "Implicit in development and growth of the other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is the continued acquisition and preservation of open space within our developed area, as well as the further development and management of parks and trails." As explained above, two significant open space parcels would be retained and the Parks Department will insist upon the preservation and improvement of trail easements and connections. The "Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan" also states that its intention is to encourage "the exploration of `combination' projects which integrate the development of affordable housing and maintenance of open space." The proposal would achieve an integration of affordable housing and maintenance of open space. The Intent of the "Design Quality and Historic Preservation" section of the AACP is "To ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features. " Also, the Philosophy of this section states that, The importance of quality infill design within the larger historic setting is recognized as being a vital component to our economic well being. " Staff is of the opinion that the proposed cul-de-sac layout runs counter to these goals. See the "Architecture and Site Design" section of this Exhibit, above, for a complete discussion of the proposed design. Consistency with this portion of the AACP will be required prior to and in connection with Final PUD review. Finally, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 98-11 adopted the "Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan" as an update to the Housing Element of the 1993 AACP. The Citizen Housing Plan set policies with regard to the locational philosophies and criteria for affordable housing developments by way of establishing priorities. Since the proposed development is within the Metro Area; is in close proximity to multiple mass transit options; is self-contained and surrounded by existing development; can be served by existing and available utilities and public services; would fit within the existing community fabric and character; does not propose under utilization of the site; and is consistent with the housing needs identified in the APCHA Guidelines, staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the Housing Element of the AACP and the priorities of the Citizen Housing Plan. C-15 EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review Staff Review of Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD Application for Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) The applicant is requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval pursuant to the regulations of Section 26.84.030(B) of the Land Use Code, with a variance from the maximum height limitation of the underlying L/TR zone district. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staff s evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. la. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: Please refer to pages B-11 through B-12 of Exhibit B. Staff finds that, with the recommended conditions, the proposal is consistent enough with the AACP to support Conceptual PUD approval. Prior to Final PUD review, the applicant will have to proceed through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures and consistency with the AACP will be required to receive the needed development allotments. 1 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Neighboring development includes the St. Regis and Little Nell hotels, the Mountain Chalet, numerous multi -family condominium structures, various duplexes, and a few scattered single-family residences. More specifically, the site is bound to the north by the Silver Circle Ice Rink and park, then the Rubey Park Transit Center; to the south by multi -family residential/condominium structures (Alpenblick and Fasching Haus); to the west by the St. Regis and Mountain Chalet hotels; and, to the east by the Galena Place townhomes, the Tipple Lodge, the Tipple Inn, the Tippler (approved for redevelopment as an 8-unit free market and affordable townhome structure), and the.North of Nell building. Also, the Aspen Mountain gondola plaza and ski area is just one block away. The proposed 150 unit hotel would replace the 150 unit Grand Aspen Hotel slated for demolition in October of 1999. Lot 5 is located within the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district, and the adopted "Purpose" of the L/TR zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist -oriented detached, duplex and multi family residential dwellings." The proposed development of a 150 unit hotel is consistent not only with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area but also with the purpose of the zone district in which it is located as well as with the structure/use it would replace. 1 c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The surrounding area is more or less fully developed; thus, the proposed development should have little if any effect on the development potential of surrounding properties. In fact, it is expected that the proposed redevelopment would have positive EXEIIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review effects on the potential for future redevelopment of the surrounding area since utility upgrades completed by the applicant would serve to aid in and better facilitate redevelopment in/of the surrounding neighborhood. Id Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: The eight proposed employee units would be exempt from GMQS. As mentioned earlier, the proposal entails the development of 15-0 hotel units. Under the terms of the existing PUD Agreement, Savanah has credits for the development of 50 lodging units. Therefore, Savanah will need to apply for and earn 100 additional tourist accommodation allocations through the 1999-2000 GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. The GMQS provides for two types of allotment "buckets:" the first is the number of allotments available in a given GMQS year, and the second is the total number of allotments available for full buildout by 2015. Lodge unit allotments have a total cap set at 253 units at full buildout (2015). Eleven (11) of these were used as part of the Hines Aspen Highlands development, leaving 242 remaining. There are currently 44 available lodge unit allotments (unused from past years), and another 11 allotments will be added to the bucket for the 1999 to 2000 competition, for a total of 55 available tourist accommodation allotments in the coming GMQS year. If this one-year allotment of 55 units is granted, Savanah will have 105 tourist accommodation allotments (50 + 55) and need another 45 from future year allocations. Future year allocations are removed from the 2015 total buildout "bucket" described above. The Land Use Code has a provision for Multi -Year Allotments for "Exceptional Projects," and provides "community planning criteria" to determine whether or not a proposal is "exceptional." Savanah's proposal will need to satisfy these criteria in order to qualify for the needed multi -year allocation. Also, should the allocations be granted, the proposal would still have to obtain all necessary and outstanding land use approvals before the PUD Agreement could be amended. All said, any and all Conceptual PUD approvals granted would need to be fully contingent upon Savanah's obtaining all necessary GMQS Allotments. 2. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Density and Lodging Growth" section of Exhibit B for a complete discussion of density -related issues. As explained in the referenced section, there is no minimum lot area requirement for the development of hotel units in the L/TR zone district; therefore, the number of units that may be accommodated on a specific site is a function of the amount of available floor area and the proposed unit sizes. Pursuant to Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement, the maximum allowable floor area on Lot 5 was reduced to one -hundred fifteen thousand (115,000) square feet, with the aggregate floor area. of Lots 1 and 5 limited to three -hundred five thousand (305,000) square feet. As per the provisions of the PUD Agreement, this figure (115,000) was arrived at by MIN EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review including Lot 6 (the Silver Circle Ice Rink) in the calculation of allowable floor area for Lot 5, the purpose of which was to compensate Savanah for the development of the public ice rink and park on Lot 6 of the PUD. The Regulations preclude the inclusion of vacated rights -of -way in the calculation of allowable density or floor area, so the Dean Street right- of-way does not increase the allowable density or floor area. There are no applicable reductions associated with slopes. The proposal calls for the development of approximately 106,780 square feet of external FAR floor area, which is 8,220 square feet less than that allowed. The L/TR zone district also requires compliance with an internal FAR requirement stating that the maximum lodge rental space is capped at 0.5:1, but may be increased to 0.75:1 provided one-third of the additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The minimum internal FAR for non -unit space is limited to 0.25:1. As summarized in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (Exhibit F), the minimum non -unit space to be provided is 28,750 square feet. The proposed non -unit space of 35,840 square feet exceeds this minimum and, therefore, complies with the requirement. As also explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (Exhibit F), the 0.5:1 maximum internal rental space limitation results in 57,500 square feet of allowable rental space (based on a permitted floor area of 115,000 square feet), which can be increased to 0.75:1 (86,250 square feet) provided that one-third of the additional floor area is restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The proposal indicates that 65,940 square feet of rental space would be developed, requiring that 2,813 square feet be restricted to affordable housing ([65,940 — 57,500] _ 3). With approximately 5,000 square feet of affordable housing proposed, the hotel meets the requirements for the increased internal FAR as it pertains to rental space. 3. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: "Lodge units," "Hotel," "Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines," and "Accessory uses" are all listed as a permitted uses in the L/TR zone district. 4. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district; provided, that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); c. Minimum front yard; d. Minimum rear yard; e. Minimum side yard; f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash area access; i. Internal floor area ratio; and, j. Minimum percent open space. D-3 EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review RESPONSE: As explained in the "Design and Height" section of Exhibit B, the proposal complies with all applicable dimensional requirements except maximum height (please refer to said exhibit for a complete discussion). The discussion regarding the height variance request concludes as follows: In general, staff is prepared to support a height variance at this location, but the extent of such a variance remains an outstanding issue. That is, staff is recommending that more employee housing be provided on site, which may result in the loss of some lodge rooms. Staff is also recommending that additional parking be provided in the underground garage. Given the conceptual nature of the design and the potential for it to change based on staff, Commission, Council, and neighborhood concerns, staff advises that the Commission and then Council not take formal action on the height variance request until review of a Final PUD application. However, the Commission and Council should provide the applicant with an indication (without reliance) as to what may or may not be acceptable. There will also be a Mountain View Plane review (can be varied as part of this PUD criterion) proceeding concurrently with the Final PUD application, provided all necessary prior approvals are obtained, including the need to obtain a multi -year tourist accommodations allotment as an "exceptional project" through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. "Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character" is one of the scoring categories. 5. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on ... [six enumerated] considerations. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Traffic and Parking" section of Exhibit B fora complete discussion of parking -related issues. A total of 106 off-street parking spaces are proposed. In general, staff is recommending that the proposed 106 spaces should be augmented with the addition of 8 spaces dedicated- to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Commission and Council) of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. It might also be worthwhile to consider providing some parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on a semi -regular basis. 6. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. RESPONSE: Sufficient open space would be provided to meet the 25% requirement of the L/TR zone district. A minimum of 18,270 square feet of area (25%) meeting the City's definition of "open space" is required for Lot 5. The proposal would provide for approximately 22,010 square feet of "open space" on Lot 5 and another 25,730 square feet of open space on Lot 6 (Silver Circle Ice Rink and park), for a combined total of 47,740 square feet of open space. Savanah's ability to utilize Lot 6 for open space purposes is specifically provided for in the February, 1993 Section M. Amendment to the PUD Agreement. The proposal provides both open space and a park, meets the minimum requirement for open D-4 EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review space without including Lot 6, and provides 138% of the required open space when all available lands are included. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: A conceptual landscape plan has been prepared as part of the application, and a detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. Also, please refer to the Parks Department's memorandum included with Exhibit F. Staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stied in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well as conceptual architectural elevations. A full discussion of the proposed architecture can be found 'in the "Design and Height" section of Exhibit B. More detailed architectural plans and further review under this criterion will be required for the Final PUD application. Also, "Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character" is one of the scoring categories the proposal will have to satisfy to obtain the necessary GMQS allotments. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed to meet this criterion and to submit additional lighting details with the Final PUD application. If the application is approved, staff would suggest the following condition(s) of approval: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will the swimming pool area be lighted beyond the minimum required for safety reasons." 10. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review RESPONSE: While clustering of a single hotel structure is not feasible, the building has been sited to provide significant open areas adjacent to Dean, Galena, and Mill Streets. Given that this criterion does not mandate clustering, but instead encourages it, staff feels that the spirit of the criterion is met with the proposed development plan. 11. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: Public facilities are already in place to serve the existing structure. The costs of any necessary upgrades to existing systems and facilities will be borne by Savanah. The structure has been arranged in a manner that would permit access by emergency fire or medical vehicles, with emergency access available from Dean, Galena, and Mill Streets. 12a.Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: All of the hotel units and employee dwellings will have access to the public street system via Mill and Galena Streets as well as vacated Dean Street. 12b.Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. RESPONSE: There are no minor streets, per se, within the PUD, but Dean Street would be converted to a passenger and valet drop-off area. Please refer to the "Traffic and Parking" section of Exhibit B for a complete discussion of vehicular access points, turning movements, traffic flows, and related issues, but the staff recommendations from said section, as they relate to this PUD criterion, may be summarized as follows: • Savanah should purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on -site. • A revised traffic study assessing impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards should be provided with the Final PUD/GMQS application. • Commitment to provide an airport shuttle, perhaps using an alternative energy source, should be provided. • Additional off-street parking spaces should be provided, including 105 spaces dedicated to hotel guests, 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink and park patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Commission and Council) of spaces dedicated to the hotel's accessory uses. It might also be worthwhile to provide parking for contractors that would be present at the hotel on a semi -regular basis. • A plan for the enforcement of the passenger drop-off/valet parking drive as a one way, non -through street should be provided, and plans to provide neck -downs at the corners of said drive should also be provided. ff. EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review • The exit from the underground garage on Galena Street should include a means of precluding right turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan should show no vegetation 30 feet to the south or 20 feet to the north of the exit. • Similarly, the service/delivery area should be provided with a means of precluding exiting vehicles from turning left onto South Mill Street. • Time limitations for deliveries should be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks should also be provided. • Finally, the Final application should include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan should consider neighborhood concerns. 12c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Traffic and Parking" section of Exhibit B for a complete discussion of traffic -related issues. The Savanah-commissioned TDA, Inc., Transportation Report concludes that in the summer p.m. peak hour, the northbound left -through -right shared movement at Aspen Street/Main Street remains at Level of Service (LOS) *, which means that the projected volumes for this movement exceed the calculated capacity. All other intersections operate at LOS B or better during the summer p.m. peak hour. In the winter p.m. peak hour, intersection operations remain unchanged from background conditions. With minor adjustments to signal timing at the Aspen/Main intersection, the LOS for the northbound leg of said intersection can be improved to LOS D, while maintaining overall intersection operations at LOS B. The TDA study also concludes that the proposed development of Lots 3 and 5 combined would generate a total of 18 new trips per peak hour. Having stated TDA's conclusions, it should be pointed out that the Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit F) has determined that the proposed development on Lots 3 and 5 (combined) will generate 743 trips per day, but the Environmental Health Department has not netted out any existing/background trips or credits for demolished structures, nor applied any potentially applicable reductions. Even though there has been no netting out of existing trips or credits and City standards allow for trip reductions applicable to Lots 3 and 5 for being conveniently located to the Rubey Park transit stop, the commercial shopping core, and the Aspen Mountain ski lift, there is still a large discrepancy between the findings of the Savanah-commissioned Transportation Report and the preliminary expectations and data of the City's Engineering and Environmental Health Departments. In their referral memo (see Exhibit F), the Engineering Department comments that, for final submission, a revised traffic study needs to be provided and it needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards; this memo also states that the report, "as is," predicts a net increase of only 18 trips for Lots 3 and 5 combined, which seems to be underestimated. The Community Development Department agrees that a projected net increase of just 18 trips per day for Lots 3 and 5 combined seems exceedingly low. Furthermore, staff believes the hotel should provide an airport shuttle, perhaps using an alternative energy source. D-7 EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review 12d.Every residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: Only a hotel is proposed on Lot 5, but the hotel would contain 8 employee dwelling units. These units will have access to the parking garage via an elevator, and the - garage would have direct access to Galena Street. 12e.All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. RESPONSE: All portions of the Lot 5 development would have direct access to Dean Street, Galena Street, and/or Mill Street. Also see responses to criteria 12b. and 12c., above. 12f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. RESPONSE: The internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. D-8 EXHIBIT E Lot'), PUD Review Staff Review of Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD Application for Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) The applicant is requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval pursuant to the regulations of Section 26.84.030(B) of the Land Use Code. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staff s evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. la The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: Please refer to pages C-14 through C-15 of Exhibit C. Staff finds that, with the recommended conditions, the proposal is consistent enough with the AACP to support Conceptual PUD approval. 1 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: See "Site Design" on pages C-13 through C-14 of Exhibit C. With the exception of the proposed cul-de-sac and resulting site layout, staff finds the proposed development to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Neighboring development includes numerous multi -family condominium structures (Alpenblick, Fasching Haus, Fifth Avenue Condominiums, Mountain Queen Condos, Summit Place, 700 S. Monarch Condos, and more), various duplexes, and a few scattered single-family residences. Lot 3 is located within the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district, and the adopted "Purpose" of the L/TR zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist -oriented detached, duplex and multi family residential dwellings." The proposed development is consistent not only with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area but also with the purpose of the zone district in which it would be located should the staff -suggested rezoning be accomplished (see page C-2, Exhibit C). 1 c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The surrounding area is more or less fully developed; thus, the proposed development should have little if any effect on the development potential of surrounding properties. In fact, it is expected that the proposed re/development would have positive effects on the potential for future redevelopment of the surrounding area since utility upgrades completed by the applicant would serve to aid in and better facilitate redevelopment in/of the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the S. Mill Street grade and drainage would have to be improved, natural hazards would need to be mitigated, easements would be maintained, sidewalks would be extended, and trails would be improved. Also see the "Drainage and Natural Hazards" section of Exhibit C on pages C-5 through C-9. E-1 EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review Id. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: The proposed employee units would be exempt from GMQS. The thirteen (13) free market residential units proposed for Lot 3 would be developed utilizing reconstruction credits previously approved by the City and confirmed in both the Amended PUD Agreement and the most recent Section M. Amendment. 2. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Zoning" section of Exhibit C (pages C-1 through C-4) for a complete discussion of compliance issues related to the underlying zone district. The proposed density exceeds that allowed in the currently existing underlying zone district. Thus, if approval of the proposed Conceptual PUD for Lot 3 is granted, it should only be done conditioned upon the outcome of the ensuing rezoning hearings. To clarify, should the rezoning request be denied, the applicant would have to come back through the Conceptual PUD process with a proposal that meets the requirements of the existing zone districts. 3. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: Again, please refer to the "Zoning" section of Exhibit C (pages C-1 through C- 4) for a complete discussion of compliance issues related to the underlying zone district. Multi -family residential, such as that proposed on Parcel 1 of Lot 3, is not permitted in the R-15 zone district. Savanah and staff respectively propose and suggest a rezoning to L/TR, albeit in different formats. Should the staff -suggested rezoning to L/TR be accomplished, the L/TR zone district's list of permitted uses would still include "detached residential or duplex dwellings, only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less." While this sets a de facto maximum lot area of 6,000 square feet for single-family residential uses (including duplexes), it is not a dimensional requirement, but a use. Parcels 2-8 would include detached residential or duplex dwellings and be greater than 6,000 square feet. As this would entail a variance from the list of permitted uses, and not from a dimensional requirement, this requirement cannot be varied through the PUD process. Rather, a code amendment would be required to eliminate the "only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less" language. 4. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district; provided, that variations may be permitted in the following. - a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); c. Minimum front yard; d. Minimum rear yard; e. Minimum side yard; f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash area access; i. Internal floor area ratio; and, E-2 EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review j. Minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Dimensional Requirements" sub -section of Exhibit C (pages C-3 to C-4). 5. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on ... [six enumerated] considerations. RESPONSE: As proposed, forty-six (46) parking spaces would be provided on Lot 3. One space per bedroom would be provided for the six multi -family units proposed on Parcel 1, while two garage spaces per dwelling unit would be provided for the three duplexes and five single-family units on Parcels 2-8. Parcels 2 through 8 would also contain off-street driveways capable of accommodating vehicle parking. Any accessory dwelling units (ADUs) proposed in the future for Parcels 3-8 would require conditional use approval which, in turn, generally requires one off-street space per ADU. 6. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. RESPONSE: Similar to the other dimensional requirements discussed above, the L/TR zone district requires that at least 25% of each building site remain as "open space" meeting the City's definition. The proposal contemplates a 25% open space requirement for Lot 3 rather than for each subdivided parcel (and assumes approval of the requested rezoning and code amendment). Thus, further information will be required from the applicant before staff can accurately assess each of the proposed subdivision parcels' compliance with the dimensional requirements, especially those associated with floor area, density, and open space. The required open space can be varied through the PUD process, and given the size and configuration of the proposed open space parcels, staff would likely (but cannot guarantee) support such a request if found to be necessary. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: A conceptual landscape plan has been prepared as part of the application, and a detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. Also, please refer to the Parks Department's memorandum included with Exhibit F. Staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. Also, the Parks Department suggests that the applicant address impacts to the existing grove of Aspen trees on Lot 3. Many of those trees were under code during an initial inspection of the trees in 1997, but may be close to requiring mitigation now and/or when final development would occur. E-3 EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well as conceptual architectural elevations. A full discussion of the proposed architecture and site plan can be found in the "Architecture and Site Design" section of Exhibit C. More detailed architectural plans and further review under this criterion will be required for the Final PUD application. The structures will be subject to the provisions of the Residential Design Standards. When more detailed architectural renderings are submitted in conjunction with the Final PUD application, staff will conduct the Residential Design Standards review under the provisions applicable at that time. In general terms, the proposed architecture seems acceptable for Conceptual PUD review purposes, but staff would suggest a different roof form for the Parcel 3 duplex. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed to meet this criterion and to submit additional lighting details with the Final PUD application. If the application is approved, staff would suggest the following condition(s) of approval: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will any light be directed up the mountain." 10. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. RESPONSE: This criterion does not mandate clustering, but instead encourages it. Nonetheless, staff feels that the spirit of the criterion is met with the proposed development plan. 11. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: There are existing public facilities already in place. The costs of any necessary upgrades to existing systems and facilities will be borne by Savanah. The structures have been arranged in a manner that would permit access by emergency . fire or medical vehicles, with emergency access available from Mill Street. E-4 EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review 12a.Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: All of the proposed residential units would have access to the public street system via South Mill Street. Also, see the "Access and Traffic Generation" section of Exhibit C. 12b.Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. RESPONSE: There are no minor streets, per se, within the PUD, but a private access road easement would extend from the top of Mill Street to provide access to Parcels 2-8. Please refer to the "Access and Traffic Generation" section of Exhibit C for a complete discussion of vehicular access points, traffic flows, and related issues. In general, the submitted Transportation Report is inadequate to conduct a full review, and a revised report will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. 12c.The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding -the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Access and Traffic Generation" section of Exhibit C for a complete discussion of traffic flows and related issues. In general, the submitted Transportation Report is inadequate to conduct a full review, and a revised report will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. Pages B-6 and B-7 of Exhibit B, as well as page D-7 of Exhibit D prov.ide a detailed discussion of issues related to the submitted Transportation Report. For final submission, a revised traffic study needs to be provided, and it needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards. 12d.Every residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: Development of the proposed site plan would provide compliance with this standard. 12e.All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. RESPONSE: No nonresidential uses are proposed for Lot 3. E-5 EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review 12f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to the two triplexes and their parking (Parcel 1) would be provided via a private, common driveway from Summit Street, and said driveway would be owned and maintained by their condominium association. Vehicular access to the remaining parcels on Lot 3 would be gained via a private access road which would extend from the end of Mill Street and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. E-6 �(�NBTT F MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas FROM: Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer RE: Aspen Mountain PUD, Lots 3 and 5, Conceptual PUD DATE: May 31, 1999 A. Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site): Lot 5 is located within the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR). The parcel contains 861610 square feet, of which 13,540 square feet lies within vacated Dean Street, leaving a net lot area of 73,070 square feet. The hotel structure is subject to the following L/TR dimensional requirements: Setbacks: Front yard 10 feet Side yard 5 feet Rear yard 10 feet On a corner lot the owner may choose which yard is to be considered the front yard. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third of the required front yard setback. The proposal meets or exceeds the setback requirements. External Floor Area Ratio: The external floor area ratio allowed by the zone district is 1:1 (or 73,070 square feet), however the allowed floor area for Lot 5 was established by the Aspen Mountain Amended PUD/Subdivision agreement at 115,000 square feet. The proposal appears to comply with the established floor area, but will have to be verified at time of building permit application. Internal Floor Area Ratio: Lodge rental space: .5:1 (based on the permitted floor area of 115,000 square feet this will equal 57,500 square feet), which may be increased to .75:1 (86,250 square feet) provided that one-third of the additional floor area (8625 square feet) is restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The current proposal indicates that 65,940 square feet of rental space will be provided, requiring that 2532 square feet be restricted to affordable housing. The applicant will be providing 5000, exceeding the rental space requirements. Lodge, non -unit space: minimum of .25:1 (28,750 square feet). The proposed non -unit space of 35,840 square feet exceeds the minimum required. Lot area: Lodge rooms in the L/TR zone district are not subject to a minimum lot area requirement. However, Section 26.40.050 of the Land Use Code requires that whenever kitchens are installed in a lodge in the L/TR zone district, that unit shall be deemed a multi -family unit and the lodge shall be required to satisfy the minimum lot area requirements for a multi- family dwelling unit. Multi -family dwellings require one thousand square feet of lot area per bedroom. The proposal includes four studio and four 1 bedroom affordable housing units, requiring 8,000 square feet of lot area. If kitchens are added to any of the lodge units, an evaluation of lot area will be required. However, the current proposal complies with the lot area requirements. ®pen Space: A minimum of 25% of lot area must be provided as open space. Lot 5 is required to provide 18,267 square feet of open space. The 1993 Section M Amendment to the PUD allowed for Lot 5 to utilize Lot 6 for purposes of calculating open space. In addition the 1993 Amendment allowed for areas in excess of two feet below the existing grades of the streets on Lot 6 to be utilized as open space. Lot 6 contains approximately 25,000 square feet of open space, while Lot 5 contains approximately 22,000 square feet of open space. The proposal therefore substantially exceeds the minimum open space requirements. Parking requirements: Lodge units require .7 spaces/bedroom. 150 lodge units will require 105 parking spaces, which the proposed plan appears to comply with. The parking spaces for the affordable housing units will need to be established through a Special Review process. Height: The maximum height limit in the L/TR zone district is 28 feet. The applicant is proposing a maximum building height of 47 feet, requiring a PUD height variance of 19 feet. B. Lot 3 (Top of Mill Site): The applicant is proposing to re -zone Lot 3 to L/TR and to subdivide the parcel into eight development parcels and two open space parcels. The two open space parcels will be rezoned to Conservation, C. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance from the permitted uses within the L/TR zone district where detached residential or duplex dwellings may only be developed on lots on lots of 6,000 square feet or less. However, as this is a variance from a permitted use, and not from a dimensional requirement, it does not appear that this is a requirement that can be varied through the PUD process. Dimensional requirements: The applicant is basing the allowed floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 (97,630 square feet). Staff feels that it may be more appropriate to calculate the permitted floor area, allowed density and required open space based on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowed floor area can be made. Based on individual lot sizes vs. the total size of Lot 3, the proposed floor areas for the duplex and single family dwellings are well in excess of the permitted floor areas for parcels of equal size in the L/TR zone district, and would possibly be even further in excess once slope reduction was evaluated. For example, the proposed floor area for Parcel 4 is 6,200 square feet on a 13,290 square foot lot. However, the allowed floor area for a single family residence on that size lot in the L/TR zone district would be 3,917 square feet, less any applicable slope reductions. The proposal appears to comply with the L/TR setback and height requirements, but will have to be re -verified at time of building permit application. Impact fees: The residential structures will be subject to a Park Development Impact Fee, based on the creation of new bedrooms. In addition, the subdivision will be assessed a School Land Dedication based on the proposed unit configuration. Report on Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development (PUD Lot #3, known as ""Top Of Mill' (May 28, 1999) This report was prepared to assist the Community Development Department Planners, members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the applicant to gain an understanding of the specific issues concerning Lot-3 and the need for mitigating potentials for soil erosions and control of sediment and debris flows. The Engineering Department is preparing its final phase of the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (Aiti1DBMP) and mitigating criteria that will assist in identify potential hazards resulting from the Aspen Mountain basin runoff and its impact on downstream developments situated within the naturally developed flow patterns. I think the topics outlined in this report can answer many questions the readers may have during the review of the subject development. Impacts of Storm Runoff on Building Masses and Existing Developments Buildings, walls or solid structures above ground will perform as blockage in the drainage flow ways and will result in flood rise and alteration of flow patterns that may impact adjacent and especially downstream properties and developments. In this case our goal is to develop a reasonable mitigation criteria defined in relative terms, that can acceptably minimize and mitigate the potential hazards resulting from development of any parcel of land within the drainage basin. Typical developments include building masses having walls of varying heights and impermeable surfaces such as roofs, paved streets, sidewalks and driveways. Drainage criteria based on these parameters and the statistical snowmelt and rainfalls will provide necessary design and construction guidelines applicable to the Aspen area. This practice can prevent damages resulting from surface runoff, whether from snow melt or rainfall or a combination of rain on snow for a given return frequency. The final phase of the AMDBMP report and drainage criteria is scheduled for completion in the fall. Aspen Mountain Subdivision Criteria In the previous submittals and public hearings for development of Lot-3, the Planing & Zoning Commission set certain conditions that will protect the proposed development and adjacent and downstream properties including the City's infrastructure from flood and debris flow damages. Those conditions included the following design and construction requirements: 1.. Proposed building mass and related impermeable surface layout, if approved by the City P&Z, will closely conform with the final outcome of the above mentioned A1,VIDBMP design and constriction criteria. It shall be the developer's or its successor's responsibility to fully comply with the drainage criteria and perform within the parameters set forth in the report. Aspen Mountain PUD Page Two 2. Savanah Limited Partnership's (owner/developer) representative agreed to provide necessary drainage easements and shall continue to provide these easements for safe conveyance of surface runoff and debris through the site. 3. The developer's representative will make necessary adjustments to building footprints to ensure that the above mentioned requirements are met. 4. The City will use the funds put in escrow to study and develop a master plan design and construction criteria and utilize the balance of these funds to implement an interim drainage mitigation project to control runoff only to the extent the remaining escrow fiends will support. We also believe that these conditions must be binding upon all future development and re -development applications within similar areas. Proposed Site Plan The proposed development densities may be accommodated if all potential drainage and debris or mudflow hazards are mitigated. It is our belief that under no circumstances, the path of least resistance to these natural flows shall be restricted but instead, they shall be accommodated and conveyed through the site. This means the site layout must be such that in no way will it pose a significant blockage in the natural stream bed or drainage path. PUD Criteria The proposed development will have to be designed in accordance with the ANDBMP design and construction criteria currently under development in order to promote relatively safe and long term human habitat. The intent of development criteria is to promote public safety, health and welfare for the owners and occupants. Applicable Drainage Standards This development must comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The existing site must be carefully studied and evaluated to ensure a proper design and correct selection of BMP(s). Zoning. The impact of this development on transit corridors and the cause for deterioration of road pavement is defined in terms of the number of trips generated from the vehicles frequenting a building in a period of time. An analysis must be performed by the applicant's traffic engineer to identify and quantify the traffic impacts resulting from this development and determine the degradation in level of service and the Aspen Mountain PUD Page Three infrastructure. Initial studies and analysis of the existing utility infrastructure systems were performed for the previous submittal and it was determined that the water distribution and wastewater collection lines can handle the proposed development needs. We are uncertain what densities the new submittal would haw and therefore, additional studies must be performed and a new report must be submitted by the applicant to determine the adequacy of the existing system capacities. Cnnc1t ginn Promoting environmentally sustainable developments in Aspen must be given a high priority. In our opinion, property developments at the bottom of a slope where it meets a relatively flatter plain are generally subject to potential hazards. These hazards become more serious when evidences of property damage in the surrounding areas have been observed. Examples of these observations include the mudslide at the Aspen Music School and localized landslide/caving events on the slope directly southwest of the proposed development location and west of Aspen Street. We believe developments with moderate densities can be implemented with adequate mitigation for the above mentioned potential hazards. Nick Adeh, City Engineer AspenMouncPUD-9901 rJ MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer G' g Date: April 5, 1999 Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision -- Conceptual P.U.D. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their March 17, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments: General - If the proposed site plan is modified from the one presented in the application, as discussed in the DRC meeting, the Engineering Department should review the new site plan to verify that these comments are still pertinent to the development and to review the proposed design. No additional information is necessary at this time, although if the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Department for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs. 1. Parkin - The project provides sufficient vehicle parking spaces to meet Code requirements. The ice rink parking is discussed on page 47 of the application. The relocation proposal is acceptable to the Engineering Department. 2. Traffic Study - There is no address or telephone number on the report to be able to verify any of the data or the credentials of the preparer. For the final submission, a traffic study needs to be provided that is sealed and stamped by a traffic engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado. The revised report needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards. The report "as is" predicts a net increase of 18 trips, which seem to be underestimated. 3. Site Development Plan - There is incorrect nomenclature that needs to be revised for the final submission. The private, road and cul de 'sac on Lot 3 are access easements, not "R.O.W." or "R.O.W. Easement." 4. Site Drainage - The post -development storm runoff requirements have already been met except as noted on page 103. It should be a condition of approval for the hotel that a detention structure with a delayed release be required. The final plat should include a drainage mitigation plan (2411x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan, identified as Best Management Practices, for the construction phase. These and a report must be signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage plan must be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer prior to signing the final plat. 5. Sidewalk. Curb & Gutter - As a PUD requirement, the applicant should be required to construct sidewalk along the private road. On page 102 of the application, it is stated that sidewalk will be constructed along S. Mill Street adjacent to Lot 3 as well as curb and gutter on both sides of S. Mill Street. The sidewalk on S. Galena along Lot 5 should be reconstructed at the property line with a 5' buffer and snow storage space between the sidewalk and the curb. The trees in the landscaping plan that are indicated on the property line could be located in the buffer space, pending the approval of the Parks Department. 6. Street Lights - The existing conditions and existing utilities maps need to be revised to show existing street lights. Street light space requirements are 150 feet. 7. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals and transformers, easements must be provided and should be indicated on the final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. Any units that may be condominiumized must have separate utility service connections and meters. The applicant indicated that existing overhead utilities along the southwesterly property will be undergrounded in conjunction with the proposed development. This is consistent with other developments in the City. 8. Demolition Permit - The applicant will be seeking a demolition permit in the fall. Asbestos testing should be performed prior to seeking the demolition permit. A dust control permit will be required. Haul routes must be identified. All loads must be covered. No tracking of mud and dirt onto City streets is permitted. 9. Fire Marshal - As represented in the submitted application (page 102), the fire marshal requests a condition of approval requiring that "all development will be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems." 10. City Water Department - When the application was first submitted, there were redundancies in the design. If the project proceeds, the applicant's consulting engineer will have to meet with the City Water Director for design approvals. Some of the highest lots in the proposed residential area may need to have water and hydrant systems pressurized. The Water Department will not maintain any pumps. 2 11. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - There are downstream constraints which will be addressed by impact fees. The existing taps are so old that the fee credits will be small. 12. Parks Department - The application has not met the trail easement requirements. There may be a site visit with City Council. There are trees on Lot 3 which were not replacement size at the original time of the application which may now meet replacement size requirements. 13. Snow Storage - The applicant needs to designate snow storage areas on the final PUD site plan. 14. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of - way and to.provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building inspection. 15. Work in the Public RiLrht-of-wav - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall . obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of - way from the city community development department. DRC Meeting Attendees Staff: Phil Overeynder, Nick Adeh, Ed Van Walraven, Rebecca Schickling, John Krueger, NEtch Haas, Cindy Christensen, Stephanie Levesque, Russell Grance, Tom Bracewell, Lee Cassin, Chuck Roth Applicant's representatives: Sunny Vann 99M35 3 Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Planner FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director . DATE: March 25, 1999 RE: Aspen Mountain PUD, Lots 3 and 5: Conceptual PUD (and Subdivision, GMQS Scoring and Competition, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline Review, Mountain Viewplane Review, Special Review, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption, and Vested Property Rights). C C : Engineering Department John Krueger, Trails Supervisor We have reviewed the application submitted by Savannah Limited Partnership and offer the following comments: Lot 3, Top of Mill Trails: The application states that Savanah proposes to vacate the previously dedicated trail easement, known as the Top of Mill Trail (page 57). The Parks Department has conveyed to the applicants on several occasions that this is NOT acceptable and there is no logical reason for the City to accept the vacation as proposed. This is an existing platted easement and is currently valid even though the easement states that it cannot be constructed until connecting easements are acquired. The proposal for Lot 3 shows a building on top of the easement (Parcel 1, the southern -most triplex building). If the applicants agree to relocate and re -plat the easement, then this building layout for Lot 3 may be acceptable. It appears as though there may be an opportunity to relocate a trail between Parcels 1 & 8, then cut across the open space parcel `A,' and finally, the trail could then cross the street and follow the construction and utility easement between Parcels 2 & 3. If the trail is relocated, the applicants will be required to grade an 8-10 foot platform for the trail, and no planting of vegetation would be permitted within the easement. Additionally, a rough graded trail needs to have proper drainage and any necessary retaining structures. If the applicants do not agree to relocate the trail, then we strongly recommend the Conceptual PUD be denied based on the fact that a building is shown on top of an existing trail easement. Throughout the years, Council has directed staff to maintain existing trail easements and to ensure their viability for future development needs. The application states that Savanah will agree to work with the City and the Aspen Skiing Company to relocate the trail to Ski Company Property on one of the existing access roads Parks - 1 above Lot 3. The City has already received permission from the Ski Company for the upper trail and the Ski Company has constructed the trail on the upper hillside so there -is no need for Savanah's assistance with that trail alignment. Staff believes that the upper trail serves for recreational uses such as- Nordic Skiing and summer hiking and biking. The Top of Mill Trail, on the other hand, serves a different function that is more commuter oriented for both summer and winter. In the winter, the Top of Mill Frail can be used by the residents of the area fob ski lift access to the Lift One Chair. In the summer, the Top of Mill Trail can be used for people wanting to access the upper Ski Company Trail/Shadow Mountain Trail. Additionally, there is an existing trail to the east that the Top of Mill Trail may be able to connect to in the future. Although the slope to the east is steep, its not impossible to provide a connection in the future. The City would like to work with Savanah to relocate the trail. Any agreed upon alignment of a relocated trail, however, needs to be staked and approved by the Parks Department. A relocated trail needs to include a legal description and be shown on the final amended. plat. Sidewalks: It appears as though there are sidewalks proposed only along the west side of Mill Street (Parcel 1), in front of the triplexes. The sidewalk appears to be an attached sidewalk, adjacent to the curb. Mill Street is exceptionally steep and fairly narrow, and it is important for pedestrians to have a safe place to walk. A separated/detached sidewalk should be constructed on both sides of Mill Street if feasible and extend around the cul-de-sac area on the side of the street with the houses. Along with the detached walk, appropriately spaced street trees should be planted between the sidewalk and the curb. On page 93, under section 11, Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation, there seems to be no mention of pedestrian circulation. Both sidewalks and the Top of Mill Trail are critical components of pedestrian circulation and should be required as part of this development. Trails and sidewalks provide enhanced pedestrian facilities conducive to and fostering walking, which in turn results in a decreased dependency on the automobile. Enhanced pedestrian facilities and decreased dependency on the automobile are both important criteria of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Landscaping and Vegetation: The conceptual landscape plans are adequate for review at this stage of the application process. For final submission, the application should address the impact to the existing grove of Aspen trees on Lot 3. Many of those trees were under code during an initial inspection of the trees in 1997, however, may be close to requiring mitigation now and when final development may occur. Also, no new vegetation will be allowed to be planted in the Top of Mill Trail easement. Parks-2 Lot 5, Grand Aspen Site Trails: The ,Alpine Trail shown along the southern property boundary of Lot 5 has a jog in it on the Mill Street side of the easement. On the proposed development plans for Lot 5, the trail is shown as a straight shot on top of the existing utility easement. The straight shot is acceptable, however, the easement needs to be realigned on the final plat to reflect the actual location of the trail. The applicants must ensure that the utility companies utilizing the utility easement find realigning the entire trail on top of the utility easement to be acceptable. Landscaping and Vegetation: The only comments on landscaping for Lot 5 focus on the trees shown around the pool. The difficulty with trees around pool areas involves the shedding of leaves from deciduous trees and needles from coniferous trees. When either of these are shed, they often times cause difficulties for pool maintenance and bare feet. Additionally, raised planters are difficult environments for trees to grow in. If the applicants desire trees in this area they may want to consider a few Aspen trees or Crabapple trees; otherwise, some nice shrubs may be a preferred alternative. Since the pool is on the second level, the street trees shown around the pergola may not be necessary either, since they will not be at grade with the street. comdev/99/amcnpud. doc Parks-3 '• MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department Fro m: NancyMacKenzie , Environmental Health Specialist Date: November 30, 1998 Re: Aspen- Mountain PUD, LOTS. 3 (Top of. Mill) and 5 (Grand Aspen site): Conceptual PUD, GMQS Scoring and competition/Allocations, subdivision, Rezoning, 8040. Greenline Review, Mountain view Plane Review, -Special Review,, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption, and Vested Property Rights. Parcel IDS # 2737-182-85-003 & 005 Th,e Aspen/Pitkin.Environmenttal Health., Department has reviewed the Aspen.Mountain Subdivision (Grand Aspen and Yop of Mill) land- use submittal under authority of the Municipal,Codeof the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7. "it shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any" building used for residence or business purposes within the city to constructor reconstruct an on -site Sewage disposal device." The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this* project through the Central collection lines of the Aspen -Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated. Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project should be -determined by the ACSD. . The applicant must provide documentation at the time of detailed submission that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and- that the service agency is capable of serving the: development. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55: "Ala' buildings, structures', facilities, parks, or the rike within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility- system." The provision -of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent -with' Environmental Health policies" ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen Water Department shall - determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen. water'supply meets all standards of the. Colorado Department of Health for drinking:water quality. - A letter of agreement to serve the project must be.provided at the, time •of',detailed submission. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 . "For the purpose, of maintaining, and protecting its, municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams -and sources contributing to municipal water supplies fora distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted." . A'drainage plan to'mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated .by the City Engineer. AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of (the air quality section of the Muhici pal Code) to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all.available practical methods and techniques to, control, prevent and reduce air pollution througftout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "providezlean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. PM-10 (83% of which comes from traffic driving .on paved roads) is a significant, health concern .in . Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions thatare health concerns. Th.e municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant needs to irnplem.ent measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the ' emissions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere. in order to do this, the .applicant will need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project (using standard ITE . trip generation rates), commit to a set of control measures, and show that the control measures offset the traffic or.PM10 produced -by the project. = -standards used -for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and ...reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of -Transportation Engineers.Trip Generation Report, Fifth edition.. Housing units use the trip generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210; which is 9.55 trips per day per unit.. Hotel and' lodging units use the ITE trip generation rate for Land Use Code 310, Hotel/Occupied Room'which is 8.6 trips per day per tourist'room. Trip reductions are allowed -for Lots 3 and 5 because they are conveniently located to the Rubey Park. transit'stop, the -commercial shopping core, and Aspen Mt. Ski lifts. Free -Market units located within one half mile of�a transit stop are allowed a reduction *of*1.5,trips per .day. Affordable Housing units are allowed a reduction of 2.0 trips per day. . All units are.within-1/2 mile of support services (grocery stores, cleaners, retail shops, etc.) and are allowed.a reduction of 15trips per day. Projects which guarantee'employee housing within one half'mile of the". work site, such. as the 8 employee units in the lodge, can also use a reduction of 2.0 trips. per day. if this reduction is' used; any transit reduction used cannot exceed 1.0 trip per day. The. standard trip reductions for a hotel are the same as for free market dwellings. The classification Hotel in the ITE includes the accessory uses in a hotel: restaurant, bar, meeting rooms, accessory shops. Hotels -which emphasize not*bringing a.veh.icle to the site by providing hotel transit service can reduce the overall trip generation by using the number of parking spaces as the rate -factor rather than the number of rooms. -For example a 150 room hotel with 106 guest parking spaces .2 could apply for a 30 per cent reduction before using any of the standard reductions. This reduction °factor.would probably not apply if the underground parking became, open to the public: t this time the underground parking is limited to guests. if this changes -and Wthe parking is opened to the public, this.'would be a traffic incentive and the impact on air quality would have to be mitigated. The applicant is planning on more than the ,required number of parking spaces for the six, 4- bedroom townhouse units which are proposed on Parcel 1,- which would be 4 spaces, not 2, per dwelling. increasing the number of parking spaces would act as a traffic disincentive and would have to be mitigated. The applicant. has discussed -using geothermal. street melting, this and other method's that would not use sand could give them-PM-10 credit. Others possible methods of mitigating PM-10 are providing lodge shuttle buses,, pr to potential guests' that cars/rental cars.are not needed, a reduction in rent for tenants without automobiles, providing bicycles, and less parking spaces for the lodge and dwelling units. it. may be possible to get credit for: (1) the trips generated by the existing duplex and Aspen Ski club building on Lot 3 and(2)the removal of 9 on -street parking_ spaces which will bie. replaced with a pedestrian. way. A'traffic analysis being. done by TDA which revises the one from the previous application has not been received -by this department as- of this date for'review. increase in PM-10 from the- development was based on the assumption that Lot 3 (Top of Mill) would: contain 13 free market dwelling utiits.and 4 affordable housing units, and, that Lot 5 would contain 106 parking spaces (for. the 150 unit lodge) and S employee dwelling units: We determined that the development on Lots 3 and 5 will generate 743 trips per •day . which is the equivalent of 104 1b. of PM-10. A condition of .approval should be that'the applicant provide a PM 10 mitigation plan for approval from the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department, which documents that measures are,sufficient to offset increases -in PM'io caused by the: project. This plan should be approved prior to detailed submission. FIREPLACFJWOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant'must fiie•.a fireplace/woodstove permit with'the Environmental Health Department before the building -permit will be issued. in the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves for 1 of each) and unlimited numbers- of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building.• New homes. rrjay NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor May any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive -dust control plan is required which includes; but is not limited to fencing, watering of haulroads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent-* windblown -dust from crossing the property line or causinga nuisance. Dust control will be crucial due to the closeness of existing homes to the site.. = ASBESTOS Commercial - Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of.any public or*commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be. notified and a person .:.licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection.. Environmental Health cannot sign any building. permits :until we get this report. if there is no asbestos, the demolition _ can proceed. If asbestos is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos removal contractor. UNDERGROUND PARKING. The applicant must consult with an engineering firm about the design of the underground parking structure ventilation 'system to ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent,carbon monoxide from reaching high levels inside the facility or in the nearby areas outside it: An engineer who specializes in. design of heating and ventilation systems must certify that the proposed design will. prevent excessive levels of carbon monoxide from concentrating inside the structure and in nearby areas and buildings. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The'city council finds and declares that noise is a -significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the, health,. safety and welfare of the residents, of the City of Aspen and it its visitors...... Accordingly,. it. is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels.,, During construction, noise can not'exceed.maximum permissb.le sound. level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. it is very likely that noise generated'during the construction phase of this project will have. some negative impact on the- neighborhood: The applicant should be aware of -this and take measures. to minimize the predicted high noise levels. POOLS AND SPAS .All design, installation and maintenance. must comply with "Swimming. Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, adopted August 151 1993.",A copy can be obtained from our office. For public and semi-public pools such as a lodge pool, a condition of approval is that at least . 30 *days prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans and specifications complete With piping layout, equipment: and mechanical specifications along with. design calculations, shall = be submitted for review and approval by this department. : :. *FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES 1. A review of plans and specifications by this department is required by Section 10-401 of the. Rules -and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado. ...The Department shall be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications' .the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the :proper size of, the grease trap. Restaurant grills are. regulated by the City of Aspen and the applicant should contact this Department to be sure that if 21 grill is planned, that it is in compliance with City code. REC E IV ."_' �. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation DistrictMAR AS '�; Sy Kelly * Chairman Job Kel;gW-I%NI' `' OEVFLOF Paul S mA * Treas Frank Louslun Nlickael Kelly * SecZ' Bruce Nlatkerly, NI r March 18, 1999 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Mountain PUD Conceptual Dear Mitch: The existing development discussed in this application is currently served by the District. Collection and treatment capacity is currently available to serve the development being proposed. Any downstream constraints that are identified will be eliminated through a system of additional proportionate fees. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. The hotel proposed for lot 5 will be required to include an oil and sand separator for the parking garage and an oil and grease interceptor for the kitchen. We will need to review and approve the plumbing details for the hotel's swimming pool. We will also need to review the detailed landscaping, drainage, and utility plans for this site once they become available. We will need to review and approve the detailed on -site utility plans for lot 3 where the free market residential units are being considered. Stub out fees will be charged if service is to be stubbed out to each individual lot. Minimal fees were paid in the past for the development that exists on each lot. Credit toward the total connection charges due for any new development is only given in the amount previously paid. The total connection charges for the project can be estimated once detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed at our office. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherl Y District Manager 565 N. Nlill S L.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAN (970) 925-2537 27 I ARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY PEN, ZCOLORA©O Memo To: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department, City of Aspen From: Mike Davis, Roaring Fork Transit Agency Date: 03/24/99 Re: Aspen Mountain PUD (AMPUD), Lots 3 and 5. Thank you for the opportunity to assess the transit impacts of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The proposed development consists of two parts, thirteen free market units on lot 3 and one hundred and fifty lodge units on lot 5. The free market units are exempt from the growth management quota system because they are derived from the PUD's remaining thirty-nine residential reconstruction credits. Therefore, no "net new employees" are assumed to be generated from lot 3. Lot 5 is estimated to generate 34 "net new employees." Since these employees. will be housed in different locations, the transit impacts will vary. The applicant, Savanah, proposes to house twenty-one net new employees and provide replacement housing for 6.5 employees. Fifteen of these employees are proposed to be housed at the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing. A memo to Mitch Haas, dated March 12, describes the impact of the new Bavarian Inn affordable housing. In addition, the proposed hotel will accommodate twelve employees. These employees will not need transit to commute to work since they live on location. Therefore, approximately thirteen employees will not be housed by the development and will be commuting to work (See Table 1). Table 1 Number of Employees Net New Employees +34 Replacement Housing +6.5 Bavarian Inn Housing -15 Hotel Housing -12 Total Employees Commuting 13.5 0 Page 1 Recommendation RFTA recommends that Savanah be required to purchase annual valley bus passes for the thirteen employees commuting. The proposed hotel is with -in one block of Rubey Park and has great access to transit. The purchase of bus passes will therefore encourage employees to use the bus. RFTA further recommends that the transit impacts imposed by the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing proposal be mitigated before this development is approved. • Page 2 EC I MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Office Manager DATE: June 4, 1999 RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, Lots 3 (Top of Mill) & 5 (Grand Aspen site) Parcel ID No. 2737-782-85-001 /003 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a conceptual planned unit development approval for the development of 13 free market residential dwelling units on Lot 3 and a 150-unit hotel on Lot 5. The applicant is also requesting a lodge growth management quota system allocation, subdivision approval, a rezoning, special review, a text amendment, and a GMQS exemption. The issues that concern staff revolve around the mitigation calculations, and the types of units being proposed for affordable housing and for the mitigation requirements. Staff has broken this referral down into two sections. The first section deals with Lot 3, Top of Mill. The second section will deal with Lot 5, the Grand Aspen site. The recommendations for each are stated under each section. SECTION 1 - LOT 3, TOP OF MILL The original PUD Agreement contained no requirements with respect to Lot 3, as the Top of Mill project was still undergoing review at the time the Agreement was approved. Ordinance 1 and the Housing and Replacement Program were not in effect at the time. The applicant states that the 13 free market units to be developed on Lot 3 are exempt from the growth management quota system as they were derived from the PUD's remaining 39 residential reconstruction credits. The City and Staff, however, have interpreted that the applicant must comply with Ordinance 1 and the Housing Replacement Program. There were 25 multi -family bedrooms that were demolished. There fiore, the applicant must mitigate for 50% of those bedrooms, or 12.5 bedrooms. The Housing Replacement Program also stipulates that 50% of the demolished square footage must also be replaced. The square footage was more difficult to calculate as there was no record of the square footage that was demolished. The applicant has proposed using the minimum square footage for Category 1 and 2 as stated in the Guidelines. The applicant states that the following type of units were demolished: Min. Sq. Ft. Stated Amount Type of Unit in Guidelines 12 Studio units @ 400 Sq. Ft./Unit 4,800 11 1-Bedroom Units @ 600 Sq. Ft./Unit 6,600 1 2-Bedroom Unit @ 850 Sq. Ft./Unit 850 12,250 The applicant is proposing a replacement of 13 bedrooms, to contain approximately 6,200 square feet. The free market units are proposed as follows: 6 4-bedroom townhomes 1 4-Bedroom Duplex 5 5-bedroom Single-family homes (also to contain accessory dwelling units) The deed restricted units are to consist of: 2 Duplexes - 3 3-bedrooms and 1 4-bedroom 1 three -bedroom Category 2 2 three -bedrooms Category 3 1 four -bedroom Category 4 This calculates to 13 free market units and 4 deed restricted units consisting of 57 bedrooms for the free market and 13 deed restricted bedrooms (22% of the bedrooms are deed restricted). However, if the proposal is accepted using the minimum square footage from the Guidelines, than the applicant has fulfilled its obligation by providing 13 bedrooms at approximately 6,200 square feet. The applicant proposes that all four deed restricted units will be sold pursuant to applicable APCHA Guidelines. The sales for the units shall be established under the Guidelines that are in effect at the time of Final PUD Approval. The six accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted pursuant to applicable regulations in effect at the time of issuance of building permits for their associated free market residence. Currently, the accessory dwelling unit policy is being reviewed. Should this policy change, any units that have not received prior building permit approval will be under the new accessory dwelling unit restrictions. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board discussed the residential component on May 5, 1999, and recommended approval of the applicant's proposal for Lot 3 with the following conditions: 1. Floor plans of the deed restricted units shall be reviewed and approved by Housing Office Staff. 2. The units shall be deed restricted prior to building permit approval with the deed restriction provided by the Housing Office. 3. All deed restricted units shall be sold by the Housing Office under the general lottery system. 4. All accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted according to the Land Use Code in effect at the time of building permit approval. 5. Site visits by the Housing Office staff shall be done on all deed restricted units prior to approval of Certificate of Occupancy. 2 SECTION 2 - LOT 5, GRAND ASPEN SITE Lot 5 / Hotel Mitigation: The previous application for Lot 5 was to consist of a hotel with 24 rooms and 37 residential units. The applicant is now proposing to rebuild a 150-room hotel on Lot 5. The applicant has proposed net new employment on the basis of staffing recommendations from several hotel operators. The calculations are as follows: Hotel Operations New Hotel Bedrooms 150 Employees Generated @ .31 per bedroom 46.5 Existing Hotel Bedrooms 150 Employees Credit @ .28 per bedroom 42.0 Net Employees Generated 4.5 Accessory Food and Beverage New Food and Beverage (square feet) 5,950 Employees Generated @ 6 per 1,000 square feet 35.7 Existing Food and Beverage 5,430 Employee Credit @ 1.06 per 1,000 square feet 5.8 Net New Employees Generated 29.9 Grand Aspen Replacement Housing 6.5 Total Net New Employees Hotel .4.5 Food and Beverage 29.9 Replacement 6.5 40.9 Based on the above figures, which use the applicant's projections of employment, the applicant would have an obligation to house 41 employees. The applicant is also proposing to house only 12 employees on site, with the rest being housed off -site. The priority of the Housing Board is to first provide housing on -site. The deed restricted units proposed on -site for the hotel are to consist of 4 studio units and 4 1-bedroom units, which are acceptable to staff. The applicant has not shown any reasoning for not providing more on -site housing, however, due to previous agreements with the applicant, the applicant is not required to provide on -site housing. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the additional employees by using the Bavarian Inn. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board discussed the employee generation and housing issues related to the Aspen Mountain PUD on May 5, May 19 and June 2, 1999. Staff recommended to the Board that the 3 affordable housing assessment be based on the language of the Amended and Restated PUD Agreement. The agreement states the following in relation to Lot 5: "As an inducement to the City to approve the amendments to the Aspen Mountain P.U.D./Subdivision contemplated herein, owner has agreed to and does hereby acknowledge its potential obligation to provide off -site employee housing for net new employees and other, employee housing requirements as may be determined during the amended approval process for the Lot 5 component of the project." Staff and the Board recommend approval based on the understanding that the applicant has agreed to an obligation to provide housing for the new net number of employees generated by the proposal. That number is based on the total employment generated by the new hotel, minus the employment attributable to the existing hotel, which is stated in the table above. Staff and the Board recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. PENALTY: The numbers provided by the applicant will be accepted subject to an audit system, with a provision for additional housing if actual employment exceeds projected employment. In order to ensure that the applicant provides carefully considered projections, Staff and Board are also recommending a penalty if actual employment exceeds projected employment by more than 10%. In order to assure the community that adequate housing is provided for actual net new employees, Staff and the Board recommend a periodic audit of actual employment at the proposed hotel. The recommendation is as follows: a. An audit of the first two years of operation conducted immediately after the second year of operations. b. An audit of the sixth year of operation, conducted after the end of that sixth year. C. An audit conducted of any year between the second and sixth year (random audit). d. An audit conducted after the end of any year during which any rating of the hotel is increased (e.g., if the hotel has a four -star rating that changes to a five-star rating). In order to ensure that the applicant's projections of employment are carefully considered by the applicant, Staff and the Board are recommending imposing a penalty provision on the applicant. If the actual full-time equivalent employment exceeds projected employment by more than 10%, the applicant shall provide housing for the additional employees PLUS an additional amount equal to the percentage that actual employment exceeds projected employment. For example: J Projected FTE's 34.4 Actual FTE's 39.0 Excess Employment 4.6 Excess Employment Percentage 13% Over 10% 3% Additional Housing For additional employees 4.6 Penalty (13% of 4.6) r .6 TOTAL 5.2 Therefore, the applicant would have to provide housing for an additional 5.2 FTE's. 2. AUDIT: The auditor shall be selected by the Housing Office, but the audit shall be paid by the applicant. There shall also be in place an obligation by this applicant and/or any future owner of the hotel to cooperate and comply with the audits to provide any additional employee housing if required. 3. EMPLOYEE GENERATED LIST OF JOBS: In order to fully identify employees of the applicant, the applicant shall provide an employee generated list of jobs to ensure that all jobs related to the running of the hotel are included. This list could also include subcontractors. 4. CREDIT: The Board recommends denying providing a credit to the applicant if the net new employees generated is less than proposed. It would be hard to identify at what point in time of the audits this would apply. Also, due to the fact that Staff and the Board are relying on an accurate projection of net new employees by the applicant, a credit should not be allowed. 5. BAVARIAN INN: The Bavarian Inn was proposed by the applicant in the 1990 ballot language as an additional benefit unrelated to any mitigation in Phase 1 or Phase 2. The Bavarian Inn was an additional affordable housing inducement to the voters to pass the Amended Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. The ballot language was approved, which stated that the affordable housing project must be built whether anything was done in Phase 2 or not. The Bavarian Inn was not appropriate to use for growth on Phase 2. There was nothing found in the record regarding the use of the Bavarian Inn for future mitigation, therefore, the Bavarian should not be used for any employee mitigation. The Board and Staff agreed that the Bavarian Inn is part of a long overdue obligation of Phase 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD and recommends denial of the use of the Bavarian Inn for any kind of mitigation. dc:h\word\referral\acsmp. mit 5 t. Jun-02-99 02:59P Savanah Ltd. 97092 S4387 P.02 515 South Galena St, SouaoahLimited ashen. Co. 816i f Tel. Tnns4ln rarmerrAlp Fox9m925-4307 TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board FR^M: J 0 H N r. SAQJ c 7 DATE,: June 2, 1999 RE: Bavarian I n H istoryr PACES: 7, including the CC., Dave Tolen Julie Ann Woods John Worcester Nabil Ayoub[ Larry Green Sunny Vann Dear Members of the Board, We have been asked to comment on the Housing Staff recommendation to you that the Bavarian Inn should not be available for housing mitigation in connection with Savanah's development application, for Lots 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The following is an overview of our response and position on this matter. We would life to be begin by noting that this issue of whether the Bavarian Inn can be used as mitigation for the PUD came as a complete and total surprise to Savanah. The issue was raised for the first time at a Section i41 gearing in 1998 by a citizen. Prior to 19,98, Savanah had clearly understood that the Bavarian Inn housing would be available for use as employes housing mitigation for either Phase I (the Ritz -Carlton hotel) or Phase 11 (the Grand Aspen and Top of Mill sites) of the PUD. Jun-02-99 02:59P Savanah Ltd. 9709254387 P.03 Therefore, we have gone back and carefully researched official minutes of many meetings since 1989Jncluding: the negotiations with City Council on the wording of the 1990 ballot and numerous Aspen Mountain PUD Section M and aoncf.,]mpliancee hearings. We also looked at the 1990 campaign literature and other documents over the last nine years to help refresh our recollection of this critical issue. As indicated below in more detail, there is clear and consistent documentation over a number of years that both before the 1990 election and afterNards, the City and Savanah understood that the Bavarian Inn was not a part of the PUD, that any housing to be developed there was not required as mitigation for the Ritz -Carlton, and therefore housing at the Bavarian could be used as mitigation for any phase of the PUD, HISTORY OF BALLOT LANGUAGE: In 1988 the City approved Resolution 29 Mich amended the Aspen Mountain PUD) including the new Ritz-Carttori. In 1989, as a result of a law suit filed against the City and Savanah, the resolution was ruled invalid by the court and sent back to the City for further action. The Court said the City'saction must be taken by ordinance and not by resolution- Savanah and the City entered into extensive discussions about how such an ordinance might be approved. Contrary to Savanah's request, the City 0 Y Council decided not to simply adopt an ordinance themselves, but rather, to put the entire PUD amendment before the community in a referendum election, That election was held in February of 11990. The key meetings between the City and Savanah took place in December of 1989 and January of 1990. As a result of the negotiations two questions were placed on the ballot, one stating Savanahis proposal and the other, the City's. During the debate of how to word the ballot in those hearings, several critical points emerged that should be noted: 1. All references in both proposals in the ballot were to the "Amended Aspen Mountain PUY and not just to the Ritz -Carlton portions thereof. In other wards, the electorate was voting on the entire PUD, not just the Ritz, - 11 Jun-02-99 03:OOP Savanah Ltd. 9709254387 P.04 2. At no time did Savanah suggest, nor did the City require, that housing at the Bavarian would not be available far mitigation for all the PUD. 3. Savanah made it very clear on a number of occasions that with the Bavarian Inn, it was not offering more employee housing as mitigation for the Rite, but rather, something -pore than what was in the PUD. In fact, Savanah's attorney informed the Citj that if it wanted "more affordable housing [as mitigation], they should put it in their ballot question, riot the applicant's." The City did just that in the second part of its question where it states in relevant part " The applicant [Savanah] provide off -site housing for 106 additional employees,...' The City's question was defeated by the voters and thus, the issue of whether or not Savanah was required to provide additional employee housing mitigation for the Ritz, was resolved in Sayanah's favor. This clear decision on the employee housing was acknowledged by the City Staff and Council in several hearings after the 1990 election as noted below. CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS: A number of comments have been made about the meaning of campaign statements made by Savanah representatives during the later part of 1989 and during the election of 1990 and their impact on the Bavarian Inn mitigation issue. In reviewing all the materials we could find, we found no statements whatsoever that indicated Savanah had committed to use any Bavarian Inn housing for only the Ritz -Carlton. As noted above, prior to the City deciding to send the entire PUD to a vote, there was debate between the Council and Savanah Whether to merely adopt the new PUD through an ordinance or to hold an election. In the context of that debate, in December of 1989, Savanah suggested it would purchase the Bavarian inn and if the Council approved the ordinance, it would "convert it to deed restricted housing„ It is important to note that the proposal made to Council in relation to the Bavarian Inn in exchange for the Council adopting the ordinance , was not the same as that contained in the ballot language and thus Jun-02-99 03:00P Savanah Ltd. 9709254387 P.05 page is presented to the voters. In the fist instance, Savanah wanted to avoid an election and the risk it might loose_ Thus, it was willing to consider making the Bavarian Inn part of C-rdinance 69 if need be, but only on The condition that the City Council adapt the netity ordinance: Since the City refused to so ado9t the ordinance, Savanah did not include the potential hcusirg as mitigation in the PUD. lust the opposite occurred. When it became clear in the City Council meetings that the election was going to happen, Savanah was careful in its negot,ations with the City on the ballot language Ito make sure the Bavarian Inn offer was not new mitigation for the Ritz as noted above. Bather, Savanah was committing to purchase the free market lodge and with the City's cooperation, convert it to employee mousing with no restrictions on haw such housing might be used. During the election, this approach of Savanah obligating itself to a good faith application for affordable housing on the Bavarian Inn site was referred to often. For example, in one of its campaign brochures, Savanah stated that if the voters approved its ballot question "ute will process a land use application, and with council cooperation this land [Bavarian Inn] could provide new housing...". Mooting in the. campaign restricted Savanah's ability to use the Bavarian housing as rnitiga'ion for any phase of the PUD. SAVANAH'S GOOD FAITH OBLIGATION TO APPLY: A number of questions have been raised as to why Savanah did not apply earlier than 1998 for affordable housing at the Bavarian Inn. The . answer is that for Savanah to determine its portion of the questions as to Mat would be "suitable" employee housing at the site, two things had to happen. First, the audit of the Ritz -Carlton (Phase I of the PUD) had to take place to determine if any further housing wodId be needed for that hotel. Second, Savanah needed to have some general idea of what Phase 11 (the Grand Aspen Hotel and Top Of Mill sites) might generate by way of employee housing. The City clearly agreed with this time table as it applied to the Ritz as this was discussed in a number of Section M amendment hearings. In Jun-02."-99 03:OOP Savanah Ltd. 9709254387 P.06 page 5 1991 and 1992, specific reference in those hearing was made by City staff to the fact that Savanah was waiting for the 1995 audit before proceeding with the application. That status assessment was accepted by Council in bath years and no further action was requested. Five other Section %4 amendment hearings were held after 1992 and up to 1998. The status of the Bavarian inn was never raised as ar, outstanding issue as it was understood that it was not yet timely to expect an application. Savanah applied for the development yf the Grand Aspen Hotel site and the Top of Miii site in January of 1996. After, P&Z conceptual review of that application and seweral City Council hearings, those applications were amended and resubmitted on September 15, 1998. It was not until that time that Savanah could make an educated guess as to What affordable housing from Phase 11 of the PUD might be necessary and thus, a time table for the Bavarian Inn application was agreed to with the City. The application for the Bavarian employee housing was thus, also submitted on September 15, 1998. SECTION M AND NONCOMPLIANCE HEARINGS: Much has been said as to what was meant by the final ballot language and the various Savanah statements during the election. Certainly it was Savanah's understanding that we could use the Bavarian as mitigation for the entire PUD. We submit that the most instructive information on what the City understood about the Bavarian Inn as determined by the election to be various discussions of the election and the inn that took place in a number of City Council hearings in 1991 and 1992 concerning the Aspen Mountain PUD, Specifically, starting in June of 1990 and continuing through 1992, Savanah went through a number of City Council hearings in vyfiic.h the Bavarian Inn was reviewed and determined not to be part of the PUD and thus, not germane to any PUD amendments or compliance issues. Indeed, from 1990 until 1998 there were seven Section M amendments to the Aspen Mountain PUD. At any one of these hearings; the City could have attempted to include new conditions and requirements for the Bavarian Inn. That never happened since it Yves clearly understood that the Bavarian Jun-02-99 03: 01 P Sa-vanah Ltd- 9709254387 P.07 gave 6 Inn was not part of the PUD and submittal of the Bavarian application was awaiting further infcrmation as to the Ritz audit and Phase 11 employee needs. Several of the most relevant Section M hearings occurred in May of 1991 and again in October of 1992. At both of these semi judicial hearings, Savanah had the burden of proof to show that delays with the construction schedules in the PUD were beyond its control_ After reviewing all the facts, including the status of the Bavarian Inn, the amity Council in both cases agreed Savanah had rnet that burden of proof and granted the Section M amendments to the various constructiorn dates. Most relevant to the Bavarian Inn mitigation issue are several exchanges between members of the City Council, City staff and members of the public about that site. In 1991, several members of the public requested the Council include conditions about "the affordable housing commitments for the Bavarian Inn" as part of the Section M process. The then Mayor Sterling asked staff to respond to the various issues raised about the Bavarian. Staff said, "...the Bavarian Inn was never part of the PUS} agreement." Indeed, in the May, 1991 staff memo to Council for this meeting staff had said, "The provision of employee housing via the Bavarian -Inn is not legally tied to the Aspen Mountain PUD." In another section, staff went on to explain vwby there was no further employee housing at the Bavarian inn required as a result of the 1990 election, "Staff slated during the PUD that the housing was not sufficient: however, additional employee housing was not approved by the voters." This clear acknowledgment that the City's attempt to require additional - employee housing for the PUD was voted down is also reflected in the staff memo to Council for that May meeting where it stated, "At that time, [December, 1989] staff reviewed the employee housing mitigation being provided as part of the PUCE and recommended additional employee housing mitigation. Staffs recommendations were adapted by City Council but put before the voters and subsequently dented. Therefore, although staff continues to believe that the employee housing mitigation associated with this project is below that which could be required today, we feel this issue was settled last year." Jun-02-99 03:01P Sallanah Lt.d. 9709254387 P.08 gage 7 The. Council accepted this characterization of the PUD housing mitigation issue and took no further actions on the Bavarian Inn. When this definitive and uncontested result of the 1990 election is combined with Savanah's clear insistence during the ballot languagen drafting that if the City,w;� need more housing for the Ritz, they should put it in their ballot not Savanah's (see December,_ 1989 official City Council minutes noted above), there is no doubt vvhatsoever, that any housing built at the Bavarian Inn would not be required further mitigation for the Ritz (Phase I of the PUD) and thus, available for Savanah to use as mitigation for other parts of the PUD_ Likewise-- in October of 1992 at another semi judicial City Council hearing on construction schedules, a City Council member asked, "if there are currently any plans for the development of the Bavarian Inn." Savanah's representative responded by noting, "It is available for the audit, which is to be done at the second anniversary of the Issuance of the C/O.' This response was accepted and the Council passed Savanah's requested Section M amendment with no conditions about the Bavarian Inn. At all the other Section loll hearings after 1992, the Bavarian Inn was never discussed since its irrelevance to any aspect of the PUD, including the employee housing mitigation requirements, had been well established in the 1991 and 1992 hearings_ CONCLUSION - For all the above reasons, Savanah believes very strongly that the minutes of the history of drafting the -1990 ballot language, the campaign statements and the results of the 1990 election, and particularly the consistent official minutes of various semi judicial $ection M amendment heari ngs by the City Council in 1991, 1992 and since, establish that the potential Savarian Inn housing was never intended to nor was it understood to be tied to only the Ritz -Carlton portion of the PULL Rather, Savanah's offer of the Bavarian Inn, was for affordable housing, which with the cooperation of the City and neighbors, could be built and used as mitigation for the entire PUD. MAY - ie , ga 09 : 28AM ASPEN --►O SING CYC P . 3 To: Hou=' g Office Board of Direrztors From: Dare Tol. , Exem-uth e I�irW,,or Re: aspen Mountain PUD Date: 14, May, 1 "Q Sums : I iscassion of the housilm a -eaEon for phrase II of the Amen N.Mountaia PUD was continued until tonight's meeting. At issue zs the =c nt of =ploy=ent that will be generated by the proposed hotel at the site of the grand Aspeo- Basis in the PIM Agreement forAssessment: As described in the application, dLe .Amended and Restated Aspen Mountain PTJD Agreement, approved by fit/ Council in 1990 and subsecluerdy approved by the voters of Aspen, provided far the approval of three out of five componews of the development, These were the Ritz Motel and the Sena and Summit Place residential units. The amended PUD Agrc=cnt also provided fcr future submittal of an application for the last two components at the top of NM Street and at the alte of t. c wand Aspen Hotel (also called Lot 5). Paragraph EA of the amended PTJD Agreement contaiias the language related to the employee Housing requirement for Lot 5. In that paragraph, the owner acknowledges a potential obligation to provide afFordable housing for net nw employees and other .employee kousing requiremena ors may be deiarmimd 40n ,,Q the mended approval process (emphasis added). It is the applicant's position that housing must be provided on the same basis as was required in Phwe I of the PUD. Since Phase I required that housing be provided far 60% of the employees generated by the Hotel component, the appU=t has proposed to house 60% of the employees generated by the Hotel component ofPhwe II. The applicant also asserts that the term "other ampkrjae housing requiremer& as may be determined during the zzmended approval procass- is meant to encompass only a potential obligation for the residential component of lot 5. (See pages 19- 0 of application). It is staffs position that a reasonable assessrn.ent of the employment impact of the proposed hotel should be consistent with the approach that was used when the development was originally approved in 1985, and consistent with the rationale for subsequent review cif those fVres. The fokwing summarizes the history of thzt approach. MAY le '99 08: 29AM ASFEN (DOSING P. 4 Review of Housing Aasessment for Aspen Mountain PUD: The odgin4 Aspen Mountain PUD Agreement was approved and signed in 1985. This docL=ent [aid out the approach to housing mitigation for all cumpouents of the project, including that for Lot 5. Thko project was anvisioried to consist of two phases, and affordable housing mitigation t. A was assessed for both at that time. Housing for I "Otal of 195 =PIOYeas Was to be provided Lbmugh ttha -fbUov-v*: L Deed restriction of 43 ursts at the Alpina. Haus, for 46 employ m. 2. Deed restriction of 14 units it the Copper horse, for 43 employees 3, Construction of 22' units at Ute CitIf Place, for 31employ-es 4. A $230,000 interest ate ]can to Hunter Lon'cuse, far 69employees In 198 87 Savannah applied for amendments to the ?T-T). Among the requests was a proposal to reduce the amount of -Wmployee acneration attributable to the Ritz Carlton Hotel. Spmiflcally, the applicant proposed a reduction in the employment generation attributable to the restaurant and bar component of the hotel. They made this proposal on the basis of a staffing plan provided by the amrator ol'Ritz Carlton hotels elsewhere. The proposal by the applicant would have reduced net employee generation from 'the bar/restauram± component from 155.4 to 68.9 employees, a reduction of 86.5 =plcryees. This proposal was discussed by the Housing Board on March 31, 1988. Ile Board recommended that the original generation factor be used, and that if a future audit of employment showed fewer employees, the applicant would get credit for the additional housing provided. In fact, the au&L performed in 1995 after two years of operation disclosed that employment generation exceeded rien the factors used by the Housing Office in the 1988 dimnsion, by approximately 14%. lbe approach to housing mitigation discussed above was incorporated into the amended and Restated PUID Agreement; azd that agce:ne= laid out the housing obl gation for Phase I of the project, including the Ritz Carhcn Hotel, Housing was to be prcvrided for 161.5 employees, consistent -,;,Ath the amount to be provided under the original PUD agreement for Phase T. The housing provided for Phase I under the amended agreeinent was the =ounl originally calculatod to be sufEcient for Phase I and Phase 11. The developer &geed to proVIda this higher amount of housing as an inducement to the City to approve the amended PTJD agreement. The amended PTJD agmement prodded for an audit of employment after two -years of hotel operation. As mentioned above, the actual employment exceeded. project additional housing provided n an inducement to a Cad to exrr nt the Ci ploy=nt by about 14"N, The addl- to approve the amended agreement was largely needed to meet the actual impact of additio;aal employment resulting from Phase I of the project. rOJ MAY 19 ' Sa- e = 29Ahi ASPEN HOUSING CIFG Present Prapos2l to Reduce Mitigation: The current application for a Phase II hued at the site of the grand Aspen mAes a similar request to reduce the =ployee generation impact of the hotel, bar and restaurant. The proposal is made, again, on the basis Of a staffing plan provided by the applicant. The applicant makes the addi6anal argument that the proposed Phase II hotel zs not a l=ry hotel comparable to the Ritz Cancen, but a moderately priced upscale hotel and that reduced staffing is appropriate for this lid of facility, The two facilities can be compared as follows. Rim Carlton blase U Hotel Rooms 301 cmcluding in suites) I1� Resmurant/Bar 11,600 square feet 5,950 square feet The proposed hotel, the:4 contains half of the number of rooms and half of the restaurant/bar space as the Rita Carlton. In detertxuturi.g the appropxiate employment generation, staff has considered the following Mors: 9 The proposed.Phase 11 hotel is located adjacent to the Phase I hotel, in similar prox' ity to the sid area facilities and downtown Aspen. * The proposed Phase 11 hotel is newt $rid is apparently of similar visual appeal as the Phase I hoteL The past six years have shown that, within existing space, service levels and service sector employment has.incrcascd substanti&Uy. Based on these. factors, it is &.chit fox staff to reasonably conclude that service levels for -the phase I[ hotel vAU be substantially less than originaUy estimated in the PUD, or that they would be substantially less than a comparably located hotel with comparable facilities. If the proposed hotel ,ere consistent in location =d configuration to a armll ledge with no restaurant facilities and few facilities for guest services, a reduction in employment generation might be appropriate, - Recommendation: Staff' Mains its recommendation of the o ' ' memorandum dated. f, 19 tosess bbusiug mitigation one basis of the axiSm al factors from the 1985 PID agreernerxt, increased by the amcunt that anal employment exceeded projected employment in Phase I of the PID. That original memorandum is attached. MAY le ' S9 08 . 0AM ASFE_N HOUSING, --')F(1 M Z M 0 R A X D U X FROM : J_LM A.DAY-SXI, SGUSTNC DIRECTOR DATE —, ' _ZBRUARY 24, 1388 1 RE1112 W GP RITZ-CALRLTOU ASPEN CMR A= PUD ;LXENNZMZ4 This rev-.ew is of an application submitted by Badid 'Oeveldpment Compans,as (the "applicant") requesting G► P and PUD amendments to the Aspen Mountain PUD (the "a;aendmeny") with respect to the Ritz -Carlton Soto1 (the "project) . The amendment is to the December 2, 15$7 men t/itLbdJvisi_cz A rt'eement ,s+pen .ouzo aim Sul divis �on (the "agreement") . One elemert of the amendment is a 'hange in the factor used to calculate employee generation of the food and beverage portion of the Ritz -Carlton Betel. The amendment decreases the factor that the employee 'generation element of the agreement was based upon. The agreement used a factor of 12.8 employees per 1,0000 s .f. for its bases, the amendment's generation figures are based on 5.1 employees per 1,,099 s.f. The Housing Authority disagrees with this change. The factor of 12.8 employees per 1,000 s.f. for the food and beverage operation was 'previously agreed to based on the logic that the project wag not a typical free --standing bar or restaur- ant, brit rather a very high quality food and beverage operation a:5 part of overall hotel complex that demanded a high Zee *1 of service and therefore a high number of service workers. At that time there were nc? employee guidelines for this type of operation and to establish a guideline the consultant for the project, in cci labo;ration fvith the Housing Authority staff r surveyed similar hotel, ope _ ations and mutually agreed upon a factor of 1.2 •8 ,employees per 1,000 s .f . The appl, cant of this -amendment has submitted inforzation requesting a generation factor of 5.1 employees per 1,000 s ..f. The justiticat-Jon for the factor of 5.1 is a "Food and Bevarage Staffing GW.ide" produced by the applicant's hotel operator, the, Ritz -Carlton Hotel Company. � The applicant further states that this factor fall$ within the Housing Authority f 5 current guide- lines far Commercial -- Restaurant/Bar and that the 'Housing Authority should adhere to their guidelines. l MAY ie ' 99 oS : 3QAM ASFEN_ HOUSING OFC P. r The present Amployee, housing guidelines do establish a range of 5.0 to 10 .0 employees per 1, 000 s . f . f o = Commercial - Restate r3nt- Ba; , however t�-Ie Sousing Authority reviewed the amendmeant under the Cc=ercia.l - other category, This category is used when the project is -of such a special nature that it doesn't appropriately lead itself to any standard or -typical category. T,qe Sousing Authority does not believe this project is a typical restaurant /bar operation, but .rather one that is `special in nature and deserving of a special review. Therefore, as illustrated in fable I the Sousing Authority reviews the amendment as having a shortfal.i cf a5.5 employees. we contiriue to aupport the factor of 12.8 on the bases of the research cone for the ariginal, application an on pLior approved comparable projects, such as, Little Nee 's Eotal. TABLE I roOD/BEVERAGE EMPLOYEE GENERATION ANALYSIS SQUA,RF ITEM FEET --------------- AMENDMENT ----------- TOTAL FOOD/BEV . 2.5 r 2 4 0 EXIST Fo+oD/BEST. 5 ,, o o z NZT NEW FCoD/BSV. 20t240 EMPS./1000 S.F. 259 511. 114.9 (1) NET NEW EMPS . 6 0 q; 601 amp % EMP S . H01USED 155.4 68+9 (2) BMPS. BOUSED <86.5> DIFFERENCE NOTE 1& 2. As per page 107 of the amendment 3. 20 r240 S.T. of Foo4/Baverage operations would generate, as per the 1987 Employee Gui dellAPs r 131.2 to 202.4 employees. At M of generation the range world be 60.72 to 121.44 employees. The amendment presents a generation Jewel of 68.9 employees. Another element that .modifies the employee housing component of the agreement is the method by which the applicant proposes tO meet its employee generation. subsequent to the agreement the applicant last the Ute City Place as One of its employee housing. sites. This site was to house 37 moderate income employees. The amendment request that. the applicant be allowed to offset this lose and additional generation by many options, including cash - in -lieu. The Eousing Authority and the applicant have agreed to work together to provide the additional housing needed by the applicant and/or if elected by . the applicant to accept tie aash- i.n-lieu 3 One last commeri4 concerning the projec=, specifically the construction stage and the issue of housing construction workers. The Hcus ing Au ch : o i ty was corice; ned about the mpact o, t:-1ese workers on the community's affordable housing We questioned t1he applicant- on this iSSUa . The applicant br-in outlined a plan for housing construction wcrke.rs that ap^ea ed acceptable to the ECUSing Authority but the Authority recognizes it has not dil:'�t r? '7 ¢W CO�.zt��. over this, matter. Conditions of approval by the Housing Authority-, I . The app? ican:. uses an employee gene : aticn factor ,f 12.8 employees per 1000 s,f, for the .Food and Beverage sec:menc o_ the amendment. Currently the Food and Bevrerage square footage is estimated to be 20,240 for an employee rene,atiof: of 259 emp? ogees {2g,243/1000 x's 12.8) and a rasul IC-1-ag empl vyee housing of -155.3 employees at the 601 commitment level verses the amendment's proposal to douse 68.9 emp. The difference between the Sousing Authority's and the applicant's cal cul ations is 86.5 additional em1pldyees to be housed. 2, The applica.ryt has the opportunity to submjt to the Housing Authority after two years of full operation o the Ritz - Carlton sotel an audited accounting of employees. The audit shall be performed by a third party auditor mutually agreed upon by the Housing Au�hori�y and the ap-'clicant. if at that time the hotel. operation inci tiding the Food and Beverage opes;a,ti,on does not generate the emp.loyeos as calcullate by the grousing Authority the applicant would be c red i. ted for the difference and allowed to use the credits on another project or may to sell the credit to other applicants in accordance with the Employee Gu i dellne s t? ez irx effect. i 3. That the applicant be allowed to Offset the Iose of the Ute City Puce for employee housing and any additional ganer- at ion by the use of the cash -in -lieu Option. However the Housing XiAth,ority and the applicant will arork on other alternatives to the cash-in-li,au in the applioAnts gziorit, les of: 1. cons -,"ruction Oaf new ur_i is , 2. participate with 8ousiag Authority in development of alternative housing, such as, dormitory, 3. Cooperate with M.A.A. to provide housing for summer and seasonal worriers 4.. _ . purchase of existing .units. 4. The applicant's employee .generation and housing commitments for the other Components of the amendment., excluding the Food and Beverage operations, are accepted' es submitted. 3 MAY 18 '99 0e:31AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P. 9 AS APPROVED BY HOUSING AUTHORITY ITEM PEME I PHASE II TOTAL A. ASPEN MCUNDT:AZIN 1. L 0 0 G -21 0 P L,:,A T 10 N lodge roams 264 113 1-bd= zuites 26 44 2-bd= suites 4 a Total Bedrooms 294 162* liviong =a. 9 154 7 _.0 Total Rooms 301 -it. 7 2j Employees per room ..36 jj_6 Total M=PloVeaS 108.4 62.2 Existing ROOms 120 .153 Employees Per roam :20 J.:r -,20 To tad. Credit 24 '31 Not New =Tloyees 84.4 31.2 CXP Employees Housed --60 .. 9 0 1 Employees Housed 50.6 :4:!, 18.7 2. ACCESSOR Y FOOD/BEVERAGE food/ba-verage 8200 5000 Kitchen 3400 Total 11600 6800 Employees per 1000 S.e. 12.6 Total Zmploycc$ 143.5 87 5100 Employees per 1000 S.f. 0 9. -Q Total Employees 44..1 45.9 Net NSW Employees 1104.4 41.1 GXP Employees Hausod 6 Q -t Employees Hbvsed 62.5 24.7 3. ACCESSORY R=-T.A=L Total Retail 2300 462- Employees per 1000 a.f. 1.5 3. 5" Total Employees 1.6 Existing 'Retail 7©0 0 Employees par 1000 S.f, 315 = Total loyees 2.5 0 Net New Employees S"S 1.6 GIMP 1"Imployeas Housed 0 3.4 1. EOTEL SUBTOTAZZ 44.4 382 70 -A 43,6 474 -3-6 170.6 275 113 . G* 15 9:034 69.4 13200 -1�2 0 a 184©© .11.8 23-5.5 10000 9. a so 143.5 6 a -0b. 8'7.:3 2762 t.3 �J� 9.7 700 -3-1 2.5 7.2 4.4- 161.1 • MAY 19 'S9 OB: 31AM -ASPEN HOUSING OF.: AS APPROVED 5Y HOUSING AUTHORITY 3/31/98 Page 2 pmks-2 :1 PRAM II TOTAL B. NCN-ACCESSCRY COMMERCIAL GNP 0 4 4 C. RESIDENTIAL GMP 1. 700 South Galena 8.7 a 8.7 2. Ritz Carlton 9.3 0 9.8 D. Replacement Hauling 29.0 a 29.0 GROSS EXPLOYEES HOUSED 164.1 48.4 *NOTE., This was M Unit court under the approved PUD. Th a mamimum number of units which can be rebuilt in Phase Xx is 155 - If the number of actual bedrooms approved in Phase It is less the applicant slaould be credited accordingly. 00 MAY 18 '89 08: 31AM ASF`Ehl HOB USING QFC P.11 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing lard FROM: Cindy Phristansen, Office Manager THRU: Dave Tolen, Executive Director DATE: May 5, 1999 Fzr..Aspen Nlcunt2in SSubdivilsiordF C, Lots 3 (Top of Mill) & 5 (Grand Aspen site) Parcel 10 No, 2 37-7-85-0011003 LOQ : The appli=nt is requesting a =nceptual planned unit develcpment approval for the development of 13 free market rwidential dwelling knits can Lot 3 and a 150-unit hotel on Lot 5. The applicant is also requesting a lodge growth management quota system allocation, subdivision approval, a rezoning, special review, a text amendment, and a GMQS exemption, The issues that concern staff revolve around the mitigation calc:ulaUcns and the types of units being proposed for affordable housing. BACK -G& NC: Lot 51 Hgtel litiaat�r ; The previous application for Lot 5 was to consist of a hotel with 24 rooms and 37 residential units. The applicant Is now proposing to rebuild a 150 rcom hotel on Lot 5. The applicant has estimated amplayee hotming requirements of 27.1 riot employees, while staffs calcuiaticm show a higher 67,9 employee housing requirement. Applicant's Staffs Dalculakns Cslculafons Motel Operations 2.7 7 Restaurant and Bar 17,9 Grand Aspen Replacement Housing Ju 27.1 The hotel and restaurant mitigation is based on the net increase in empioyrner:t. The appf=nt used are ernpicyment of .31 employees per lodge room. Employment for the new 4odge In the original appitmilon was calculated at ,36 ernpioyees per mom, Savannah's mernomnaurn -sugg+ests that the proposed Wal will require a tourer service level than the Fitz, therefore, fewer employees, Staff =nnQt determine what mffigatlon should be regained due to a specific service level, therefore, a ocnse=tive calculation has been made with what is seen today. During the Ritz audit, sfaff'found that actual errpfcyment exceeded prc ected employment by about 14%; therefore, sty used the .41 (36 X 14%) employees per lodge racm and 14.6 ernployees11,000 square feet (12.6 X 14%) for Food and Beverages to calculate mitigation. This would argue for a higher, ganeraticn factor than thq one proposed. This is further broken down in Exhibit "K. -The MAY 18 ' 99 08 32APrl HSr f i {c�l_I�-1 �-1 - P.IE other differanc es revolve around what was in the original proposal and what is in to proposal submitted on March 1, 1999. Staff suggests using an employee generation factor consistentwith empicyrnent at the Ritz.. This results in .a higher number of employees for the proposed hotel. A di; ;g to stafrs ca1=1lations, the applicant is short by 40. a employees. The applicant is also prapcsirg to house only 12 employees an site, with the rest being housed off site. However, the policy of the Housing Board is to first provide housing on -site, The deed restricted units proposed, on -sine for the hotel are to Consist of 4 studio units and 4 1-bedroom units, The applicant has not shown any reasoning for not providing ,more on -site housing. The applicant is proposing to Mitigate the additional empicyees by using the Bavarian inn. Staff also recomrrends denial of losing the Bavarian Inn for mitigation for this project, as the Bavarian Inn was tc be provided as part cf tine original approval for the =nstructfon of the Ritz. The original Plea ,agreement contained nc requirements with respect to Lot a, as the T4op of Mill project was still undergoing review at the time the Agreement was approved, Ordinance 1 and the Housing and Replacement Program were not in effect at the time. The applicant states that the 13 free market units to be developed an Lot 3 are exempt from the growth management quota system as they were derived from the FUD s remaining 39 residential reconstrucion =e0s, The City and Staff, however, has interpratad that the applicant must comply with Ordinanaa I and the blousing Replacement Program. There were 25 muAi-family bedrooms that were demolished. Therefore, the applicant must rNtigate for 50% of those bedrooms, or 12.5 bedrooms. The Housing Replacement Program also sUpula#es that 50% of the demolished square footage must also k e replaced. The square footage was rrocre difficult to calculate as there was no record of the square footage that was derolished. The applicant has proposed using the m nirnurn square footage for Category 1 and 2 as stated in the Guidelines. The following type of units were demo shed, Min. Sq, Ft. Stated AMAWnt iXpe of !1nit i v^Uidelinps 12 Studio units 400 Sq. Ft.1t.lni't 4,300 .11 it-Sedrcom Units 8CO Sq. Ft./Unit 5,�0 1 2-Bedroom unit '354 Sq, Ft./Unit i 2,250 They are proposing a replacement of 13 bedrooms, to contaln approximately 5,200 square feet The free mar�et units are to consist of the Wowing' 6 4-bedreom townhomes 1 4-Sedroom Duplex 5 5-beds Single-family homes (also ►o contain a=sscry dwelling units) N MAY 18 ' S9 78 = 33AM ASP01 HOUSING OP - P . 13 The deed restricted units are to ecnsist of: 2 Duplexes - 3 3-bedracrns and 1 4-bekroorn 1 threerccm Category Z 2 three-taadrecros Category 3 1 four- roar Catec gcry 4 This amounts to 13 free market units and 4 deed restricted unity =nsisting of 57 bedrooms T`cr �e free market and 13 deed restricted bedrooms (22% of the bedrooms are deed restricted). However, if the pircposai is accepted using the minimum square footage from the Guidelines, fan the applicant has Wiled his obligation dy providing 13 bedrooms at aopmAmately 6,200 square feet. The applicant proposes that all four deed restricted units will be sold pursuant to applicable APCHA Guidelines. The six accessory dwelling units will be deed restricted pursuant to applicable regulations in effect at the tune cf issuance of building permits for their asWdated frQe market residence, Currently, the accessory dwelling unit policy is being reviewed. Should this policy change, _any Iunits that have not received prior building permit approval will be under the new accessory dwelling unit restrictions. Staff recommends the 5 aard approve the mitigation requirements of for the dotal. The applicant proposes to house only 12 employees on --site, leaving 55.9 employeea to be housed oft - site. Where has been no reason shown to not provide more on -site housing, therefore, more on - Me housing should to provided, The approval to deed restrict the units to Category 2 meets with the approval of staff. Any other off site housing shall be approved by the Housing Office and in no way should the Bavarian Inn be used far this mitigation, Regarding te "for -sale" units, the categories and sues of the units meet the priortas of ,the Housing Board and, therefore, atafi' mcom sends approval of these units. Staff also recommends that if the assory dwelling unit policy changes and building permits have not been putted for any cf the units rewiring an a ssort' dwelling unit, that the restriction in affect at the time of building permit approval be enforced. 3 MAY 04 199 10:37AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.5 EXHIBIT "A" The table below details the differences between the Housing O ice's and the applicant's calculations. Phase 11 Housing Proposed Office Lodge Operations New Lodge Roams 150 150 New 1 Bedroom Suites - Now 2 Bedroom Suites - - Total Bedrooms 150 150 Total Rooms 150 150 Employees per bedroom .31 .41 Employee Generation +46.5 61,5 Existing Lodge Rooms 150 150 Employees per Room .28 .26' Employee Credit 42.0 39.0 Net Now Employees 4.5 22.5 GMP Employees Housed 80% 60% Employees to be Housed - 2.7 13.5 Accessory Food and $everage - } New Restaurant Sq. Ft. (Net) 2,750 2,750 New Lounge Sq. Ft. (Net) 800 Boo New Kitchen Sq. Ft, (Net) -2,40Q a Subtotal -; 5,950 51930 Employees per 1,000 sq. l`t. 5.0 Employee Generation Y� - 36.7 8e.8 Existing F5B and Kitchen Sq, Ft. (Net) 5,430 .5,430 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.06 1.3' Employee Credit 5.B 7.1 Net New Employees 29.9 79.8 GMP Employees Housed 60% 80% . Employees to be Housed 17.9 47.9 Total Lodge/Commercial Generation 82.2 148.3 Total Lodge/Commercial Credits 47.8 46.1 Net Lodge/Commercial Generation 34.4 102.3 Lodge/Commercial Mitigation @ 60% 20.6 61.4 Grand Aspen Replacemont Housing 6.5 6.5 TOTAL EMPLOYEE MITIGATION 27.1 67.9 Difference 40.8 +Numbers from the original PUD application. "Number from the original PUD application X 14%. 4 6. Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) �1 t �&a, being or representing an Jr p g Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the /day of ' , 199� ff(which isdays prior to the public hearing date of 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from�`` /�1 the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day of Jett , 199 , to the /'S- day of q�_ , 199. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) signed before me this A 99. by �E S. K6 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIALS �i4T'L 1 .moo. My Commission expires: G eu � C* cotio�P Not NMI 7 MY COMSSM EXPiKS 3.2"2 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD/SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW FOR LOTS 3 (TOP OF MILL) AND 5 (GRAND ASPEN SITE) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held'on Tuesday, June 15, 1999, at a meeting to begin at 5:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership, requesting Conceptual PUD approval to develop Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) as follows: • 150 Hotel Units (132 Standard Rooms and 18 Suites); . • Housing for 12 Employees (Four 1-bedroom units, and Four studios); • 8,000 square feet of meeting space; • 2,750 square feet of restaurant space; • 800 square feet of bar space; • 2,400 square feet of kitchen space; • 500 square feet of accessory commercial space; • Customary lobby and support space; and, • 106 below -grade parking spaces. Their request also seeks Conceptual PUD approval to develop Lot 3 (Top of Mill) as follows: • Parcel 1: Two triplexes (6 dwelling units) on 51,680 square feet of land; • Parcel 2: Two duplexes (4 affordable housing units) on 26,520 square feet of land; • Parcel 3: One duplex (2 dwelling units) on 14,260 square feet of land; • Parcel 4: One single-family dwelling unit on 13,290 square feet of land; • Parcel 5: One single-family dwelling unit on 10,370 square feet of land; • Parcel 6: One single-family dwelling unit on 10,380 square feet of land; • Parcel 7: One single-family dwelling unit on 18,920 square feet of land; • Parcel 8: One single-family dwelling unit on 18,390 square feet of land; • Open Space Parcel A: 28,740 square feet including road (net open space 10.030 square feet); • Open Space Parcel B: 50,230 square feet of land The property is legally described as Lots 3 & 5, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD; and is referred to as the Top of Mill site and the Grand Aspen Hotel site, respectively. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095 or by email at mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blanch, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 29, 1999 City of Aspen Account g:/planning/aspen/notices/AMPUDp&z.doc EXHIBIT 5 1VEIGAND N R WARGASKI BOB FELNER AYLEENE J s^ MARKET ST 30353 N DOWELL RD 840 SHERIDAN RD ` TA, KS 67202 MCHENRY, IL 60050 GLENCOE, IL 60022 ERICKSON CLAIRE L AND WHEELER CONNIE CHRISTINE NARDI STEPHEN J ERICKSON BETTY LOU MC CALLION GERARD 1100 MADISON ST 1231 INDUSTRIAL RD PO BOX 400 ULLSIDE, IL 60162 HUDSON, WI 54016 RED HOOK, NY 12571 �OVETT WELLS T HICKS LESLIE KWEI THOMAS AND AMY LOVETT MARY M PO BOX 8225 700 MONARCH UNIT 306 18 STONE CRK PK ASPEN, CO 81612 700 S MONARCH ST 7WENSBORO, KY 42303 ASPEN, CO 81611-1854 GARDEN SHEILA HEMMETER GEORGE MEAD ANDERSON BRUCE J 8111 CAMINITO MALLORCA 4587 COACHMAN CIR 700 S MONARCH n207 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 ASPEN, CO 81611-1854 HEMMETER GEORGE MEAD MD CHLOWITZ ALLAN D HILLMAN RICHARD HAYES I587 COACHMAN CIR 1740 BRAODWAY #604 2665 MAIN ST #260 LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109-2414 SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 MEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE '�IEHRA RAMESH J DECLARATION OF HALL THOMAS L TRUST U/T/A PETROVICH NICK D PETROVICH ROSA DEL CARMEN 'RUST 12835 PEMBROKE CIR FERNANDEZ 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR LEAWOOD, KS 66209 600 E MAIN ST ASPEN CLASSIC NAPERVILLE, IL 60565 ASPEN, CO 81611 1MAURER ALEF CORPORATION DEAN PHILLIPS INC MICHAEL S & JANE K A LIBERIAN CORPORATION TOWN AND COUNTRY BANK -10585 N MERIDIAN STE 101 PO BOX 3333 524 N 30TH ST INDIANAPOLIS IN 46290 ' ASPEN, CO 81612 QUINCY, IL 62301 MEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE SALITERMAN LARRY FULTS JERRY D MEHRA RAMESH J DECLARATION OF 650 S MONARCH UNIT 7 9400 NCX 5TH FLOOR TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75231 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR NAPERVILLE, IL 60565 MCELWE BRIAN ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PITKIN COUNTY =C/O VALLEY FORGE INVEST PO BOX 1248 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 120 S WARNER RD ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 AJAX MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES LTD JFG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Y OF ASPEN A COLORADO LIMITED A COLORADO LIMITED 130 S GALENA ST PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1709 44125 EAST HWY 82 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 t4 DURANT-GALENA CO PO BOX 1709 ASPEN, CO 81612 KRAJIAN RON N 2700 NEWPORT BLVD #222 `NEWPORT, CA 92663 BRIGHT CONDOS A LOUISIANA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 300 PLAZA ONE SHELL SQUARE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70139 MORGRIDGE JOHN D & CARRIE A TRUSTEES OF MORGRIDGE REVOCABLE TRUST 368 WILLOUGHBY WY PO BOX 3279 ASPEN, CO 81612 COLORADO RESORT PROPERTY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 10218 ELLA LEE LN 'HOUSTON, TX 77042 AATJE VALDA u J MR JOE RACZALE NORTH OF NELL 555 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 ZEFF ELEANOR E ZEFF ROBERT H 555 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BOURQUARD RICHARD E O'SHAUGHNESSY JANE A 2492 E TERRARIDGE DR HIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80126 DAVIDSON STUART C DAVIDSON SALLY F 3415 VOLTA PLACE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ' ,LY CONSTRUCTION INC 'W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES INC 333 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CRA WFORD JACK B CRA WFORD DON PO BOX U3 ASPEN, CO 81612 KRAJIAN RONALD N 617 E COOPER AVE # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRIGHT EDGAR A G JR 300 PLAZA ONE SHELL SQUARE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70139 BRIGHT CONDOS KRAJIAN RONALD N LOUISIANA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 617 E COOPER AVE #114 12301 N GRANT ST # 130 ASPEN, CO 81611 THORTON, CO 80241 KRAJIAN RON N A J GREGG REALTY LTD 2700 NEWPORT BLVD #222 C/O GREGG DAN NEWPORT, CA 92663 14646 RIVER GLENN NOVELTY, OH 44072 WOODS RICHARD R TRUST BAKER HUGH LEE JR C/O BOATMENS TRUST CO CASEY NANAH B PO BOX 14633 555 E DURANT AVE STE 2K ST LOUIS, MO 63178 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRIST CHRISTIAN & LOTTI BICKERS E E PO BOX 2943 BICKERS DOROTHY ASPEN, CO 81612 555 E DURANT ST ASPEN, CO 81611 KUYFAR & CO BURGESS HUBERT & JO ANNE A PARTNERSHIP LIVING TRUST 2609 SPRING GROVE TERR 7138 MEADOWCREEK DR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80901 DALLAS, TX 75240-2715 CHABAY MARION PUCHY SHIRLEY CHABAY ILAN PO BOX 6382 1532 PELICAN POINT DR STE 141 PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 SARASOTA, FL 34231 AUSTRALIA, COLONY RAYMOND F & ANITA L DALY CONSTRUCTION INC 631 VIA DE SUENOS 520 W HALLAM ST GREEN VALLEY, AZ 85614 ASPEN, CO 81611 LARSON KARL G DALY CONSTRUCTION INC LARSON M MADELEINE 520 W HALLAM ST 201 N MILL ST STE 109 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALY THOMAS J DALY THOMAS J DALY THOMAS J DALY JUDITH J DALY JUDITH J DALY JUDITH J 520 W HALLAM ST 520 W HALLAM ST 520 W HALLAM ST CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALY THOMAS J DALY THOMAS J DALY THOMAS J DALY JUDITH J DALY JUDITH J DALY JUDITH J 520 W HALLAM ST 520 W HALLAM ST 520 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WEINGLASS LEONARD SALTON MARY BEAN ROBERT B TO BOX 11509 221 VALLEY RD HILLTOP RD WILSON POINT ASPEN, CO 81612 ITHACA, NY 14850 NORWALK, CT 06854 KUYFAR & CO PEDERSON JOSEPH G FRAZIER JAMES M & RUBY JANE A PARTNERSHIP BASTIL DEAN D 1330 W GIACONDA WY 2609 SPRING GROVE TERR 10500 W SILVER SPRING DR TUCSON, AZ 85704 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 MILWAUKEE, WI 53225 GARRITANO THOMAS A GUSSEL JOHN THOMAS GROSSE EDWIN J & ADELINE M BO 41-1144 PO BOX 447 23049 FARMINGTON RD HICAGO, IL 60641 WISCONSIN DELLS, WI 53965 FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48336 'IRO EUGENE B DURWARD SUSAN & QUENTIN GOODWIN WILLIAM N JnAPIRO MARLENE R 1383 FOX RIDGE TR 604 LOCUST ST STE 212 5 REVERE DR STE 405 SIOUX CITY, IA 51104 DES MOINES, IA 50309 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 HYMAN BARBARA L 150 BRADLEY PL #405 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 GORDON DAVID F -GORDON LETICIA B _4101 QUAIL PARK DR WEST DES MOINES, IA 50265 NAYLOR IRVIN S RD #9 YORK, PA 17402 RESNICK ARTHUR DONN 70% SNICK EDITH L 30% 55 SOUTHFIELD RD STE 108 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 KOVAL BARBARA TRUST KIRSCHENBAUM DAVID TRUSTEE KOVAL BARBARA AS TRUSTEE C/O NORTH OF NELL 555 E DURANT C/O NORTH OF NELL CONDOMINIUMS ASPEN, CO 81611 555 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CARELLA RICHARD J & JOAN 418 MILL CREEK RD GLADWYNE, PA 19035 OWEN RICHARD W 11200 LUXMANOR RD ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 SADA ROGELIO C NORTH OF NELL CONDO C/O 555 E DURANT #3M ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTH OF NELL CONDO ASSOC 555 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAPIRO EUGENE B & MARLENE R PEARLMAN SUSAN & SHAPIRO SHERWIN GREG STEVEN C/O 2992 SHADOW CRK DR #M302 555 E DURANT #2-I BOULDER, CO 80303 ASPEN, CO 81611 G WEATHERBY LIVING TRUST PHILLIPS STEVEN J WITZ EUGENE C/O WEATHERBY 5300 WOODLAND AVE NORTH OF NELL CONDO ASSOC C/O 825 REEF RD DES MOINES, IA 50312 555 EAST DURANT 7 BEACH, FL 32963 ASPEN, CO 81611 DRAKE NANCY W HERSHORN PETER GRENKO PROPERTIES LTD C/O GLAUBERMAN 555 E DURANT AVE PO BOX 1120 9 E 40TH ST - 7TH FLOOR ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 NEW YORK, NY 10016-0402 i COOPER JOHN A ASPEN SKIING COMPANY FAULKNER MARY I 1801 FOREST HILLS BLVD PO BOX 1248 PO BOX 147 BELLA VISTA, AR 72714 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 FAULKNER JOHN L FAULKNER MARY I FAULKNER MARY I PO BOX 147 PO BOX 147 PO BOX 147 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 FAULKNER MARY I FAULKNER MARY I FAULKNER MARY I PO BOX 147 PO BOX 147 PO BOX 147 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 .JLKNER JOHN L FAULKNER JOHN L FAULKNER JOHN R PO BOX 147 PO BOX 147 PO BOX 250601 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 FRANKLIN, MI 48025 WILLIAMS JOHN C FAULKNER JOHN L FAULKNER JOHN L C/O ACCOUNTING OFFICE PO BOX 147 PO BOX 147 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SASSAFRAS IMMO INC NOREN LARA L & STEPHEN C WILSON ROBERT S PATTERSON WILLIAM R C/O 10927 BRIGANTINE DR WILSON MARJORIE A 999 PEACHTREE ST NE #2300 INDIANAPOLISIN 46256-9544 747 S GALENA STE 6-C ATLANTA, GA 30309-3996 , ASPEN, CO 81611 STOLTZ WAGNER AND BROWN DICKIE DR E GORDON TICONDEROGA COMPANY A TEXAS PARTNERSHIP -C/O REAL 747 S GALENA ST #D-6 3108 COVINGTON LAKE DR ESTATE TAX ASPEN, CO 81611 FT WAYNE, IN 46804 PO BOX 771 ABILENE, TX 79604 DURANT CONDOMINIUM SUNSHINE PARTNERS '7RMANOW IRVING ASSOCIATION A PARTNERSHIP TOBEY WOODS EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT 14 PO BOX II 1TTSFOR.D, NY 14534 747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 747 S GALENA ST ,' -N, CO 81612 WERNER JOSEPH G TRUST AGREEMENT 9555 LADUE RD ST LOUIS, MO 63124-1339 TRUST A UNDER THE WILL OF JACK SIMMONS SUSAN K P HUNT 31381 MONTERREY ST HUNT JAMES S JR C/O 1700 NW 97 TERR S LAGUNA, CA 92677 CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071 GURTNER THOMAS & NANCY CO TRUSTEES j 747 S GALENA j vASPEN, CO 81611 BATHE JOHN C AND FERN P 1/2 MADDRELL BEVERLY J .1/2 2819 17TH ST PL MOLINE, IL 61265 MOORE PHILIP B & KATHLEEN 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ESTABROOKS JEFFREY & PATRICIA AN UNDIVIDED 87% INTEREST AND 37 EMERALD BAY LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 TULIPANI FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 2895 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94912 MILLER TANYA B 2445 W GULF DR SANIBEL ISLAND, FL 33957 FRIEDMAN KARL 4030 S HUDSON WY ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 SAX DONALD C PO BOX 12351 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOWNES VICTOR A TALLICHET DAVID C JR TRUSTEE 1/2 TOBEY ROBERT W C/O ASPEN LODGING CO TALLICHET CECILIA A UND 1/2 TOBEY PATRICIA A 747 GALENA STREET (DURANT 3-D) 4155 EAST LA PALMA AVE 41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR ASPEN, CO 81611-1871 ANAHEIM, CA 92807 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-7113 MORE DEBORAH J �v CHARLES T BRANDY BAUER RACHAEL ANN COLORADO NATIONAL 521 E COOPER ST BANK BLDG 420 E MAIN ST STE 204 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WATKINS DAN H TRUSTEE 931 36TH ST MOLINE, IL 61265 FALENDER STEVEN M 712 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MEYERS NEIL S C/O RESORT WORLD 2800 N POINCIANA KISSIMMEE, FL 34746 LIVINGSTON DAVID MYRIAD INVESTMENTS INC 1003 PARCHEMENT DR S E GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49506 PASQUINELLI MARY ANN HAMPTON R M FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM # 10 1701 N HOBART 747 S GALENA ST - PAMPA, TX 79065 ASPEN, CO 81611 TULIPANI RUDY L TRUST MCKEAG DONNA PO BOX 2895 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94912-2895 VANMETER STEPHEN W & SHARON H 1352 BAY AVE ALAMEDA, CA 94501 ROSE EDWARD D & JULIE 1/2 INT 1001 MIDWEST CLUB OAKBROOK, IL 60521 LIEBEL CRAIG E 324 E 4TH ST CINCINNATI, OH 45202 -"NKLE ARTHUR A & AMELIA RIDOUT WAYNE E & ROBBYE L CASTELLANO WILLIAM A & MARY B CASUARINA CONCOURSE 35 COUNTRY CLUB CIR 1001 MIDWEST CLUB -ORAL GABLES, FL 33143 SEARCY, AR 72143 OAK BROOK, IL 60501 ALLERS BEN E OLSEN MARSHALL G & SUSAN A CASTELLANO WILLIAM A & MARY B 5505 WESTWOOD DR 2030 N SEDGWICK #P 10001 MIDWEST CLUB )ES MOINES, IA 50312-2014 CHICAGO, IL 60614 OAKBROOK, IL 60521 ANDERSON BRIAN & JULIE PASQUINELLI SALLIE S FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM RAMYEAD VISHNU & TEIKA 42 HIGHLAND AVE 747 S GALENA ST #9 6161 WOODLAND VIEW DR MONMOUTH BEACH, NJ 07750 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM DEGEL ROBERT H TAVEL MORTON & CAROL 4SSOC INC 706 DANISH DR 1139 FREDERICK DR S 747 S GALENA ST GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75050 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260 ASPEN, CO 81611 MATTESON SCOT & KIMBERLY A MILLER LELAND L MILLER LELAND L 19 CLEARMONT 4909 S ALBION ST 4909 S ALBION ST E WPORT COAST, CA 92657 LITTLETON, CO 80121 LITTLETON, CO 80121 LONG GODFREY M JR GIANULIAS JAMES C LONG CHRISTOPHER M & WARNER B THURBON ROBERT W JR 1105 QUAIL ST 5207 CHAPS CT 1034 ST PAUL RD NEW PORT BEACH, CA 92660 COLUMBUS, OH 43221 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 . MAN PASCAL & LINDA ENGLISH SHARON A MILLER LELAND L 275 KINGS POINT RD #4D-E FALKENSTEIN WILLIAM 4909 S ALBION ST KINGS POINT, NY 11024-1012 6 ST ANDREWS CT LITTLETON, CO 80121 FRISCO, TX 75034 ROLF ROBERT WILLIAM MILLER LELAND L MILLER LELAND L 5-20 SW YAMHILL ROOF STE #4 4909 S ALBION ST 4909 S ALBION ST PORTLAND, OR 97204 LITTLETON, CO 80121 LITTLETON, CO 80121 CAMPDERA ANTONIO J QUIRK FRANK E TRUSTEE MONTGOMERY M MEAD & ANNE M 5934 ROYAL LN STE 214 500 FIRST NATIONAL TOWER 945 OLD GREEN BAY RD DALLAS, TX 75230 AKRON, OH 44308 WINNEKTA, IL 60093 PATRICK GARY R & PATRICIA A RHOADES CHRISTINE ANN LYON GARBER HARRY 537 MARKET ST STE 202 LIVING TRUST 76 MULBERRY AVE CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402 644 GRIFFITH WY GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 MARSH JAMES W & BEVERLY M MILLER LELAND L MCGORMAN MICHAEL & HELEN JOINT TENANTS 4909 S ALBION ST PO BOX 215 TROPICAL CIR LITTLETON, CO 80121 BALGOWLAH AUSTRALIA, 2093 SARASOTA, FL 34242 t MIDDELBERG MARIA B M & M INVESTMENTS WATSON MARCIA J DBA MODETTE MAYER CHARLES C/O PO BOX 150 PURCHASE ST 206 HIGHLAND DR 4SpEN, CO 8 81612 RYE, NY 10583 STERLING, CO 80751 BROOKS MURRAY J REVOCABLE MOLITOR RONALD A & JOAN A PLATTS JOHANNA E TRUST 8696 SWAN 740 FLAGSTAFF RD 850 GEORGIA AVE KALAMAZOO, MI 49009 BOULDER, CO 80302 WINTER PARK, FL 32789 KRIBS KAREN REVOCABLE LIVING HOLMAN CARL REYBURN JR I MILLER BECKY BC TRUST TRUSTEE U/A 200-06 CROSS ISLAND PKWY 2170 MCKELVEY RD 3 LORENZO LN BAYSIDE, NY 11360 i i MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO 63043 ST LOUIS, MO 63124 GAME GEORGE J M & M INVESTMENTS FLYNN MICHAEL T GAME PATRICIA E MAYER CHARLES C/O GOOCH WILLIAM A 5009 EXCELSIOR BLVD 206 HIGHLAND DR 2021 1ST AVE #TG MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 STERLING, CO 80751 SEATTLE, WA 98121 DART ELIZABETH RODWELL BRADFORD JEAN S BAER THOMAS H 747 GALENA ST ALPENBLICK B 10 150 RACE ST 150 CLAYTON AVE .ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206 ERIE, PA 16509 -PARTNERS W K PARTNERS BRONSON PHYLLIS 172 LONG NECK POINT 172 LONG NECK POINT PO BOX 11389 DARIEN, CT 06820 DARIEN, CT 06820 ASPEN, CO 81612 PATTERSON L S & F E TRUST 60% SLT ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC BE SCHNEIDER C A PATTERSON 40% JACOBS RY G C/O STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS 580 CEMETERY LN 700 SAN RNARDO TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 LAREDO, TX 78040 2231 E CAMELBACK RD STE 410 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LOFLAND DAVID WESLEY ASPEN MTN LOT 5 ICE RINK PO BOX 1327 1925 CENTURY PARK E STE 1900 1925 CENTURY PARK E STE 1900 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 BATMALE MARK HANSEN BRUCE G LEFROCK JACK L PO BOX 9345 2020 S ONEIDA ST #210 LEFROCK BARBARA S ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80224 2650 BAHIA VISTA ST SARASOTA, FL 34239 HANSEN BRUCE MILLER DON E JACOBI ATHOLE G MD MONGE REMAX PROPERTY 300 MERCER ST APT 3 1 H SUTTON TERRACE #308 .EMT NEW YORK, NY 10003 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 450 S GALENA ST STE 202A ASPEN, CO 81611-1857 cIANSEN BRUCE G KEEFER OLIVE C/O ?020 S ONEIDA ST STE 210 "'ER, CO 80224 rRIPP PAUL 231 MARGARET ST 'BEY WEST, FL 33040 OLD RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY PO BOX 13150 PHOENIX, AZ 85002 NILES LAURENCE E & LILY Y 1172 BIENVENIDA AVE PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 SCHIMBERG HENRY A AND LINDA LANSBURGH LEONARD & MARIAN-- AS JOINT TEN 50% INT COCA -COLA ENTERPRISES C/O ZIMAND ARTHUR & SHERRY--50% 2500 WINDY RIDGE PKWY # 1401 INT ATLANTA, GA 30339 4131 COUNTY RD 103 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 TAUBER REAL ESTATE LLC lEARST BARBARA B & PETER S MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY 3 I TREASURE HILL COMPANY SOUTH KENT, CT 06785 27777 FRANKLIN RD STE 1850 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 I j MANDELBAUM MERVYN & EANETTE TRUSTEES AANDELBAUM DANIELLE & I JACQUELINE 1735 SOUTH SANTA FE AVE OS ANGELES, CA 90021 I MCGINNIS HAROLD C & DOROTHEA N TRUST 'O BOX 2217 MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO 63043-1017 H CHARLES R C iu KATHY VINTE VOGHEL 8488 MEISNER --ASCO, MI 48064 4ENN PRESTON B & BETTY D 501 W SUNRISE BLVD FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33311 MONKARSH JERROLD D & JOYCE TRUSTEES 9061 SANTA MONICA BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90069 KIRLIN DONALD W 25% INT PO BOX 3097 QUINCY, IL 62305 SOLOMON GARY L 952 FISCHER LN WINNETKA, IL 60093 YARBOROUGH JULIA K LIVING TRUST 1329 LUSITANA ST STE 602 HONOLULU, HI 96813 ANDERMAN GEORGE G & JOAN E KETTLE CORPORATION 13'3% PO BOX 8080 365 S JOSEPHINE ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80209 KIRIANOFF T GREGORY & PATRICIA 2664 HUTTON DR BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 GONDEK CHARLENE ANN PO BOX H ASPEN, CO 81612 PLANNING DESIGN RESEARCH INC SUSIE MC LANEY C/O 2156 TARPON ROAD NAPLES, FL 34102-1553 LEVITUS STEPHEN I LEVITUS PERRI A 7205 SHANNON DR EDINA, MN 55439 JACOBY ENTERRPRISES INC WYOMING CORPORATION I I I CENTER ST STE 2500 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 KELLY C A 9820 SAGAMOR RD SN4WNEE MISSION, KS 66206 WARGASKI BOB 30353 N DOWELL RD MCHENRY, IL 60050 ERICKSON CLAIRE L AND ERICKSON BETTY LOU 1231 INDUSTRIAL RD HUDSON, WI 54016 HICKS LESLIE PO BOX 8225 ASPEN, CO 81612 HEMMETER GEORGE MEAD 4587 COACHMAN CIR LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 >OWITZ ALLAN D 1740 BRAODWAY #604 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109-2414 HALL THOMAS L TRUST U/T/A 12835 PEMBROKE CIR LEAWOOD, KS 66209 AWREY HOWARD B PO BOX 248 ASPEN, CO 81612 SALITERMAN LARRY 650 S MONARCH UNIT 7 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCELWE BRIAN VALLEY. FORGE INVEST ,.J S WARNER RD KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY WEIGAND N R PO BOX 1248 150 N MARKET ST ASPEN, CO 81612 WICHITA, KS 67202 FELNER AYLEENE J NARDI STEPHEN J 840 SHERIDAN RD 4100 MADISON ST GLENCOE, IL 60022 HILLSIDE, IL 60162 WHEELER CONNIE CHRISTINE LOVETT WELLS T MC CALLION GERARD LOVETT MARY M PO BOX 400 18 STONE CRK PK RED HOOK, NY 12571 OWENSBORO, KY 42303 KWEI THOMAS AND AMY HARDEN SHEILA 700 MONARCH UNIT 306 8111 CAMINITO MALLORCA 700 S MONARCH ST LA JOLLA, CA 92037 ASPEN, CO 81611-1854 ANDERSON BRUCE J HEMMETER GEORGE MEAD MD 700 S MONARCH #207 4587 COACHMAN CIR ASPEN, CO 81611-1854 LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 MEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE HILLMAN RICHARD HAYES MEHRA RAMESH J DECLARATION OF 2665 MAIN ST #260 TRUST SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR NAPERVILLE, IL 60565 PETROVICH NICK D PETROVICH ROSA DEL CARMEN MAURER MICHAEL S & JANE K FERNANDEZ 10585 N MERIDIAN STE 101 600 E MAIN ST ASPEN CLASSIC INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46290 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALEF CORPORATION DEAN PHILLIPS INC A LIBERIAN CORPORATION TOWN AND COUNTRY BANK PO BOX 3333 524 N 30TH ST ASPEN, CO 81612 QUINCY, IL 62301 MEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE FULTS JERRY D MEHRA RAMESH J DECLARATION OF 9400 NCX 5TH FLOOR TRUST DALLAS, TX 75231 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR NAPERVILLE, IL 60565 STRAWBRIDGE GEORGE JR CLARK ROBERT 3801 KENNETT PKE BLDG #B-100 701 S MONARCH ST #2 WILMINGTON, DE 19807 ASPEN, CO 81611 STRINGER DAVID G & VIRGINIA S 1100 ALAKEA ST STE 200 HONOLULU, HI 96813 LEVIN BARTON J AND NANCY M 701 S MONARCH ST #6 ASPEN, CO 81611 %MOORE J014N W il MOORE ISABEL D I CITY CENTRE ST LOUIS, MO 63102 S C JOHNSON AND SON INC TAX DEPT 012 1525 HOWE ST RACINE, WI 53403 SPEYER LESTER D ASPEN PERS RES TRUST TENNSCO CORPORATION C/O PO BOX 1888 DICKSON, TN 37056-1888 LIBERTY -ASPEN PROPERTIES COMPANY LLC 725 BATTERY ST 27TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY EAMES ADDITION BLK 10 LOT 1-14 PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROOKS JOAN ELIZABETH 330 TYNEBROOK LN HOUSTON, TX 77024 SCHAINUCK LEWIS I SCHAINUCK MICHELLE T 5750 DOWNEY AVE STE 206 LAKEWOOD, CA 90712-1468 BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LIMITED PARNTERSHIP 1206 N WALTON BLVD BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 .NE FAMILY LLC S C JOHNSON AND SON INC 8677 LOGO 7 CT TAX DEPT 012 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46219-1430 1525 HOWE ST RACINE, WI 53403 EAST JAMES COLLIER TRUSTEE OF THE SIMON HERBERT EAST JAMES COLLIER REVOCABLE 8765 PINE RIDGE DR TRUST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46206 5800 R ST LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 ELDER TRUST CHIATE KENNETH R ELDER JERRY TRUSTEE CHIATE JEANNETTE PO BOX 308 20628 ROCKCROFT LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308 MALIBU, CA 90265 O NEILL ROGER C/O ACME WILE CORPORATION 2480 GREENLEAF AVE ELK GROVE, IL 60001 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 FRIEDKIN THOMAS H 7701 WILSHIRE PL STE 600 HOUSTON, TX 77040 SANCHEZ MARIA J SANCHEZ AR JR PO BOX 2986 LAREDO, TX 78044 BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LIMITED PARNTERSHIP 1206 N WALTON BLVD BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 SANCHEZ A R JR PO BOX 2986 LAREDO, TX 78041 BUSH STEVEN S 740 WESTLAKE DR ATHENS, GA 30606 ELDER TRUST ELDER JERRY TRUSTEE PO BOX 308 LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308 KUNTZ HAL G & VESTA L LEWIS PERRY J TRUST ASPEN SKIING COMPANY C/O G L K. CORP C/O MORGAN LEWIS GITHENS & AHN PO BOX 1248 1001 FANNIN ST #1400 2 GREENWICH PLAZA ASPEN, CO 81612 HOUSTON, TX 77002 GREENWICH, CT 06830 HORSEHEAD INC WILLIAMS JOHN C 'SASSAFRAS IMMO INC BROOKE PETERSON KAUFMAN & C/O ACCOUNTING OFFICE PATTERSON WILLIAM R C/O ,TERSON 747 S GALENA ST 999 PEACHTREE ST NE #2300 3 15 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30309-3996 ASPEN, CO 81611 I a I NOREN LARA L & STEPHEN C 10927 BRIGANTINE DR INMANAPOLIS, IN 46256-9544 i I C TICONDEROGA COMPANY 3108 COVINGTON LAKE DR FT WAYNE, IN 46804 DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT 14 -747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 WERNER JOSEPH G TRUST AGREEMENT 9555 LADUE RD ST LOUIS, MO 63124-1339 SIMMONS SUSAN K 31381 MONTERREY ST S LAGUNA, CA 92677 . _ : JRE PHILIP B & KATHLEEN 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WILSON ROBERT S WILSON MARJORIE A 747 S GALENA STE 6-C ASPEN, CO 81611 STOLTZ WAGNER AND BROWN A TEXAS PARTNERSHIP -C/O REAL ESTATE TAX PO BOX 771 ABILENE, TX 79604 SUNSHINE PARTNERS A PARTNERSHIP PO BOX II ASPEN, CO 81612 TULIPANI FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 2895 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94912 MILLER TANYA B 2445 W GULF DR SANIBEL ISLAND, FL 33957 FRIEDMAN KARL 4030 S HUDSON WY ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 ESTABROOKS JEFFREY & PATRICIA SAX DONALD C AN UNDIVIDED 87% INTEREST AND PO BOX 12351 37 EMERALD BAY ASPEN, CO 81612 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 TALLICHET DAVID C JR TRUSTEE 1/2 TOBEY ROBERT W TALLICHET CECILIA A UND 1/2 TOBEY PATRICIA A '4155 EAST LA PALMA AVE 41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR ANAHEIM, CA 92807 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-7113 BAUER RACHAEL ANN 521 E COOPER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MEYERS NEIL S RESORT WORLD j0 N POINCIANA KISSIMMEE, FL 34746 TULIPANI RUDY L TRUST MCKEAG DONNA PO BOX 2895 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94912-2895 VANMETER STEPHEN W & SHARON H 1352 BAY AVE ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DICKIE DR E GORDON 747 S GALENA ST #D-6 ASPEN, CO 81611 GERMANOW IRVING 13 TOBEY WOODS PITTSFORD, NY 14534 DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 TRUST A UNDER THE WILL OF JACK P HUNT HUNT JAMES S JR C/O 1700 NW 97 TERR CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071 GURTNER THOMAS & NANCY CO TRUSTEES 747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 RATHE JOHN C AND FERN P 1/2 MADDRELL BEVERLY J 1/2 2819 17TH ST PL MOLINE, IL 61265 LOWNES VICTOR A C/O ASPEN LODGING CO 747 GALENA STREET (DURANT 3-D) ASPEN, CO 81611-1871 WETMORE DEBORAH J C/O CHARLES T BRANDT COLORADO NATIONAL BANK BLDG 420 E MAIN ST STE 204 ASPEN, CO 81611 WATKINS DAN H TRUSTEE 931 36TH ST MOLINE, IL 61265 COLE CONSTANCE P 1647 E MAPLEWOOD AVE LITTLETON, CO 80121 i a �M FINKLE ARTHUR A & AMELIA MARBLE IRREVOCABLE TRUST BENNETT WOOD INTERESTS LTD 2655 LE JEUNE RD PENTHOUSE #1 PO BOX 7912 PO DRAWER 1011 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 E ASPEN, CO 81612 REFUGIO, TX 78377 BITTER JOHN A JR MURCHISON ANNE A POWERS WILLIAM AMES TRUST 1/2 J A BITTER & ASSOCIATES p0 BOX 8968 INT 5800 BROADWAY # 110 ASPEN, CO 81612 544 S PENNSYLVANIA SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 DENVER, CO 80209 ZUBROD MATTHEW S TRUST FLAGSTAD DANIEL G & MARY J BURRES KENNETH P ZUBROD M S & GABRIELLE L•J - 715 SCRANTON AVE 9204 ALMOND TRUSTEES LAKE BLUFF, IL 60044 ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 PO BOX 12011 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHILDS EVELYN CLAYCOMB J BARRY & MARMONT LOIS 0 0284 COUNTY RD 102 GRIGSBY GEORGE T JR C/O COBURN B CARBONDALE, CO 81623 PO BOX 145 3355 SOLOMAN LN HOLLY SPRINGS, NC 27540 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 SHAW GEORGE G VELMAR A COLORADO CORP WEEKS WILLIAM H 101 HIGH ST C/O GRUPO DE MAR S A D E C V JOHNSON-WEEKS FAMILY OFFICE DENVER, CO 80218 747 S GALENA #F 204 22 GRIGG ST ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWICH, CT 06830 KHAUS ROBERT L EDGAR ROBERT G HAGER FRANCES u ECKHAUS ROSE MARY SCHERER ROBERT P JR C/O ASPEN LODGING CO MGT 338 RAMSEY ST 167 COUNTRY CLUB DR 747 GALENA ST SULLIVAN, MO 63080 GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-2901 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLASS WALTER M LLOYD ASSOCIATES TRACY JOLLYN DEE C/O MGI CORP, DAVID LLOYD ASSOC LTD PO BOX 272 . 231 S JEFFERSON ST 4TH FL 12 LEYS RD OXSHOTT PINEHURST, NC 28370-0272 CHICAGO, IL 60661 SURREY ENGLAND KT220QE; HIBBERD LORNA W FAMILY TRUST LEASURE BRIAN J RUSK GERALD W PARTNERSHIP LTD RUSK KATHY J JT TENANTS PINE ISLAND PO BOX 2463 98 LUCHSINGER RD RYE, NY 10580 ASPEN, CO 81612 PORT CLINTON, OH 43452 DUBBS DAVID CRAIG 62.5% GARDNER CHARLES L FALCK ALEXANDER D III & WILLA P DUBBS JACK H 18.75%DUBBS GARDNER RITA WALSH 627 COLEMAN AVE GLORIA 18.75% 840 LOCUST AVE ELMIRA, NY 14903 2165 OCEAN BLVD WINNETKA, IL 60093 BALBOA, CA 92661 T,EILER DOUGLAS W GHANEM MICHAEL PATRICK GARY R. & PATRICIA A BOX 10220 2551 SPANISH RIVER RD 537 MARKET ST STE 202 SPEN, CO 81612 BOCA RATON, FL 33432 CHATTANOOGA, TN MEHRA RAMESH MALHORTA VINAY & KUSUM 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR ' T.RVILLE, IL 60565 WHITE EDWARD A FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP 5786 ECHO CANYON CIR PHOENIX, AZ 85018 WELCH PATRICK T & DEBORAH P FREEDMAN MICHAEL & NANCI ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING CO C/O WOLF V GARWOOD 32460 EVERGREEN 747 S GALENA ST BEVERLY HILLS, MI 48025 ASPEN, CO 81611 -ROSE EDWARD D & JULIE 1/2 INT '1001 MIDWEST CLUB OAKBROOK, IL 60521 -LIEBEL CRAIG E 324 E 4TH ST CINCINNATI, OH 45202 CASTELLANO WILLIAM A & MARY B 1001 MIDWEST CLUB OAK BROOK, IL 60501 REARDON GENE F & DIANA PO BOX XX ASPEN, CO 81612 PILKINGTON ALAN R. & CAROLYN C 229 E LAKE SHORE DR CHICAGO, IL 60611 PASQUINELLI MARY ANN HAMPTON R M FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM #10 1701 N HOBART 747 S GALENA ST PAMPA, TX 79065 ASPEN, CO 81611 FINKLE ARTHUR A & AMELIA 315 CASUARINA CONCOURSE CORAL GABLES, FL 33143 ALLERS BEN E 5505 WESTWOOD DR DES MOINES, IA 50312-2014 _'3TELLANO WILLIAM A & MARY B ANDERSON BRIAN & JULIE 10001 MIDWEST CLUB 42 HIGHLAND AVE OAKBROOK, IL 60521 MONMOUTH BEACH, NJ 07750 RAMYEAD VISHNU & TEIKA 6161 WOODLAND VIEW DR WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 TAVEL MORTON & CAROL 1139 FREDERICK DR S INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260 MILLER LELAND L 4909 S ALBION ST LITTLETON, CO 80121 FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC INC 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MATTESON SCOT & KIMBERLY A 19 CLEARMONT NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 LONG GODFREY M JR THURBON ROBERT W JR 1034 ST PAUL RD CINCINNATI, OH 45202 RIDOUT WAYNE E & ROBBYE L 35 COUNTRY CLUB CIR SEARCY, AR 72143 OLSEN MARSHALL G & SUSAN A 2030 N SEDGWICK #P CHICAGO, IL 60614 PASQUINELLI SALLIE S FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM 747 S GALENA ST #9 ASPEN, CO 81611 DEGEL ROBERT H 706 DANISH DR GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75050 MILLER LELAND L 4909 S ALBION ST LITTLETON, CO 80121 GIANULIAS JAMES C 1105 QUAIL ST NEW PORT BEACH, CA 92660 LNG CHRISTOPHER M & WARNER B BESMAN PASCAL & LINDA ENGLISH SHARON A )7 CHAPS CT 275 KINGS POINT RD #4D-E FALKENSTEIN WILLIAM OLUMBUS, OH 43221 KINGS POINT, NY 11024-1012 6 STA CT FRISCO, TTX X 7505034 MILLER LELAND L ROLF ROBERT WILLIAM MILLER LELAND L 4909 S ALBION ST 520 SW YAMHILL ROOF STE #4 4909 S ALBION ST LI'rTL.ETON, CO 80121 PORTLAND, OR 97204 LITTLETON, CO 80121 MILLER LELAND L CAMPDERA ANTONIO J QUIRK FRANK E TRUSTEE 4909 S ALBION ST 5934 ROYAL LN STE 214 500 FIRST NATIONAL TOWER 'LITTLETON, CO 80121 DALLAS, TX 75230 AKRON, OH 44308 MONTGOMERY M MEAD & ANNE M PATRCCK GARY R & PATRICIA A RHOADES CHRISTINE ANN LYON LIVING TRUST 945 OLD GREEN BAY RD 57 MARKET ST STE 202 3 __ WINNEKTA, IL 60093 CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402 LAGUNAGRIFFITH LABEACH,CA 92651 GARBER HARRY MARSH JAMES W & BEVERLY M MILLER LELAND L '76 MULBERRY AVE AS JOINT TENANTS 4909 S ALBION ST GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 815 TROPICAL CIR LITTLETON, CO 80121 SARASOTA, FL 34242 MIDDELBERG MARIA B MCGORMAN MICHAEL & HELEN WATSON MARCIA J DBA MODETTE PO BOX 215 PO BOX 3412 150 PURCHASE ST BALGOWLAH AUSTRALIA, 2093 ASPEN, CO 81612 RYE, NY 10583 M INVESTMENTS BROOKS MURRAY J REVOCABLE MOLITOR RONALD A & JOAN A MAYER CHARLES C/O TRUST 8696 SWAN 206 HIGHLAND DR 850 GEORGIA AVE KALAMAZOO, MI 49009 STERLING, CO 80751 WINTER PARK, FL 32789 KRIBS KAREN REVOCABLE LIVING "PLATYS JOHANNA E MILLER BECKY BC TRUST 740 FLAGSTAFF RD 200-06 CROSS ISLAND PKWY 2170 MCKELVEY RD BOULDER, CO 80302 BAYSIDE, NY 11360 MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO 63043 HOLMAN CARL REYBURN JR GAME GEORGE J M & M INVESTMENTS TRUSTEE U/A GAME PATRICIA E MAYER CHARLES C/O - 3 LORENZO LN 5009 EXCELSIOR BLVD 206 HIGHLAND DR ST LOUIS, MO 63124 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 STERLING, CO 80751 FLYNN MICHAEL T DART ELIZABETH RODWELL BRADFORD JEAN S GOOCH WILLIAM A 747 GALENA ST ALPENBLICK B 10 150 RACE ST 2021 1 ST AVE #TG ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206 SEATTLE, WA 98121 '\ER THOMAS H W K PARTNERS W K PARTNERS a CLAYTON AVE 172 LONG NECK POINT 172 LONG NECK POINT AIE, PA 16509 DARIEN, CT 06820 DARIEN, CT 06820 5LT ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CITY OF ASPEN C/O STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS 1925 CENTURY PARK E STE 1900 130 S GALENA ST TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 ASPEN CO 81611 Z"" ' ' CAMELBACK RD STE 410 ' IIX, AZ 85016 LOFLAND DAVID WESLEY BATMALE MARK HANSEN BRUCE G PO BOX 1327 PO BOX 9345 2020 S ONEIDA ST #210 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80224 LEFROCK JACK L HANSEN BRUCE MILLER DON E LEFROCK BARBARA S ED MONGE REMAX PROPERTY 300 MERCER ST APT 3 1 H 2650 BAHIA VISTA ST MGMT NEW YORK, NY 10003 -SARASOTA, FL 34239 450 S GALENA ST STE 202A ASPEN, CO 81611-1857 HANSEN BRUCE G OLD RELIANCE INSURANCE -IACOBI ATHOLE G MD KEEFER OLIVE C/O COMPANY BUTTON TERRACE #308 2020 S ONEIDA ST STE 210 PO BOX 13150 'BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 DENVER, CO 80224 PHOENIX, AZ 85002 SCHIMBERG HENRY A AND LINDA NILES LAURENCE E & LILY Y TRIPP PAUL AS JOINT TEN 1172 BIENVENIDA AVE 231 MARGARET ST COCA -COLA ENTERPRISES C/O .PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 KEY WEST, FL 33040 2500 WINDY RIDGE PKWY #1401 ATLANTA, GA 30339 ;BURGH LEONARD & MARIAN-- TAUBER REAL ESTATE LLC D. o INT HEARST BARBARA B & PETER S MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY ZIMAND ARTHUR & SHERRY--50% TREASURE HILL COMPANY NT SOUTH KENT, CT 06785 27777 FRANKLIN RD STE 1850 4131 COUNTY RD 103 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 MCGINNIS HAROLD C & DOROTHEA KIRLIN DONALD W 25% INT PLANNING DESIGN RESEARCH INC N TRUST PO BOX 3097 PO BOX SUSIE MC LANEY C/O PO BOX 2217 IL 62305 2156 TARPON ROAD -MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO 63043-1017 , NAPLES, FL 34102-1553 .SMITH CHARLES R SOLOMON GARY L LEVITUS STEPHEN I .C/O KATHY VINTE VOGHEL 952 FISCHER LN LEVITUS PERRI A 8488 MEISNER V'JINNETKA, IL 60093 7205 SHANNON DR CASCO, MI 48064 EDINA, MN 55439