HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20010306AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, March 6, 2001
4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF
4:30 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Public
II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
III. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING
A. TRUSCOTT LIGHTING PLAN, (continued from 2/6), Chris Bendon
Aif'i�ou� -�
B. SNEAKY LANE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, Nick Lelack
A'PP PvvB3> �S --o
IV PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
A. BAVARIAN FINAL PUD (continued to 3/20), Joyce Ohlson
C& IJ-ry> Tl, '�42ti1vj
B. ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONCEP PUD, LOTS 3 & 59
Julie Ann Woods (2pj� I�
V. ADJOURN
A-
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
RE: Truscott Lighting Plan
DATE: March 6, 2001
SUMMARY:
The approvals for the Truscott Affordable Housing and Aspen Golf and Tennis Club
included a provision that a revised lighting plan be approved by the P&Z. The project
is highly visible within the entrance to town and the original plan was significantly
flawed. The lighting plan has been resubmitted and is far superior to the original
proposal.
The Commission initiated review of this lighting plan on February 6, 2001, and
requested more detailed information from the applicant. More detailed information
has been provided the detail sheets have been marked to describe each option. The
heights, wattages, and fixture shades all meet the requirements of the City's lighting
code and staff is recommending approval.
The fixture indicators relate to the plan submitted for the February 61h meeting. For
reference the following indicators relates to the following locations:
PF 1 Pedestrian bollard — used for internal pathways and is the primary lighting for
the housing portion of the project
PM 1 Intersection Light — Two used to light new intersection. Technically, this is
CDOT jurisdiction, but the proposed lights are lower (better) than the existing
lights.
PM2 Parking Lot Pole — six used to light joint parking lot.
P M 3 Pedestrian Pole — used for internal streets. One used at end of internal street on
east end of housing section.
RF 1 Wall mounted light — Used for lighting underpass. Fixture is fluch with wall
and louvers downcast the light.
Lee Novak, APCHA Project Manager, will attend the meeting and will be thoroughly
knowledgeable in all aspects of the Truscott Lighting Plan.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution 01-_,
approving the Truscott Lighting Plan.
BACKGROUND:
As suggested by staff and the Commission, the residential areas are lit with bollard
lighting, with the exception of one 12'-9" pole mounted light at the end of the
"internal street." Lighting within the project entrance has been modified to consist of
six (6) lights mounted on 12'-9" poles. Lighting in the parking lot has been
minimized and consists of six (6) lights mounted on 22-foot poles (measured at full
extent). The fixtures on these poles are proposed at 19'-5" which is below the twenty
foot maximum in the lighting Ordinance. Two lights at 35 feet above grade will be
mounted on the intersection signal poles. These are shorter than the two existing
lights at the intersection.
In comparison to the previous plan, this revised plan has only a few bollards on the
golf course side of the project and those are expected to be shielded by berming and
not visible form the Cemetery Lane neighborhood. In comparison to a similar large
parking lot lighting in the region, this plan provides a lighting level lower than the
Brush Creek Intercept lot. CDOT is not required to conform to local regulations and
there is no lighting plan on file to compare with the proposed Truscott plan.
According to Pitkin County planners, however, the Brush Creek lighting is
substantially more intense than Pitkin County would have allowed. (The Pitkin
County Lighting Code is very similar to the City's.)
The Colorado Mountain College (at North Forty) parking lot lighting was reviewed
under the Pitkin County Lighting Standards and provides an amount of light similar
to the Truscott proposal.
APPLICANT:
City of Aspen and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
LOCATION:
Aspen Municipal Golf Course, State Highway 82.
LAND USE:
Affordable Housing, Golf/Tennis/Nordic Clubhouse and pro -shop, tennis facilities,
accessory uses.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The City Council approved this project pursuant to Ordinance 34, Series of 2000.
The approval required a subsequent approval of a revised lighting plan by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The re -review of the lighting plan by the Commission was incorporated into the
Ordinance approving the Truscott PUD. Typically, lighting plans are reviewed
administratively. The Ordinance did not require a public hearing.
2
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." The lighting
plan and fixture detail sheets have been included as Exhibit "B."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission approve the proposed lighting plan for Truscott.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Resolution 01- Of*, approving the Truscott Affordable Housing and
Aspen Golf and Tennis Club PUD Lighting Plan."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Application Materials
N
Exhibit A
Truscott Lighting Plan
STAFF COMMENTS:
Lighting. (From PUD regulations)
The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted
in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic
concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference
of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. sighting of site features, structures,
and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding:
The proposed lighting plan does not represent a hazard upon adjoining streets or lands. The
lighting is appropriate for the various areas within the Truscott PUD. Residential areas are
lit with low bollard lighting and the access ways are lit with pedestrian pole mounted lighting.
The parking lot is lit with the minimum necessary for safety and is proposed on poles meeting
the height limitations of the lighting Ordinance.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting
of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding:
The proposed lighting plan meets all of the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Standards
of the Land Use Code. There is no proposed up -lighting or other similar lighting that would
cause inordinate attention to the site. The lighting on the golf course side of the project has
been limited to low bollard lighting where necessary for pedestrian access ways.
Staff Comments Page 1
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING OF THE ASPEN GOLF AND TENNIS CLUBITRUSCOTT
HOUSING OUTDOOR LIGHTING PLAN, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
PARCEL NOS. 2735-111-09-702 & 2735-111-09-001
Resolution #01- �
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from the City of Aspen and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, applicant, for an
Outdoor Lighting Plan for the Truscott Affordable Housing and Aspen Golf and Tennis
Club PUD (the project); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Aspen City Council Ordinance 34, Series of 2000, the
project was granted Final PUD approval, subject to the conditions contained in the
Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, as a condition of the Final PUD approval for the project the
applicant was required to gain approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for
the Outdoor Lighting Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the
proposed Final PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 6, 2001, the Planning and
Zoning Commission considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director and approved, by a — to _ L-j vote, the Outdoor Lighting Plan for the
project, subject to conditions of approval listed hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Outdoor Lighting Plan
for the Truscott Affordable Housing and Aspen Golf and Tennis Club PUD, subject to the
conditions of approval listed hereinafter.
l . The approved Outdoor Lighting Plan is that document titled "Lighting and
Electrical Plan" dated January 15, 2001, and addendum fixture detail sheets as
submitted to the community development Department and dated January 29,
2001.
2. The Outdoor Lighting Plan (less the fixture detail sheets) shall be considered an
addendum to the Final PUD Plans.
3. Changes to the Outdoor Lighting Plan shall be considered according to the
procedures for amending an approved Planned Unit Development. Additional
bollard lighting may be added to the golf cart storage area if found necessary.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March 6, 2001
[signatures on following page]
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. 0 1 - QX Page 1
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Blaich, Chair
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. 01-% Page 2
TRUSCOTT SITE LIGHTING
01 /29/01
The Kim
Compact Bollard
Series
Comfortable in both commercial
and residential sites, these
reduced -scale bollards provide
low level illumination for a
variety of applications.
When located as individual fix-
tures in key areas along a path,
the Compact Bollard produces a
soft pool of light for orientation
and safety.
When several units are placedr
at consistent spacings, visual Y
direction is established while also
providing glare -free illumination s
for pedestrians. fr
K 1 M 2
1 1r.NTrNr,
Clanton & Assoc.
PF1
4699 Nautilus Ct. S., Ste. 102 Tel: 303-530-7229
Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-530-7227
TRUSCOTT SITE LIGHTING
ORDER NUMBER
CB32 ,5OMH277 f WH-P
MODEL ELECTRICAL MODE FINISH
ORDERING INFORMATION
MODEL
CB24 COMPACT BOLLARD 24' OVERALL HEIGHT
CB32 COMPACT BOLLARD 32' OVERALL HEIGHT
ELECTRICAL
LINE
LINE
MAX
LAMPS BY OTHERS
MODE VOLTS
WATTS
AMPS
100INC120
120
100
0.83
100 WATT INCANDESCENT
A21 I.F. MEDIUM BASE
13PL120'
120
17
0.29
13 WATT FLUORESCENT
13PL2771
277
21
0.34
DOUBLE TWIN TUBE
32111F ING TF10r
O^F
STAnrlrar TFMP
GMBASE
L120
120
26
0.46zieX WATT FLUORESCENT
2b
IW i �'} C
DO1:PAIL �BF=
20T STARTING IFIAP
GX32d-2 BASE
PL120
120
3b
0.30
32WAT
32PL277
277
35
0,13
COMPACT FLUORESCENT
0'1, srARI INc TEMP
GX24q_3 BASE
SOMH120
120
67
1.16
50 WATT COATED
50MH2O8
208
67
0.67
METAL HALIDE
50MH240
240
67
0,57
ED17 MEDIUM BASE
50MH277
277
67
0.50
70MH120
120
90
1.90
*70 WATT COATED
70MH2O8
208
90
1.00
METAL HALIDE
70MH240
240
90
0,90
ED17 MEDIUM BASE
70MH277
277
90
0.80
70MH347
347
94
0.65
50HPS120
120
64
1.24
50 WATT COATED
50HPS208
208
64
0.59
HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM
SOHPS240
240
64
0.50
ED17 MEDIUM BASE
50HPS277
277
64
0.44
70HPS120
120
91
1.45
*70 WATT COATED
70HPS208
208
91
0.85
HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM
70HPS240
240
91
0.75
ED17 MEDIUM BASE
70HPS277
277
91
0.65
70HPS347
347
93
0.55
FINISH SUPER
TGIC THERMOSET
POWDER
COAT PAINT
BL-P BLACK
__- DB-P DARK BRONZE
LG-P LIGHT GRAY
WH-P WHITE
PHOTOMETRIC INFORMATION
INITIAL HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES FOR 24' HT. BOLLARD
(l04 00", 0.6,i (:10:i ON 0I0
0 12 o CA; 0.08 0,13 0 25 0.26
C- au •'125 i 16 0 56 0lei ! 10
S ?its :i7 �+••"1 ill';i:i i+, 7;7
MIS
N
i�
100W 13W 22W 32W 60W 50W
INC PL PL PL MH MPS TYPICAL QUADRANT
01 /29/01
PF1
SPECIFICATIONS
CERTIFICATION Underwriters Laboralories
listed and Canadian Standards Association
certified for wet locations. Fixture manufac-
turer shall be reigistered to ISO 9001.
TOP, LOUVERS Interlocking die cast
aluminum sections fasten together with con-
cealed stainless steel Screws. Louver base
assembly fastens internally to riser with 4
concealed Screws.
RISER Extruded aluminum, 5" diameter,
.125" typical wall thickness, external vertical
grooves align with vertical members on louver
assembly. Attaches to anchor base with 4
countersunk stainless steel flat socket head
screws finished to match fixture.
ANCHOR BASE Heavy cast 1-A raA Cc1,NIMU
aluminum, fully concealed within orvNir,&;
riser shaft, Three A' x 10'+2'
zinc plated anchor bolts, each
with two nuts and washers, and I i
a rigid pressboard template.
�2y
GLOBE Internally fluted, clear Hoi.TC,SRCF
tempered glass; fully gasketed. DV40ETER
SOCKET Incandescent/HID models: porce-
lain medium base rated 4KV. Fluorescent;
13w-GX23d; 22w-GX24q-3; 32w-GX32d-2.
BALLAST High Power Factor, prewired,
mounts on secured bracket within riser.
13w Fluorescent: 120v 320F starling; 277v
01F, starting. 22w Fluorescent: 12.0v -20°F
starting. 32w Fluorescent: electronic: 120v
0"F starting: 277v 01F. starting HID: -20" F.
starting temperature.
FINISH Super TGIC thermoset polyester
powder coat paint applied over a chromate
conversion coating. Available In Black, Dark
Bronze. Light Gray, or White.
WARNING Fixtures must be grounded in
accordance with local codes or the National
Electrical Code. Failure to do so may result
In serious personal Injury,
INITIAL HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES FOR 32' HT. BOLLARD
0.12 0.06 0.09 0.14 024 0.39 0.27 0.43
0.31 0.16 0.24 0.36 0.62 0.98 0.69 1.09
1,31 0.66 0,90 1,44 2.63 4.18 2.94 4.63
7,75 3.94 4.60 7.36 15.60 24,76 17." 27-46
t00W 13W 22W 32W 50W 70W 60W 70W
INC PL PL PL MH MH HPS HPS TYPICAL QUADRANT
* 70W MH and HPS are not recommended for C824 due to 0Xtr0n_i-7nUMevels at fixture base.
01993 KIM LIGHTING INC. THIS VERSION 01997
KIM LIGHTING INC. 16555 EAST GALE AVENUE P.O- BOX 60080 CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91716.0080 PHONE 6261968-5666 FAX 626/369.2695 5700997325
Clanton & Assoc. 4699 Nautilus Ct. S., Ste. 102 Tel: 303-530-7229
Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-530-7227
TRUSCOTT SITE LIGHTING
Ordering information
Curvilinear Arm Mount
Ordering Example:
For Standard Fixture
and Pole
1 Mounting:
3Y configuration Is available
for round poles only.
2 Fixture:
Cat. No. designates CC/CCS
fixture and light distribution.
CC fixtures have 3 horizontal
reveals.
i
CCS fixtures have 1 horizontal
groove,
See the Kirn Site/roadway
Optical Systems Catalog for
detailed information on reflector
design and application.
3 Electrical Module:
HPS = High Pressure Sodium
MH = Metal Halide
PMH = Pulse Start
Metal Halide
"T
Lamp Lamp Line
Watts Type Volts
400 HPS 277
10 KIM LIGHTING
01 /29/01
"N
CC/CCS
17` - 29' Arm Mount
70 to 1000 Watt
h'at;nlna Fiqure Electrical klodde 1`40, OpOrns Accent Revea's f Pole .I
1 A /CC25A3 / 400MH277 / LG-P/ A-33 / BL-REV / PRA30-6250A / LG-P
1 2 3
4
5-11
12
13
Fill CC rnily.
Srie selimate hirn Pole Calalt43.
Omit for 1W Willi Mount.
Plan View: `.. �..
Wall
Mount
Cat. No: 1A 2B
2L
3T
3Y
4C 1W
EPA IT: 0.9 1.8
1.6
2.5
2.5
2.8
21': 1.2 2A
2.2
3.4
3,4
319
25': 1.5 3.0
2.7
4.3
4.3
4.9
29'' 1.8 3,6
3.3
5.2
52
59
Fixture For selection of fixture and mounting configuration based on
photometric performance. see Ilie CC/CCS Photometric Catalog.
CC CCS
177777771
Light Distribution Type II Type III
Type IV
Type V
i
Folwa,d Throw
`%ruruut
Cat No : CC17A2 CC17A3
CC17A4
CC17A5
1T
CCS17A2 CCS17A3
CCS17A4
CCS17A5
CC CCS
Light Distribution, Type II Type III
Type IV
Type V
- — i,
'
r��rard thrrry
SnoF�re
21'
Cat, Nei.: CC21A2 CC21A3
CC21A4
CC21A5
CCS21A2 CCS21A3
CCS21A4
CCS21A5
CC CCS
Light Distribution: Type II Type III
Type IV
Type V
i'orward Tno v
Souere
25'
Cat. No.: CC25A2 CC25A3
CC26A4
CC25A5
CCS25A2 CCS25A3
CCS25A4
CCS25A5
CC CCS Light Distribution: Type III
Cat. No: CC29A3
29' CCS29A3
Type V
:iquafe
CC29A5
CCS29A6
CC/CCS 17'—
__..�. CC(CCS 21and 25'
CC/CCS 29"
70HPS120 100HPS120
150HPS120 '150HPS120
250HPS120
400HPS120
750HPS120
1000HPS120
70HPS208 100HPS208
150HPS208 160HPS208
250HPS208
400HPS208
750HPS208
1000HPS208
70HPS240 100HPS240
150HPS240 150HPS240
250HPS240
400HPS240
760HPS240
1000HPS240
70HPS277 100HPS277
150HPS277 150HPS277
250HPS277
400HPS277
780HPS277
1000HPS277
70HPS347 100HPS347
150HPS347 I150HPS347
250HPS347
400HPS347
750HPS347
1000HPS347
�150HPS480
250HPS48D
400HPS480
750HPS480
1000HPS480
7OMH120 10OMH120
1SOMH120 i 175MH120
2SOMH120
40OMH120
1000MH120
70MH2O8 10OMH2O8
1SOMH2O8 175MH2O8
2SOMH2O8
40OMH2O8
1000MH2O8
70MH240 100MH240
150MH240 175MH240
2SOMH240
40OMH240
100OMH240
7OMH277 10OMH277
1SOMH277 i 175MH277
25OMH277
40OMH277
1000MH277
70MH347 100MH347
15OMH347 i 175MH347
2SOMH347
40OMH347
100OMH347
i 175MH480
2SOMH480
40OMH480
1000MH480
175MH120
i 25OPMH120
40OPMH120
175MH2O8
; 25OPMH2O8
400PMH2O8
175MH240
25OPMH240
40OPMH240
j
175MH277
25OPMH277
40OPMH277
�rJQ MH
175MH347
40OPMH347
40OPMH480
Clanton & Assoc.
4699 Nautilus Ct. S., Ste. 102 Tel: 303-530-7229
Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-530-7227
TRUSCOTT SITE LIGHTING
01 /29/01
4 Finish:
Color: Black
Light Gray Platinum Silver White
'Custom Colors
Super TGIC powdor coat paint
Cott. No.: BL-P
LFLG-P PS-P WH-P
CC-P
over chrone:ite conversion coating.
Consult representative for custom colors.
Optional Photocell'
(see page 10) j Wattage per fixture
Voltage
! Cat, No,
_Mounting
Factory installed photocell in
_ �.
NS S��o { I
12.0
208
A-30
A-31
housing with fully gasketed
7O-�i(lOW
sensor nn sign wail For 17`. 21
- I'hatocerll
1/1. i W 2f3 2L 3T, 3Y
------------__-----____- -.- - --- ------------ -- - -__-
240
277
A-32
A-33
and 25' fixtures only.
s !
347
A-35
Fixture with photocell
s slave unit(s)
_ ■ 4C 70-25OW 480 A-34
120 2A-30
208 2A-31
$ S aC 40OW 240 2A-32
277 2A-33
347 2A-35
i 480 2A-34
Optional Photocell r3°°Q"t�`" -
p Cat. No.: A-25 Factory installed In flat portion of housing top for NFM,4 base
Receptacle: photocells by others. Cat. No. A-25 applies for all voltages
29' fixture only. (120V-48OV)
One r)O( fixture roquired,
Optional Convex Glass Cat. No.: CGL Tempered convex glass lens replaces standard flat lens.
Lens:
Convex. Loris
Optional Polycarbonate
Shield:
Optional Houseside
Shield:
Optional Vertical
Slipfitter Mounts:
1 Optional Horizontal
Slipfitter Mount:
Optional Accent
Reveals:
For CC01
Poscrips
les
IMeTS•)__
G
-F,
Cat No.: Polycarbonale Shield replaces standard tempered glass lens,
L17 for 17 models 250 wall maximum. May be used with 400HPS In outdoor
L21 for 21' models locations were ambient air temperature during fixture= operation
r! 11W.- hOnone slifeld L25 for 25' models will not exceed 85"F See "CAUTION" on page 13.
Cat, No.: HS For 17 21 ", and 25` models with Types II, III, or IV distributions
only. Recommended for use with clear lamps only,
Effectiveness Is reduced for coated lamps.
HS fpr lia I lens only
Cat. No.. HSC For fixtures with optional convex glass lens or polycarbonate
shield. Not for use with Type V light distributions.
'- HSt: for convex Ipns or
poiyc�rborcilc; shielr}
Cat. No Mounting Configuration Allows standard fixture and arm
VSF-1A 1A - Single arm mount to be mounted to poles having a
VSF-2B 2B - 2 at 180' 2' pipe -size tenon (2-iu' O.D. x 4'r:`
;ilipliller VSF-2L 2L - 2 at K0
VSF-3T 3T - 3 at 90" minimum length),
RoundVSF-3Y 3Y - 3 at 120° VSF-4C 4C - 4 at 90`
Cat No.: HSF Replaces standard rnounling arm with a slipfitter for mounting
Slipfitter�11
to a horizontal pole davit -arm with 2' pipe -size mounting end
Slinfitle,
Color: Black Dark. Bronze Light Gray Plat nurn Silvor White 'Custom Colors
Cat, No,. BL-REV DB-REV LG-REV PS -REV WH-REV CC -REV
Reveais 'Consult representative for custom colors.
1 See Kim Pole Caialog for a complete selection of round and square poles in aluminum or steel,
KIM LIGI II ING 11
Clanton & Assoc. 4699 Nautilus Ct. S., Ste. 102 Tel: 303-530-7229
Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-530-7227
TRUSCOTT SITE LIGHTING
01 /29/01
Start with the Universe Medium head.
8.14 in
201 ITIM
174 Select a luminous element if desired.. UCM rSR Fug oAL PM COP
FA Select a hood style,
Choose the optical asser ribly for
Your application.
Select a lamp ballast.
Specify a standard AAL color
shown, FiAL color, or custom color
(sample color chip required at time
of ordering).
Choose any desired options.
Wall mounted arms are found on
pages 32-33, pole mounted
arms are on pages 34-37 and AAL
poles are shown on pages 38-43. UCM Vsl. BEL M SLA4 Frc
Weight: 34 Ibs,
EPA: 1.14
JP Rating: 6,5
�v BVI
guT
w►T1t
RINGS
A/A
NO
"D
SttA�.
Orderi ) Ex"1111ples
FIXTURE
LUMINOUS
ELEMENT HOOD OPTICS
LAMP
BALLAST
COLOR
HOOD
FINISH
OPTIONS ARM POLE
UCM
LUM-BL BEL H3
100MH
BLK
COP
FLD SLA20A DB6-4R14-125
UCM
SR ANG GR5
5OMH
MAL
-
- WMA8 -
UCM
VSL STR OAL
150MH
WHT
-
- PM 2P-14
UCM
WND FLR H5
IL-85
GALV
STS
- SLA17 PR4-4R14
Clanton & Assoc. 4699 Nautilus Ct. S., Ste. 102 Tel: 303-530-7229
Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-530-7227
TRUSCOTT SITE LIGHTING
01 /29/01
PM2
PM3
U
C M il I N, I V i-,
Elm
ME=
WND 4 WINDOWS
H2 TYPE 2 REFLECTOR
ANG ANGLED SHADE
�H3TYP�3RE�FLECTOR�
H4 TYPE 4 REFLECTOR
Cast frame with a diffused
H5 TYPE 5 REFLECTOR
acrylic lens
20"/50810M DIAMETER
8,75"/225MM DIAMETER
6,5'/165MM HIGH
4,17"/105MM HIGH
Reflector with cast door and
standard sag glass lens
OPTIONS FOR
REFLECTOR OPTICS
SR SOLID RINGS
BEL BELL SHADE
FTG FLAT GLASS LENS
FLD FLAT GLASS WITH
'
LDL FINISH
Cast rings with a diffused�
„
„LD
acrylic lens
HSS HOUSE SIDE L
127305MM DIAMETER
24"/610MM DIAMETER
SHIELD FACTORY 15
4.4"/1 10MM HIGH
8 /205MM HIGH
INSTALLED
t
"u &,SIT-Y
SpLt17 �
b I F�uS�.
L U
VSL VERTICAL SLATS
FLR FLARED SHADE
OAL OPAL ACRYLIC LENS
�UMt OC
V V'VW}
Cast frame with a diffused
acrylic lens
22"/560MM DIAMEI Efi
8,75"/225MM DIAMFTFR
6"/150MM HIGH
4,17"/105MM HIGH
$"/205MM DIAMETER
9"/230MM) HIGH
I
MAXIMUM 100 WATTS HID
LUM LUMINOUS RINGS
STIR STRAIGHT SHADE
-,
GR3 TYPE 3 REFLECTOR
jEdge
lit acrylic rings
24'76101AM DIAMETER
with a diffused acrylic lens
4,5"/115MM HIGH
12"/305MM DIAMETER
4.4"/110MM HIGH
'Colored if lens option,
Glass Refractor
seep �5
6,5"/165MM DIAMETER
j
I
6"/150MM HIGH
24
ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING
Clanton & Assoc.
4699 Nautilus Ct. S., Ste. 102 Tel: 303-530-7229
Boulder, CO 80301 Fax: 303-530-7227
TRUSCOTT SITE LIGHTING
01 /29/01
DG� DB
50HPS DAiIK GREEN DARK BRONZE
50 WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM
120/2 7 7 volt ballast
PM2
PM3
Arms are on page 32-37
Poles are on page 38-43
PM POST TOP MOUNT
For OAL and GR3/5 optic options
only. Not available for reflector
models. Slips over a 4'7100 MM
pole. Secured with 6 stainless steel
set screws.
i
18.25 in
465mm
- i
70HP5 QRS Quartz restrike controller
and socket for a T 4 mini-cand
70 WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM halogen lamp, maximum 150 watt,
120/208/240//277 volt ballast � HID only. Reflector models only. 100HPS
100 WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM GL ANIZED V HD Un`EN QL Socket for a T 4 mini-cand
120/208/240/1277 volt ballast halogen tamp. Must be field wired
150HPS to a separate 120 volt circuit.
150 WATT" HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM Maximum 150 watt, Reflector
120/208/240/277 volt ballast models only,
NOTE. Use medium bivse, clear 0 oil,
ED-17 larnps only. CRT MAL PSB Pulse start ballast for
Lamps not included. CORTEN MATTE ALUMINUM 150MH and 175MH (175MH not for
All ballasts are factory wired for horizontal reflector units)
277 colts. HOOD FINISHES (120/208/240/277 volt) metal halide
1L-85 85 WATT INDUCTION Provides faster reignition of the
LAMP LIGHTING SYSTEM. All styles of hoods are available In lamp, longer life, and better color
the matching fixture color, stainless
Specify voltage: 120, 208, 240, or steel or natural copper finishes. rendition.
277 volt. The natural copper and stainless
LUMINOUS RING COLORS
i
Internal lens can be added for color
on the ring edges when illuminated.
BL BLUE
RD RED
GRIN GREEN
MG MAGENTA
steel hoods are unfinished to
347 120/240/347 volt ballast j
develop a patina over time. All
for HID lamp/ballast. 347 volt only
hoods for OAL and GR3/5 optics
for 50 watt HPS,
have the underside finished in high
reflectance white.
PMS Pendant mount with
48'71220 min and canopy with
swivel. Stem and canopy painted
white.
STS COP
STAINLESS COPPER
STEFr.
Clanton & Assoc. 4699 Nautilus Ct. S., Ste. 102
Boulder, CO 80301
i
ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING 25
Tel: 303-530-7229
Fax: 303-530-7227
APPRC
VUUUM3 IN ' uuuuKJ IIV
ASPHALT ISLAND
2 1,
AB
PARKING LOT POLE 'PM2PEDESTRIAN POLE 'PM3'
I
2
N.T.S. N.T.S.
GLANTQN & ASSQCIATES
Q
LIGHTING DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
A699 NAUTILUS COURT SOUTH STE. 102
BOULDER CO 80310
(303) 530-7229
Pedestrian -Scale Poles
Date: 2-15-01
Scale: N.T.S.
Truscott Housing Kol
Bid dwg LE-03
Recessed wall luminaires
Designed for low mounting heights for the illumination of steps, stairs,
ramps, aisles and other locations indoors and outdoors where guidance
and security lighting is required.
Housing: Constructed of die cast and extruded aluminum with integral
wiring compartment. Mounting tabs provided.
Enclosure: One piece die cast aluminum faceplate,'/a° thick. Clear
tempered glass with translucent white ceramic coating. Faceplate is
secured by two (2) socket head, stainless steel, captive screws threaded
into stainless steel inserts in the housing casting. Continuous high
temperature 0-ring gasket for weather tight operation.
Electrical: Compact fluorescent lampholder. G23 (9W), GX23 (13W),
2-pin, rated 75W, 600V.
Ballast Magnetic, HPF available in 120V or 277V - specify.
Low voltage lampholder: Double contact bayonet with ceramic Insulator
and high temperature leads. Integral electronic 120V/11.6V transformer.
Through Wiring: Maximum of four (4) No. 12 AWG conductors (plus
ground) suitable for 75°C. Two 7/8` knockouts provided for',' conduit.
Finish: Standard finish is an eight step process consisting of two
coats of black or white polyufethane, one with light texture over a
phosphate base.
Custom colors supplied on special order.
U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations and for installation within 3 feet of
ground. Suitable for all types of construction including poured concrete.
MEETING DATE: 3/6/01
NAME OF PROJECT: Truscott Affordable housing and Aspen Golf
and Tennis Club PUD Lighting Plan
CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian
STAFF: Chris Bendon
WITNESSES: (1) Lee Novak
EXHIBITS: 1. Staff Report (x) (Check If Applicable) 2/6/01
2 Affidavit of Notice (x) (Check If Applicable) 02/06/01
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to adopt Resolution 01-06
approving the Truscott Affordable housing and Aspen Golf and
Tennis Club PUD Lighting Plan with the condition that staff
review one year after the certificate of occupancy has been
granted and that public notice be provided to the residents. Ron
Erickson second. APPROVED 5-0.
VOTE: YES 5 NO 0
ROBERT BLAICH YES _x� NO
ROGER HANEMAN YES _x_ NO
RON ERICKSON YES _x NO
JASMINE TYGRE
ERIC COHEN
YES _x_ NO
YES _x_ NO
PZVOTE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ,
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
PROJECT:
505 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin Review
REQUEST:
To partially demolish one-half of an existing duplex and
completely demolish a detached garage, and to expand the duplex
and to build a new detached garage with an ADU.
APPLICANT:
Bob Camp, Cindy Curlee
LOCATION:
505 Sneaky Lane
PUBLIC HEARING:
No — public meeting
ZONING:
R-30/PUD
FLOOR AREA:
Existing: 1,529 sq. ft. Allowed: 6,383 sq. ft. ADU: 501 sq. ft.
(only 50% counts toward FAR because it is detached);
Garage & Duplex FAR: 3,751. The other side of the duplex is
2,291 square feet, and is owned by Ann Mass.
DATE:
March 6, 2001
PROCESS:
PZ Final Decision
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval for proposal that complies with Land Use Code, with
Conditions (proposed motion on page 13.)
SUMMARY:
Bob Camp and Cindy Curlee
(Applicant), represented by Rally
Dupps of Studio B, is requesting
Stream Margin Review approval
for development within 100 feet of
the Castle Creek 100-year
floodplain. The Applicant is
proposing two options for P&Z's
review. One option complies with
the Land Use Code in all regards.
The other option does not meet
the 45-degree angle requirement.
The Applicant disagrees with the
City Engineer's top -of -slope
determination because of this
site's characteristics.
Castle Creek, not shown, is located just beyond the
dense vegetation behind the duplex. The detached
garage is the building on the left side of the
photograph.
This map shows the subject parcel shaded gray. North is at the top of the map.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Land Use Code requires that all "Areas located within one hundred (100) feet,
measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its
tributary streams, or within the one -hundred -year floodplain where it extends one
hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its
tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area" be subject to the Stream Margin
Review. All of the proposed development associated with the duplex is within 100
feet of Castle Creek's 100 year floodplain, and part of the garage and proposed new
accessory dwelling unit appears to be within 100 feet of the floodplain line.
The proposed addition and new garage/ADU would be built on flat ground, and in
areas that avoid the 100-year floodplain, the 15-foot setback from the top -of -slope,
and significant vegetation. The keyissue ssue for this development proposal is Stream
Margin Review Criteria 9, which states the following:
All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from
the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line
drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top
of slope. ( See Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes).
2
It is difficult to determine
exactly where the top of
slope is for this parcel.
The Applicant's surveyor
contends that the top of
slope is between Castle
Creek and the 100-year
floodplain. However, City
staff — planning and
engineering — do not
believe it is possible to
have a top of slope below
the 100-year floodplain,
especially when the
Applicant told City Staff
on a site visit in January
2001 that limited water
entered into 100-year
floodplain area within the
past couple of months.
Therefore, the City
Engineer has determined
the top of slope to be the
same as the 100-year
floodplain line. As a
result, the 45-degree angle
line is drawn from the 100-
year floodplain line.
This picture shows the existing duplex as viewed from
Castle Creek. The people on the left are standing on the
"top of slope". However, the Swale between the top of slope
and house is within the 100-year floodplain; water has
entered this area within the past couple of months. The
City Engineer has determined the top of slope to be the 100-
year floodplain in this case.
The Applicant contends that it is difficult to determine exactly where to draw the
45-degree angle line because water only enters the 100-year floodplain area in
winter, but not during the spring run-off.
The Applicant has submitted two sets of architectural drawings for the Planning
and Zoning Commission's review. Both drawings have the same building footprint,
which is over 20 feet away from the 100-year floodplain line as required, but Set A
(the Applicant's preference) does not meet the 45-degree angle requirement and the
Set B does meet the requirement.
The Set B drawings
also show an ADU
above the detached
garage. The Applicant
intends to built the
ADU regardless of
which proposal is
approved.
Staff recommends the
Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the
Stream Margin Review
for the proposal that
complies with the Land
Use Code requirements,
with conditions.
This picture shows the portion of the existing duplex
to be demolished, and the location of the 2-story
expansion partly into an existing yard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this
Stream Margin Review application for the site plan and architectural
drawings that comply with the Land Use Code requirements for
development in environmentally sensitive areas.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. lu Series of 2000, a Stream Margin Review for the
Camp residence, at 505 Sneaky Lane, as depicted in plan set B, finding that all of the
review criteria have been met, with conditions."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Development Application
4
RESOLUTION NO. to
(SERIES OF 2001)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION APPROVING THE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX AND NEW GARAGE WITH AN
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 505 SNEAKY LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-122-70-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Bob Camp and Cindy Curlee ("Applicant"), represented by Rally Stupps of Studio B, for an
Environmentally Sensitive Area — Stream Margin Review, for a partial demolition and
addition to one-half of a duplex and the demolition and reconstruction of a detached garage
with a new accessory dwelling unit, at 505 Sneaky Lane, City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 52,186 square feet, and is located
in the R-30/PUD, Low Density Residential Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development within
one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork
River and its tributary streams, or within the one -hundred -year floodplain where it extends
one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary
streams, or within a flood hazard area if the development complies with all of the review
criteria set forth in Section 26.435.040(C) Stream Margin Review; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property and proposed development are located within 100
feet of the Castle Creek 100-year floodplain; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of
the Stream Margin Review with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public meeting on March 6, 2001, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to - L-J vote, the Stream Margin Review for
the Camp Residence, 505 Sneaky Lane, with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1
That the Stream Margin Review for the Camp Residence, 505 Sneaky Lane is approved with the
following conditions:
1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Prior to the issuance of building permits or development including demolition,
the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the Community
Development Department and Parks Department showing the size, species,
quantity, and location of all existing and planned native vegetation in the area
proposed for development to the 100-year floodplain. The final landscape plan
shall be approved by the Community Development Director after considering a
recommendation by the Parks Department. No other landscape improvements
or changes to the terrain, except those approved by the Community
Development Director, are approved.
b. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development
Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood.
c. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an
alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact
fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement.
d. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel,
including the proposed addition, driveway, and garage.
e. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall
approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto
neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads.
f. The improvement survey notes a Pedestrian and River Recreation easement,
however, no lines appear to indicate the width or exact location of the easement.
The applicant should provide a legal description of the easement for this
application.
g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any
approval from the Parks Department Director for off -site replacement or
mitigation of removed trees. The site plan/landscape plan indicates that several
trees are to be removed as part of this development. The improvement survey
should indicate the size and species of the trees on the lot over four (4) inches in
diameter at four and a half feet (4 1/2') above grade. No excavation or storage
of materials is permitted within the dripline of existing trees to be saved.
3. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds,
hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer.
4. For the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the Castle Creek riparian area and
to minimize the impacts from the new development and construction, the
applicant shall observe the following construction process:
a. The Applicant shall place silt fencing at the 100-year floodplain for the entire
construction process. No construction or alteration of the landscape is permitted
beyond the 100-year flood plane.
b. Existing vegetation within the construction area shall be tied back to prevent
damage.
c. After construction, all disturbed soils shall be stabilized and/or revegetated to
the approval of the Community Development and Parks Departments, as
indicated in the Landscape Plan.
d. All representations made by the applicant's representative to the Commission
concerning the process, timing, and materials for construction shall be
considered conditions of approval.
5. The building permit application shall include:
a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit
set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District.
d. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system for
fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Aspen Fire Marshal
shall approve ingress and egress to the property.
6. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and
not within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of
the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their
employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant
shall inform the contractor of this condition.
7. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited
to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
8. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and
Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the
Courthouse Plaza. Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative,
the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution.
9. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
10. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes,
including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines.
11. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to
utilities.
12. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve a fire suppression system for the structure.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated
in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth
herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 6t" day of
March, 2001.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Blaich, Chair
EXHIBIT A
505 SNEAKY LANE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
26.435.040 Stream Margin Review.
Applicability. The provisions of the Stream Margin Review shall apply to all
development within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water
line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, and to all development within
the Flood Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year flood plain.
Stream Margin Review Standards. No development shall be permitted within the
Stream Margin unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination
that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is
in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood
elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be
demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional
engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which
shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including,
but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site
which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused
by the development; and
Staff Finding
The proposed development completely avoids the Special Flood Hazard Area. This
criterion is met.
2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan:
Parks/Re ereation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork
River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for
development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic
public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement
for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing
access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall
be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and,
Staff Finding
The Pedestrian and River Recreation Easement on the property will not be affected by
this proposal. This criterion is met.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade
changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined
building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by
this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to
issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The
5
barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates
of Occupancy; and
Staff Finding
According to the City's Parks Department, the site plan/landscape plan indicates that
several trees are to be removed as part of this development. The Applicant will be
required to obtain a tree removal permit from the Parks Department and provide
appropriate mitigation for the removal of the trees. This criterion is met.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including
erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on -
site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent
entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be
drained outside of the designated building envelope; and
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe the proposed development will pollute or interfere with the
natural changes of Castle Creek or the riparian area. Conditions of approval address
site drainage to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. This criterion has been
met.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board
prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy
of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; and
Staff Finding
The proposal does not include any alteration or relocation of Castle Creek.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or
relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors
and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the
parcel is not diminished; and
Staff Finding
The proposal does not include any alteration or relocation of Castle Creek.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits
relating to work within the one -hundred -year floodplain; and
Staff Finding
The proposed development is not within the 100 year floodplain.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation
planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15)
feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most
restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian
vegetation and bank stability. (See Figure "A" below for
illustrative purposes); and
0
Staff Findiny,
The proposed development is not within the 15-foot setback from the top of slope or
high waterline; in fact, it is about 20 feet from the top of slope/100-year floodplain line.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top
of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a
forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope.
Height shall be measured and determined by the Community
Development Director using the definition for height set forth at
Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at
Section 26.575.020 (See Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes);
and
Staff Finding
Proposal A would encroach into this 45-degree angle from the ground level at the top of
slope, and Proposal B meets this criterion. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission uphold the City Engineer's determination of slope and approve only
Proposal B. This criterion is met.
10. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications.
Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs,
flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope
on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and
Staff Finding
Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit a Landscape Plan
to the Parks Department for the Parks Department review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
11. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed
toward the river or located down the slope; and
Staff Finding
The property must comply with the City's lighting code, which will be in full force and
effect this November. According to the application, all exterior lighting will be low and
downcast with no lights directed towards the river.
12. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape
architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and
proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations
above sea level; and
Staff Finding
This criterion has been met; the site sections are included in the application, and have
been verified by the City Engineer's Office.
7
13. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian
zones.
Staff Finding
This criterion has been met; the riparian areas have been identified and verified by the
City Engineer's Office.
E'?
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Committee
From: Richard Goulding, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: Feb 12t", 2001
Re: 505 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the 505 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin
Review application at their Jan 31, 2001 meeting and has compiled the following comments:
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe
that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is
feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is
received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to
approvals tied to "issuance of building permit."
2 R.O.W. Impacts• If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way,
the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license
requirements.
Site Review
Planning Department — Requirement — The following Requirements have been provided by
the City Planning Department:
a. The proposed structure must be within a plane that makes an angle of 45
degrees with the horizontal. The plane begins at the 100-year flood plane.
b. That the proposed structure be 15 ft of greater from the 100-year flood plane
1. Fire Protection District — Requirement — The following requirements have
been provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District:
a. That a sprinkler system be installed if the floor area of the house exceeds 5000
square ft
2. Housing Department — Information — The following information has been
provided by the Housing Department:
a. At this stage of the development the housing department has no comment
4. Streets Department The following requirement has been provided by the
Streets Department:
a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction
0
5. Parks — Requirement — The following requirement has been provided by the
Parks Department:
a. The improvement survey notes a Pedestrian and River Recreation easement,
however, no lines appear to indicate the width or exact location of the easement.
The applicant should provide a legal description of the easement for this
application.
b. A requirement should be to place silt fencing at the 100-year flood plane and
remain in place until construction is complete. No construction or alteration of the
landscape is permitted beyond the 100-year flood plane.
c. The site plan/landscape plan indicates that several trees are to be removed as
part of this development. The improvement survey should indicate the size and
species of the trees on the lot over four (4) inches in diameter at four and a half
feet (4 '/2') above grade. This information should be provided before proceeding
to Planning and Zoning. No excavation or storage of materials is permitted within
the dripline of existing trees to be saved.
6. Engineering — Requirement — The following requirements have been provide
by the Engineering Department:
a. A cross section of the most restrictive situation (at the top of the ridge of the
proposed structure be provide by a licensed surveyor
b. The proposed structure must be outside of the view of the plane that makes an angle of
45 degrees with the horizontal surface. The plane begins at the 100-year flood plane. It
should be noted due the uniqueness of this case, it was impractical to establish the top of
slope and it was felt the 100-year flood plane would be the more restrictive
c. The structure must be 15ft or greater back from the 100-year flood plane
6. Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator — Information the following
information has been provided by the Pitkin County Disaster Coordinator:
a. The 100-year flood plain data from the 1987 FEMA Flood Plain Risk Maps is the
current criteria to which this property is being evaluated and does not seem to
display issues with flooding. However, just recently the City of Aspen has updated
the Roaring Fork river flood inundation maps. The data from these most current
maps will be used when the information is made public.
b. It is recommended that the applicant comply with engineering concerns and
issues. Mitigation efforts affect both the applicant and public safety issues.
10
8. Utilities: A utility plan needs to be submitted before any real comments and conclusions
can be drawn by the utility companies.
- Water:
City Water Department - Requirement — The following requirement was given by
the City of Aspen Water Department:
a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water
Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they
pertain to utilities.
- Wastewater:
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Information — As a request of the
Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. No comment submitted
Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement — Given the continuous problems
of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent
to private property, we advise the applicant as follow:
Approvals
1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering
Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage,
transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way.
2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-5120) for
vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for
mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways.
4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and
landscaping from the Engineering Department.
DRC Attendees
Staff: Nick Adeh
Richard Goulding
Nick Lelack
Applicant's Representative: Scott Lindeneau
Bob Camp
11
Cindy Mohat
Ed VanWalraven
12
LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
Name: C jkAAP ��l bew (T-
Location:Goc} CoND O t
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
Awn ir.APJT'
iate)
Name: 12>05 CAM P
Address: S O G LM & "PF.L) r o 61(of 1
Phone #: Is-- SO +I
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:U�
Address: Gco5 �k
Phone #: 1 11,10 Ll +T'S
TYPE OF. APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑
Conditional Use
❑
Conceptual PUD
❑
Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑
Special Review
❑
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑
Final Historic Development
Design Review Appeal
❑
Conceptual SPA
❑
Minor Historic Devt:
GMQS Allotment
❑
Final SPA (& SEA Amendment)
❑
Historic Demolition
GMQS Exemption
❑
Subdivision
❑
Historic Designation
ESA - 8040 Gree«Aaine, Stream
❑
- Subdivision Exemption, (includes
❑
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
condommiumization)
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
I
❑
Lot Split
❑
Temporary Use
❑
Other:
❑
Lot Line Adjustment
❑
Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
� � � � =,� ►. ;� : .� � ■ram■= .. �
WMANK L :,
PRnpnsAL_ (descrintion of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
X, 4" kv, �_b Owl &TJ MY I X Wd 1 j r, 9 rX i MVEWMI16=91
Have you attached the following?
Pre -Application Conference Summary
Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
(�? 'response to �:ttaohm:,-14
�5�inim.?im. Stibzp1s� icon r�ntr:rs
FEES DUE: $ - (o t 0 • 0 8
t�
■
,onsortium;
970 925 6797;
505 Sneaky Lane
Stream Margin Review Proposal
T The City Of Aspen `c: James l.indt, Bob
Camp, Sarah Oatcs
Suh;cct. Camp Residence a@ 505 Sneaky Lane
Auolicant's Information:
Bole Camp, Cindy Curlee
POB 692
Aspen, Colorado 81612
ph: 970-925-5049
Reoresenta'tive's Information:
Rally Dupps
Studio B Architects
555 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ph: 970-920-9428
fax: 970-920-7822
Jan-17-01 10:38AM; Page 1/2
rate: January 18, 2001
From: Rally Dupps of Studio
B Architects
(Representative)
Protect Description:
The Camp residence is located at 505 Sneaky Lane in Aspen, Colorado within the Carolyn Parry
Subdivision, unit North. There are three structures on the site. The duplex building which consists
of two single-family residences, and a separate, detached garage. The proposed development will
add square .footage and another story to the existing North unit and will replace the existing garage
with a new building that will use the foundation from the previous garage.
Review Criteria:
The following are responses to Attachment 4 of the Stream Margin Review Application:
A. No development is proposed within the floodway.
B. (see below)
I. The proposed development will not encroach within the 100 year flood plain.
2. The proposed development does not encroach upon any trail or area: of historic public use
or access.
3. Currently there is a pedestrian and river recreation easement on Castle Creek. The
proposed development does not encroach upon this easement.
4. No vegetation shall be disturbed within the I T-d" setback from the top of slope as shown
on the site improvement survey or outside the building envelope. No grade changes are
proposed outside the building envelope. The building envelope shall be barricaded for
construction as required by the City of Aspen.
lent J .;onsortium;
970 925 6797; Jan-17-01 10:38AM; Page 2/2
5. 1 he proposed
development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of Castle
Cree k. All increased on site drainage will be handled to prevent entry into the river or onto
its banks. No pools or hot tubs are proposed.
b. The watercourse will not be altered in any way by � thig proposal.
7. The watercourse will not be altered in any way by this proposal. However, a guarantee
can be provided in the event that the watercourse is altered or relocated that the flood
carrying capacity on the pacel shall not he diminished. year flood plain.
8. The proposed development well not encroach within the 100 the of slope, it will not encroach
9- The proposed development will not occur below oP
within the 15'-0" setback from the top of slope nor will it encroach the 100 year flood plain
boundary.
l o. All development og utside the 15`-0" setback from the top of slope does not exceed the
hei ht delineated by a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Please refer
drawing L1.0 (exhibit B) for this diagram.
11. Please refer to landscape plan L1.0 (exhibit B) for this requirement. No vegetation shall
be added within the 15'-0" setback from the top of slope as shown on the site improvement
survey.
12. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no lights directed toward the river or
located down the slope.
13. Please refer to landscape plan L1.0 (exhibit B) for this requirement.
14. Please refer to the site improvement survey (exhibit A) drawn by Tom Yoku-m for this
requirement.
List of Egbibi MIN
A - Site Improvement Survey from Tom Yokum
B - L1.0 -- Landscape Plan from Studio B Architects
C - Stream Margin Review Proposal
D — S 'l2"xl l " Vicinity Map
F. — Deed & Deed of Trust for 505 Sneaky Lane
F — Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
G — Pre -application Conference Summary
H — Land Use Application Form
Z'*�6`7�Date: l ®/
Sob Cramp, owner
rz'
0
u
w
m
CY
qn
02
•i f } rJ',
fIx
co
Q
'r4
4
y
(OQ�
ice-
Ile z C9
At
WCL
x
`a A a
ti
cj
Lm
00
60
CD
O
In
C���
�.
� .J[] f)(IOhtw"yq
� c
L
M2C
Stage Fed
Maroon Ct
'I Ni'111 Nil , Gtj' Ak N'l D L111 Ni'IG'
L, Awi N, N, �Q
zej C�
JM11JSjS J Ni
MEETING DATE: 03/06/01
NAME OF PROJECT: 505 SNEAKY LANE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian
STAFF: Nick Lelack
WITNESSES: Richard Goulding, Engineering
Scott Lindeneau, architect
Bob Camp, applicant
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (x) (Check If Applicable)
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve Resolution 10, series 2001, a Stream
Margin Review for the Camp residence at 505 Sneaky Lane as depicted in plan "Set
C" finding that all of the review criteria have been met with conditions. Eric Cohen
second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich
yes. APPROVED 5-0.
VOTE: YES 5 NO 0
ROBERT BLAICH YES x NO ERIC COHEN YES x NO
ROGER HANEMAN YES x NO
JASMINE TYGRE YES x NO RON ERICKSON YES x NO
PZVOTE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
DATE: March 6, 2001
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD--Amended Conceptual Approval (Public Hearing)
Lots 3 and 5 (Top of Mill and Grand Aspen Sites)
SUMMARY: The new owners of the Aspen Mountain PUD, Top of Mill Investors, LLC
(Lot 3) and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC (Lot 5), managed by Four Peaks Management,
LLC, is requesting an amendment to the previous conceptual approval granted by City
Council on December 6, 1999. The owners are proposing a minor change to Lot.3 (Top
of Mill) whereby they would be creating a new lot where an existing parking garage for
the Summit Place Condominiums exist. The garage was required as a condition of the
City's approval of various amendments to the Lot 2, Summit Place project. Upon final
PUD and subdivision approval, the area underneath the garage (approximately 2500 s.f.
of Lot 3) could be deeded to the Summit Place Condominium owners. This is the only
change from the previously approved conceptual design.
Lot 5 (Grand Aspen) has not changed substantially in physical form, however, the
applicants are now requesting that the project be developed not as a hotel, but as a
"fractional ownership" project. The physical changes are the relocation of the parking
garage ramp from Galena St. to Dean St.; the reduction in "rooms" from 150 hotel rooms
to 51 two, three and four bedroom units (with each unit having one or two "lock off
units" for a total of approximately 125 rooms); an increase of 18 parking spaces under the
building; the addition of 9 parallel parking spaces along Galena St. to serve the Silver
Circle Ice Rink; and the elimination of the "semi-public" accessory uses (restaurant and
gift shop) located along the Dean St. fagade.
APPLICANT: Top of Mill Investors, LLC (Lot 3 )
Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC (Lot 5)
Four Peaks Management, LLC will be managing the development of the two properties.
Four Peaks is represented by David Parker and Sunny Vann.
LOT 3 ZONING.-
Lodge/Tourist/Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay (L/T/R-PUD), R-15 (PUD)(L),
and C Conservation
PROPOSED LOT 3 ZONING: As part of the final PUD, the property is proposed
to be rezoned to L/TR-PUD and C Conservation.
LOT 5 ZONING:
Lodge/Tourist/Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay (L/T/R-PUD)
PROPOSED LOT 5 ZONING: Same as existing, no rezoning is proposed for Lot
5.
PROCESS: Conceptual PUD Amendment reviewed by P&Z with a
recommendation to City Council. Upon approval of this amendment, the applicant would
then proceed directly into final PUD, subdivision, and the remaining land use approvals
required.
LOT 3 ISSUES: Please refer to Exhibit A, page 2 regarding the changes to Lot 3.
Essentially, the owners would be creating an additional parcel of approximately 2500 s.f.
that can then be deeded to the Summit Place condominiums for the use of the parking
garage. The applicant agrees to deed restrict the parcel to ensure it will always serve as
parking for the condominiums. Although the applicant indicated that the revised lot area,
density and floor area calculations for Lot 3 would be provided, they were not submitted
to staff at the time of this writing. Conceptually, staff does not see any Iproblems with
this minor amendment to Lot") and recommends approval of this amendment request.
LOT 5 ISSUES-: Please refer to Exhibit A, page 2 regarding the changes to Lot 5.
Four Peaks proposes to convert the 150 unit hotel which received conceptual approval
into 51 club suites which will be condominiumized and sold. A fractional interest of each
suite will range from 1/12 to 1/21. Ownership of a fractional interest will be "unit
specific" and will allow the owners to occupy the unit during a specific time. When not
occupied by the owners, the suite will be available to rent to the public on a nightly basis.
The idea under this arrangement is to create "hot beds" in the heart of the lodging area.
(Please refer to Exhibit B which addresses the benefits of and interval ownership
property).
The applicant has indicated that no significant changes have been proposed to the
footprint, exterior architecture or height. The subgrade parking garage, pool area,
courtyard and guest drop-off are essentially the same, and the Floor Area of 115,000 s.f.
remains unchanged. Modifications will be made to the interior of the hotel and are
indicated schematically on the attached set of floor plans (Exhibit Q.
The garage ramp approved along Galena St. has been relocated to Dean St. There will be
two ramps that will allow entry and exit from the garage. As a result of this relocation of
the ramps on the north side of Dean St., more parking spaces are available within the
garage structure. The approved conceptual plan called for 106 spaces while this revised
plan contains 124 spaces. The garage ramps will encroach into the Silver Circle Lot,
slightly reducing the observation deck located along Dean St. In addition, the nine
parking spaces reserved for skating patrons will be relocated along Galena St.
17
Perhaps the most significant change, in staff s opinion, is the loss of the accessory uses
the hotel had proposed to locate along the Dean St. frontage which would have created a
more semi-public space in this important location. Previously, the lobby was centrally
located with the restaurant on the west side and a small gift shop on the east corner (refer
to Exhibit D for the previous ground floor plan). These uses would have created a more
lively street front than what is now being proposed.
With the elimination of these spaces, the project has no street and semi-public
relationship to the rest of the community. Essentially, the floor plan indicates that the
front of the building will be used for ski storage, other storage, and a private unit. Staff
believes that without some additional semi-public uses available and located along the
streetscape (similar to Little Nell, North of Nell, Aspen Square), that this project will add
little to the overall benefit of the community, except a potential increase in "hot beds".
Staff does not believe that this amendment is consistent with the previously approved
conceptual plans. Without some sort of accessory retail or food service use, staff cannot
support this requested change from the previous approval.
With the changes as proposed, the applicant has agreed not to seek any relief from the
affordable housing requirements set forth in Ord. 99-111. That is, the project will
continue to provide a minimum of 9 units, housing at least 16 employees on site. Staff
would like to point out that the interior of the project now segregates the AH units from
the free-market units by the addition of a parallel, non -connecting corridor. This is a
disappointment, and should be eliminated in the final design.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the amendments to Lot-3 be
approved with the conditions set forth below:
1. The Application for Final approval shall meet all of the conditions set forth in City
Council Resolution No. 99-93;
2. The revised lot area, density and floor area calculations for Lot 3 will be provided
at Final PUD;
3. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and
Recorder.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
Staff recommends that the accessory uses to the interval ownership project be further
studied and an alternative design be presented to the P&Z that better addresses the desire
for a semi-public space at the fagade of this important lodge location. Staff recommends
that this case be tabled to a date certain to allow the applicant time to address this specific
issue.
z
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. finding
that the proposed amendments to conceptual approval for Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD
are consistent with the previously approved plans."
"I move to table the amendments to Lot 5 conceptual approval to to allow
the applicant adequate time to better address the Dean St. fa+ ade uses to ensure a more
lively semi-public space."
Attachments:
Exhibit A Letter dated February 2, 2001 from Ron Garfield (Amended PUD
application)
Exhibit B Letter and attachments from Scott Writer dated March 1, 2001 regarding
the benefits of "Vacation Ownership" projects
Exhibit C Revised floor plans and elevations dated March 1, 2001 by Bill Poss &
Associates
Exhibit D Original ground floor plans by Bill Poss & Associates
Exhibit E City Council Resolution N.o. 99-93, (Lot 3)
Exhibit F City Council Resolution N. o. 99-111, (Lot 5)
G:; planning/aspen/ampud/amendconcept.doe
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE
TOP OF MILL SITE, LOT 30F THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-782-85003
Resolution #01 -
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Top of Mill Investors, LLC, applicant, for an amendment to the Conceptual Planned
Unit Development approval received for the property from the City Council, as specified
in Resolution No. 99-93; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal
and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 6, 2001, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended, by a to vote, that the City Council
approve the amendment to the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Top of Mill
(Lot 3) property, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development
Department; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD,
Rezoning, Subdivision, and Residential Design approval pursuant to the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the City Council
should approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development with the following conditions:
1. The Application for Final approval shall meet all of the conditions set forth in City
Council Resolution No. 99-93:
2. The revised lot area, density and floor area calculations for Lot 3 will be provided
at Final PUD;
3. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and
Recorder.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March 61 2001.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
CONMISSION:
City Attorney
F�.W
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
G:/platnung/aspen/resos. doc/p&z/lot3 amendconcept. doc
Bob Blaick Chair
GARFIELD&HEICHTI) R
RONALD GARFIELD 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ANDREW V. HECHT' ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
MICHAEL J. HERRON3 TELEPHONE
DAVID L. LENYO E-mail: (970) 925-1936
MATTHEW C. FERGUSON' atty@garfieldhecht.com TELECOPIER
CHRISTOPHER J. LACROIX',' (970) 925-3008
CHAD J. SCHMIT'� Website:
www.garfieldhecht.com 110 MIDLAND AVENUE
SUITE 201
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
TELEPHONE
February 2, 2001 (970) 927-1936
TELECOPIER
(970) 927-1783
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Julie Ann Woods, Director
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Lots 3 and 5, Aspen Mountain Subdivision/Amended
Conceptual PUD Applications
Dear Julie Ann:
As you know, we represent the new owners of Lots 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD
and the Bavarian Inn property. The new owners wish to revise portions of the final PUD development
plan application for Lots 3 and 5 which was submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership to the City on
December 6, 2000. No revisions are proposed to the final PUD development plan application for the
Bavarian Inn affordable housing project, which was also submitted by Savanah in December.
As the attached Ownership Certificates from Pitkin County Title indicate, Lot 3 is now owned by Top
of Mill Investors, LLC, the Bavarian Inn property is now owned by Bavarian Affordable Housing
LLC, and Lot 5 is now owned by Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC. Four Peaks Management, LLC, has
been formed for purposes of obtaining approval of the proposed amendments and managing the
development of the three properties. Four Peaks will represent the applicant with respect to the final
PUD development plan applications for Lots 3 and 5 and the Bavarian Inn. Sunny Vann of Vann
Associates, LLC, will assist Four Peaks in the processing of these applications. Four Peaks is a
company owned entirely by locals and is represented by David Parker. These same local individuals
also have an ownership interest in the entities that own Lot 3, Lot 5, and the Bavarian Inn.
Given the nature of the proposed revisions to the development plans for Lots 3 and 5, it has been
suggested that Four Peaks first submit a summary of the requested changes for review and
consideration to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the City Council in the form of an
amended conceptual PUD development plan application. As suggested by Staff, the review process
would result in an amended conceptual PUD approval for Lots 3 and 5. The proposed revisions are
summarized below.
In the interim, Four Peaks will revise Savanah's December 6 final PUD application to address the
proposed revisions in detail prior to the application's review by the P&Z and Council. In other words,
this summary of the proposed revisions would receive amended conceptual PUD approval before
formal review of the amended final PUD application commences. Formal review of the Bavarian Inn
final PUD application, however, would commence as soon as possible. It is my understanding that the
1. also admitted to 2. also admitted to 3. also admitted to 4. also admitted to 5. also admitted to
New York Bar District of Columbia Bar Florida Bar Illinois Bar Connecticut Bar Printed on recycled paper
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Ms. Julie Ann Woods, Director
Community Development Department
Page 2
February 2, 2001
Bavarian Inn application has been scheduled for review by the P&Z on March 6, 2001. Four Peaks
hereby agrees with this approach and respectfully requests to be on the agenda with the Planning and
Zoning Commission for March 6, 2001 for both the Bavarian Inn and the revisions to Lots 3 and 5.
The proposed revisions to the Lots 3 and 5 final PUD development plan application are summarized
below.
Lot 3 - 'fop of Mill
Conceptual PUD approval was granted for the subdivision of Lot 3 into eight development parcels and
two open space parcels. Six new free market townhouse units were approved for development on
Parcel 1. Lot 3 presently contains an enclosed six car garage which is located at the northern end of
the parcel and adjacent to Summit Street. The garage was constructed by the purchaser of Lot 2 of the
Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD for the use and benefit of the Summit Place Condominiums, which
are located thereon. The garage was required as a condition of the City's approval of various
amendments to the Lot 2, Summit Place project.
While the Summit Place condominium owners' rights with respect to the garage parking spaces were
previously memorialized in a license agreement, Savanah and the new owners of Lot 3 have agreed,
subject to City approval, to create a separate parcel for the garage and to convey the parcel to the
condominium owners. The new parcel, which will consist of approximately 2,500 square feet of Lot 3,
will accommodate the existing garage footprint and an adjacent enclosed trash receptacle and will be
known as Parcel 7 of the Aspen Mountain PUD and will be an accessory use to the Summit Place
condominiums with title to the garage footprint being inseparable from title to the condominiums. The
creation of Parcel 7 and its conveyance to the Summit Place condominium owners will eliminate the
need for the existing parking license agreement and permit the Summit Place Condominiums to own
their parking area in fee simple. The deed to the Summit Place Condominium owners will contain a
deed restriction ensuring that the parcel remain as a parking structure for the use of the Summit Place
Condominiums in perpetuity.
Four Peaks proposes to create the new garage parcel in connection with the subdivision of Lot 3 into
the eight development parcels which were approved during conceptual PUD review. As you know,
subdivision review occurs concurrently with final PUD review, and the required subdivision approvals
are granted concurrent with final PUD development plan approval. The proposed subdivision of the
garage parcel will have no effect upon the allowable density or floor area which is permitted on Lot 3.
Sufficient net lot area exists after adjustment for right-of-ways and steep slopes to accommodate both
the proposed density and floor area. Revised lot area, density and floor area calculations for Lot 3 will
be provided in connection with the review of the amended conceptual PUD.
Lot 5 - Grand Aspen Hotel Site
In first approaching this project, and then through the due diligence process, Four Peaks came to
understand the City's desire to see an economically viable project that would add short term
GA RFIELD & H ECI[T, P.C.
Ms. Julie Ann Woods, Director
Community Development Department
Page 3
February 2, 2001
accommodations to the City's current bed inventory and, most importantly, to keep those beds as full
as possible. Four Peaks feels it is best able to reach that goal through an interval ownership project;
thus, Four Peaks proposes to convert the one hundred and fifty unit hotel which received conceptual
PUD approval to interval ownership. At this time, the plan is to reconfigure the hotel units into fifty-
one club suites, which will be condominiumized and sold to the general public. A fractional interest in
each suite ranging from 1/12 to 1/21 will be available for purchase. Ownership of a fractional interest
will be "unit specific" and will entitle the owner to occupy the unit during specific time periods. When
not occupied by the owner, the suites will be available for rent to the public on a nightly basis. The
suites will be configured with lock -off bedrooms which will increase the number of rooms available
for nightly rental.
More specific details regarding Four Peaks' interval ownership proposal will be provided during the
amended conceptual review process and in the revised final PUD development plan application. This
information will include the fact that interval ownership has an established history of higher
occupancies than hotels, and on average, interval owners have a higher per capita spending when on
vacation. The sale of interval ownership units will be subject to Aspen Real Estate Transfer Taxes
which will produce significant benefit to the City in the first few years of initial sellout and a
consistent, ongoing annual stream of funds as intervals inevitably turnover. With regard to the recent
litigation challenging that portion of the Aspen Real Estate Transfer Tax collected on the value of the
improvements on the land, Four Peaks is willing to enter into appropriate agreements with the City that
will assure that the entire tax will be collected by the City regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
No significant changes are proposed to the hotel's footprint, exterior architecture or height. The
hotel's subgrade parking garage, the outdoor pool, garden courtyard, and guest drop-off area will be
retained. In addition, the hotel's maximum allowable floor area of 115,000 square feet will remain
unchanged. Modifications to the hotel will be confined primarily to interior spaces and to the ramps
which provide vehicular access to the subgrade parking garage. The reconfiguration of the hotel's
interior, however, will result in minor architectural changes to the structure's window and balcony
details.
In an effort to address neighborhood concerns, Four Peaks proposes that the Galena Street garage
ramp be eliminated, and that the two ramps which provide access to the garage from Dean Street be
moved from their present location adjacent to the hotel entrance to the north side of the street. The
elimination of the Galena Street ramp will reduce the impact of vehicular traffic on adjacent neighbors
and will permit an increase in the hotel's proposed open space. The proposed relocation of the
remaining access ramps will permit the retention of on -street parking on Dean Street to serve the
adjacent ice rink.
As presently envisioned, the proposed suites will consist of twenty-five 2-bedroom units, twenty-four
3-bedroom units, and two 4-bedroom units. The suites will range in size from approximately fifteen
hundred to twenty-two hundred square feet. The hotel's meeting space, retail shop, and restaurant will
be eliminated. We believe this is a benefit for the community as there will be less competition with
GARFIE D & HECHT, P.C.
Ms. Julie Ann Woods, Director
Community Development Department
Page 4
February 2, 2001
existing businesses for this revenue. A central lobby area with a front desk for check -in and a small
bar area, which will service the interval owners and nightly guests, will be provided. The hotel's
support space will be moved to the garage and the service dock will be scaled back to reflect the hotel's
reduced service requirements. A small health club will be provided on the hotel's garage level.
While the employee requirements of the reconfigured hotel will be significantly less, the new owners
have nevertheless agreed to adhere to the affordable housing mitigation requirements that were
imposed in connection with conceptual PUD approval. Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 99-
111, a total of approximately forty-one employees are to be housed. Thirteen of these employees are to
be housed within the Bavarian Inn affordable housing project and a minimum of sixteen employees are
to be housed in the hotel. The remaining employees are to be housed either on -site, off -site, via the
conversion of free market units to deed restricted affordable housing units, or by some combination of
these methods
As Four Peak's interval ownership proposal will most likely be construed as being subject to the City's
timeshare regulations, the conversion of the hotel to interval ownership will require both conditional
use and subdivision review. The applicable review criteria will be addressed in the amended final
PUD development plan application. Conditional use and subdivision approval, in the event granted,
will occur concurrent with final PUD approval. While condominiumization approval will also be
required to permit the sale of interval ownerships, the requisite application cannot be submitted until
substantial completion of construction.
The new owners of Lots 3 and 5 and the Bavarian Inn property are prepared to discuss the proposed
revisions outlined above in more detail during the amended conceptual PUD review process. Your
timely scheduling of the proposed revisions for consideration by the P,&Z would be most appreciated
as Four Peaks is anxious to commence the amendment review process.
Should you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Also feel free to call directly David Parker at 920-4377 or Sunny Vann at 925-6958.
Very truly yours,
Ro d Garfie
RG/mal Attachments
Copies to: Steve Barwick (via hand delivery without attachments)
John Worcester (via hand delivery without attachments)
Sunny Vann (without attachments)
David Parker (without attachments)
L-17- �
i
---
FEI
-
nxa
A
\
ALPW IRML I 04LOA YAM aCrsA"
b UTILITY L'AICMLNT
I aaWar .aar aaa�
—..�
LENAaAlaM'�
CAM A.
NOR win -am
1, ►OffIG IK.O
{ I MSfali ' Klj
LILjolder** KffC#M
KWUS
N7
,1l.N,AAf10M 1�„CO1, lORV1Ll,
LOW"
,
n M".604
�
' > 1!lTALPAW I�
11
�.-* ,
,,.o. VALET ( —
4L
- -
Ib' rwwr YMr0 �.-
IGE Itlf.0
aIALO.ID
L 0 T 5
Main Level Plan mm
�J
mow r x w M M
G r a n d A a p a n / T 0 P 0 t Y t t t R a d a T. 1 0 p m• a t
Aspen Mountain P.U.D.
PHASE 2
s 5" 0 a .aocurU
aAruaa warn nar+a�m
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING CONCEPTUAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL FOR LOT 3 OF THE
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF
COLORADO
Resolution 99-93
WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application
originally dated September 15. 1998, then revised and dated March 1, 1999, from
Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Vann Associates, LLC, for Conceptual
Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval on Lot 3 (also known as the "Top of Mill")
of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/Planned Unit Development (hereinafter "AIVIPUD");
and,
WHEREAS, said March 1, 1999, application generally included the following
proposal for development of Lot
Lot 3, Top of vlill:
+ Creation of 8 development parcels and 2 open space parcels, as follows:
PARCEL 1: 51,680 square feet of land containing 2 triplexes (6 tree 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 with the potential for up to 7 accessory dwelling
units;
• Total of 731100 square feet of FAR floor area;
+ Total of 60,260 square feet of land meeting the City's definition of "open space;"
and,
Page I of 6
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the 1998 Aspen Municipal Code,
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval; and,
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the 1998 Aspen Municipal Code,
City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove Conceptual PUD
approval requests upon receipt of recommendations from staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and after taking and hearing public comment regarding the
proposal; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing Office, the City Zoning Officer, the Roaring Fork
Transit Agency, the City Engineer, the Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, the Environmental Health Department, and the Community Development
Department reviewed the Lot 3 proposal and recommended approval with conditions;
and,
WHEREAS, the above referenced application was legally noticed for a public
hearing to be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 15, 1999; and,
WHEREAS, the above referenced application was, subsequent to the conclusion
of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings, legally noticed for a public hearing to
be held before the City Council on September 27, 1999, and,
WHEREAS, during the fifth continuance of the public hearing, on September 7,
1999 (first meeting on 6/15/99 was continued to 6/29/99, then to 7/13/99, then to 8/10/99,
and finally to 9/7/99), the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that
City Council grant Conceptual PUD approval for Lot 3 of the AMPUD with conditions
by a six to zero (6 - 0) vote; and,
WHEREAS, City Council conducted a public meeting, as part of the action item
agenda, on September 17, 1999, then held a legally noticed public hearing, as part of the
action item agenda, on September 27, 1999 which hearing was continued to October 25,
1999, then to November 8, 1999, then to November 23, 1999, and finally to December 6,
1999, at which times City Council received and took into consideration public comments
and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City staff, and,
WHEREAS, after consideration of agency and public comment, the applicable
review standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, to wit,
Section 26.84.030 (Planned Unit Development), and the recommendations of staff and
the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council finds the proposed Conceptual
PUD plans for Lot 3 (Top of Mill) to be consistent with the minimum requirements and
review standards for Planned Unit Development provided the stipulated conditions of
approval applicable to Lot 3 are met or addressed at final PUD review.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen City Council:
Page 2 of 6
Section One:
That the City Council hereby grants Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval
for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD with the following conditions:
1. This Conceptual PUD approval 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 apply 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, Zoning of Lands Containing More Than One Underlying Zone
District, (as recodified) will be withdrawn.
J. 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. Allowable FARs for each Lot 3 parcel will be
determined using the proposed allocation method explained in the September 27,
1999 staff memorandum. Unused FAR from Parcels 1 and 2 may be redistributed
amongst Parcels 3-8. The maximum allowable floor areas will be as follows:
PARCEL NO. MAYITNIUM ALLOWABLE FAR
Parcel 3
9,000 square feet of FAR
Parcel =1
6,200 square feet of FAR
Parcel 5
5,200 square feet of FAR
Parcel 6
51200 square feet of FAR
Parcel 7
6,500 square feet of FAR
Parcel 3
6,500 square feet of FAR
4. 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 adhered to in the Final PUD application.
5. In the Final PUD application, proposed building mass and related impermeable surface
layout will closely conform with the final outcome of the Aspen Mountain Drainage
Basin Master Plan (AMDBN/[P) 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.
6. 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.
7. In the Final PUD application, the developer's representative will make necessary
adjustments to building footprints to ensure that the requirements of the AiVIDBMP and
the above mentioned conditions are met.
8. 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 toward implementation of
Page 3 of 6
an interim drainage mitigation project to control runoff to the extent the remaining -
escrow funds will support.
9. Savanah shall be responsible for implementation of such on -site drainage improvements
as necessitated by their development and typically required of new developments in the
City of Aspen.
10. 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.
11. The development must comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice
standards and the "Best vlanagement Practices" (BN/[Ps) identified for water quality
control requirements. The existing site must be carefully studied and evaluated to ensure
a proper design and correct selection of B1VIP(s).
12. The Final PUD application shall include further grading and excavation plans, based on
today's conditions and all parts of the current design concept, with suggested conditions
for development.
13. 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.
14. With the Final PUD application, plans must be provided for the construction and post -
construction phases of the development in order to further address issues associated with
the grade of South itilill Street.
15. Savanah shall commit, in the Final PUD application, to construct a detached/separated
sidewalk along the South ylill Street frontage of Lot 3, and to plant appropriately spaced
street trees in the area between the sidewalk and the curb.
16. 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.
17. For Final PUD, the applicant will further provide design details to reduce the perceived
mass and scale of the triplexes on the Parcel l site.
18. Concurrent with Final PUD review for Lot 3, a general 8040 Greenline Review will be
carried out for the proposed building envelopes, but each parcel will still be subject to a
site- and design -specific 8040 Greenline review prior to its development.
19. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and construction
parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood concerns. It is
recommended that meetings with the noticed neighbors be held in preparation of the
management plan required pursuant to this condition.
20. Any and all PUD variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review.
21. That a staff -initiated code amendment that clarifies that lots in the LTR zone district may
be modified through the PUD process by moving the stipulated lot size (6,000 s.f. or
Less) for single family and duplex residences to the dimensional regulations. This code
amendment shall be accomplished prior to Final PUD approval.
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
Page 4 of 6
of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. The applicant further agrees to add
landscaping on the southernmost portion of Parcel 3 to soften the edge between the
development and the ski mountain.
23. Two sets of simulated three-dimensional photographs of the proposed development shall
be provided prior to presentation of the Final PUD application to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The two sets shall depict summer and winter conditions of the
proposed development, and both sets shall include views of the development from
downtown (i.e., Wheeler Opera House) and from above (i.e., on Aspen Mountain or the
Silver Queen Gondola), relative to the surroundings.
24. The lighting details to be provided with the Final PUD application shall be consistent
with the City of Aspen's recently adopted lighting ordinance or such regulations in effect
at the time of Final PUD submission.
25. Any and all internal driveways and access roads shall comply with all pertinent City
regulations and ordinances.
26. The applicant agrees to investigate the feasibility of instituting Green Building Practices
for all of the buildings on Lot 3, prior to Final PUD.
27. 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.
Section Three:
In accordance with Section 26.84.030(C)(1)(b) and (c), Sections One and Two of this
Resolution, as provided above, shall not constitute final Planned Unit Development
approval or permission to proceed with development. Instead, such approval shall
constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final
development plan. A development application for final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the conceptual development plan's date of approval by
City Council, should such approval be granted. Unless an extension is granted by the
City Council, failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null
and void the approval of a conceptual development plan.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 6th day of December, 1999.
Rac el E. Richards, Nlayo
ATTEST:
Kathryn,'Sy- och, City Clerk
Pa,,e 5 of 6
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
tz
John orcester, City Attorney
Wplanning/aspen/reso.doc/c itycounc/am3 conc-2. doc
Page 6 of 6
pa-xw8tT F
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING CONCEPTUAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL FOR LOT 5 OF THE
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF
COLORADO
Resolution 99-111
WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application
originally dated September 15, 1998, then revised and dated March 1, 1999, from
Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Vann Associates, LLC, for Conceptual
Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval on Lot 5 (also known as the "Grand Aspen
Site") of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision%Ptanned Unit Development (hereinafter
"AMPUD"); and,
WHEREAS, said March 1, 1999, application generally included the following
proposal for development of Lot 5:
Lot 5, Grand Aspen site:
• 150 moderately priced, upscale 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),
and,
• 106 below grade parking spaces.
And,
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the 1998 Aspen Municipal Code,
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval; and,
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the 1998 Aspen Municipal Code,
City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove Conceptual PUD
approval requests upon receipt of recommendations from staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and after taking and hearing public comment regarding the
proposal; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing Office, the City Zoning Officer, the Roaring Fork
Transit Agency, the City Engineer, the Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, the Environmental Health Department, and the Community Development
Department reviewed the Lot 5 proposal and recommended approval with conditions;
and,
WHEREAS, the above referenced application was legally noticed for a public
hearing to be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 15, 1999; and,
WHEREAS, during the fifth continuance of the public hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Commission, on September 7. 1999 (first meeting on 6/ 15/99 was
continued to 6/29/99, then to 7/13/99, then to 8/10/99, and finally to 9/7/99), the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that Citv Council grant Conceptual
PUD approval for Lot 5 of the AMPUD with conditions by a six to zero (6 - 0) vote, and,
WHEREAS, City Council conducted a public meeting, as part of the action item
agenda, on September 17, 1999, at which time City Council received and took into
consideration public comments and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City staff; and,
WHEREAS, the above referenced application was legally noticed for a public
hearing held before the City Council on October 25, 1999 and continued to November 8,
1999 then to November 23, 1999, and finally to December 6, 1999; and,
WHEREAS, after consideration of agency and public comment, the applicable
review standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, to wit,
Section 26.84.030 (Planned Unit Development), and the recommendations of staff and
the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council finds the proposed Conceptual
PUD plans for Lot 5 (Grand Aspen site) to be consistent with the minimum requirements
and review standards for Planned Unit Development provided the stipulated conditions of
approval applicable to Lot 5 are met or addressed at Final PUD review.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen City Council:
Section One:
That the City Council hereby grants Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD)
approval for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD with the following conditions:
1. This Conceptual PUD approval for Lot 5 shall be fully contingent upon receipt of
the necessary GMQS allotments. Council shall allow the applicant to convert
unused residential credits to tourist accommodation allocations using the
conversion factor of 2.0 lodge units per three -bedroom free market residence. All
remaining GMQS allocation needs will have to be earned through the GMQS
scoring and competition procedures.
2. The applicant shall work with staff to process a code amendment to GMQS which
will address the ability to convert residential credits to lodge room allocations.
3. Recommendations number 1 through 4 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 Community Development Department, shall be adhered to in
the Final PUD application.
4. The total number of employees to be housed in connection with the proposed 150
room hotel on Lot 5 shall be 40.9 employees. Savanah shall be credited with housing
thirteen (13) employees in the proposed Bavarian Inn affordable housing project
located near 7th and N/Iain St. A minimum of sixteen (16) employees shall be housed
within the proposed Lot 5 hotel. Credit may be obtained for housing the remaining
11.9 employees by any of the following methods, or any combination of methods.
subject to the approval of City Council:
a) the inclusion of additional affordable housing units within the proposed
hotel;
b) the provision of off -site affordable housing provided that they are
located within the City of Aspen or up valley of Brush Creek Rd.; and
c) the conversion of existing tree -market units to deed -restricted
affordable housing units.
The method by which the remaining 11.9 employees are to be housed shall be
addressed in Savanah's final PUD application. The floor area of the hotel may be
increased from 106,780 square feet to a maximum of 115,000 square .feet
provided that anv such increase may only be used for affordable housing
purposes. Any increase in floor area shall also be limited to the building footprint
and height (maximum 45 ' for the center portion of the structure) approved herein.
5. If any off -site (metro area) housing receives approval, Savanah shall be required
to purchase and make available at all times valley bus passes for all employees not
housed on -site.
6. For the Final PUD and GMQS Scoring and Competition applications: a total of
106 off-street parking spaces shall be provided, including an appropriate number
of parking spaces designated for dedicated use by the on -site employee dwelling
units, and nine (9) spaces in an appropriate location dedicated to Silver Circle Ice
Rink patrons. The remaining spaces shall be available to hotel guests and for
short-term parking for hotel operations.
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 use an alternative energy source
vehicle for such shuttle purposes.
8. With consideration given to affects on the Tipple properties across S. Galena
Street, Savanah shall move the main (guest) parking garage entrance/exit and
passenger drop-off to Dean St. A plan for vehicular and pedestrian circulation
between and amongst the passenger drop-off area, main hotel entrance, and the
parking garage shall be provided (both directions). Said plan shall, at a minimum,
provide an analysis and consideration of: potential conflicts (vehicular -to -vehicle.
vehicle -to -pedestrian, etc.); impacts on neighborhood -wide and site -specific
traffic circulation; visual impacts; signage required; and, enforcement
mechanisms required to make the plan properly and consistently function over
time.
9. If the exit from the underground garage is to remain on S. Galena Street, it shall
be restricted to employee use only and shall include a means of precluding right
turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan shall maintain a site distance
triangle open and clear to view both to the north and to the south. A plan for
minimizing impacts on neighboring properties from headlights panning across
them shall also be included.
10. The service/delivery area shall be provided with a means of precluding exiting
vehicles from turning left onto South Nlill Street. Time limitations for deliveries
shall be set, and a plan indicating how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading
docks shall also be provided. All service/delivery functions shall comply with
regulations currently in effect, as may be amended from time to time.
11. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and
construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood
concerns, including timelines. Meetings with the noticed neighbors shall be held
in preparation of the management plan required pursuant to this condition.
12. A model and/or simulated three-dimensional photograph of the proposed hotel
relative to the St. Regis and other surrounding structures, with Aspen Mountain in
the back -drop, shall be provided prior to presentation of the Final PUD
application to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
13. Any and all variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review.
14. A detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD
application. The applicant shall 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. In order to help
buffer the visual impacts of the hotel structure from the adjoining property to the
south, species for trees proposed along the site's southerly property line shall be
selected to provide mature heights closely approximating the height of the hotel in
this area.
15. The lighting details to be provided with the Final PUD application shall be
consistent with the City of Aspen's recently adopted lighting ordinance or such
regulations in effect at the time of Final PUD submission.
16. In the Final PUD application, proposed building mass and related impermeable
surface layout will closely conform with the final outcome of the Aspen Mountain
Drainage Basin Master Plan (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.
17. Savanah shall be responsible for implementation of such on -site drainage
improvements as necessitated by their development and typically required of new
developments in the City of Aspen.
18. Any and all internal driveways and access roads shall comply with all pertinent
City regulations and ordinances.
19. 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.
-4-
Section Two:
In accordance with Section 26.84.030(C)(1)(b) and (c), Section One of this Resolution, as
provided above, shall not constitute final Planned Unit Development approval or
permission to proceed with development. Instead, such approval shall constitute only
authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. A
development application for final development plan shall be submitted within one (1)
year of the conceptual development plan's date of approval by City Council, should such
approval be granted. Unless an extension is granted by the City Council, failure to file
such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a
conceptual development plan.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 6th day of December, 1999.
Rac 1 E. Richards, Ma or
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Khi Ci Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo rces er, City Attorney
G:/planning/aspen/reso.doe/citycounc/ampud5conc.doc
-5-
Four Peaks
308 South Galena Street
Aspen Colorado 81611
970.925.2114
March 1, 2001
Joyce Ohlson, Assistant Director
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Joyce:
Attached are two studies showing the positive economic and community impacts to the
Aspen community of a "Vacation Ownership" project as compared to a moderately priced,
upscale 150-room hotel at the Grand Aspen Site. These studies were produced by two
independent and respected firms in the interval industry, RCI Consulting, Inc. (Richard
Ragatz, principal) and Hobson Ferrarini Associates (Steve Ferrarini, principal). Both firms
present the compelling nature of our proposal.
We believe that the economic benefits that an Interval ownership project presents, as
compared to a 150-room moderately priced hotel, are overwhelming. But we also believe
that it is the intangible benefits to the community presented within these reports that
warrant your consideration of our proposal.
Our proposal, as currently configured in this conceptual phase, proposes to build 51 two,
three and four bedroom units. Each unit will have one or two "lock -off' units so the total
number of "keys" will be approximately 125. Owners of the Intervals will have the option
to use all or part of their units and the operator will have the right to rent out those units or
portions of units that are not occupied to the general public.
On March 6th, when we are before the Planning and Zoning Commission, both Richard
Ragatz and Steve Ferrarini will be available to provide additional information and answer any
questions that you or the Commission may have.
After further consideration we have decided to present to you a plan that houses all 28 of
the employees not housed at the Bavarian Inn at the Grand Aspen site.
Sincerely,
Four Peaks Management, LLC
Scott Writer, Manager
MAR 0 1 2001
ASPEN 1 P11KIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C CO .sH g -- " 'arc 00.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMMUNITY ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM A VACATION OWNERSHIP
OFFERING AT THE GRAND ASPEN
ASPEN, COLORADO
The purpose of this report is to analyze potential economic benefits generated to the
City of Aspen by a proposed 51-unit vacation ownership offering at The Grand Aspen
development. Wherever possible, comparisons are made with a hypothetical 150-room
moderately priced hotel.
The term vacation ownership refers to any type of shared ownership of resort property,
involving more than one owner per unit, as opposed to whole ownership involving only one
owner per unit. The two most important forms of vacation ownership are resort timeshare and
fractional interests. It is anticipated The Grand Aspen will be a hybrid of these two products.
Vacation ownership is the fastest growing segment of the international tourism and
resort hospitality industries — increasing in owners by about 15 percent annually for the last 10
years. Currently, about 3.75 million households own vacation ownership in almost 5,000
resorts. Last year, gross sales volume was over $6.5 billion. Considerable economic benefits
are incurred from properly implemented vacation ownership projects, as described in
Chapters II and III and the Appendix.
It is anticipated that the year-round occupancy rate at The Grand Aspen would be
about 87 percent, as compared to only 56.8 percent in the local hotel industry. All 51 units
would have a lock -off feature, and short-term rental and exchange programs would be
available to owners and the general public, functioning just like a hotel. Thus, the 150 room,
moderately priced hotel would generate many more vacant room -nights than The Grand
Aspen — 23,652 compared to only 3,257.
Because units at The Grand Aspen will be larger than hotel rooms, the average number
of occupants would be considerably higher. The number of occupant-nights/person-days
would be 73,770 compared to 62,196 in the hotel.
RC[ Consulting, Inc. — Eugene, Oregon 1 Community Economic Benefits: Four Peaks, March/01
To further demonstrate this particular benefit to the community, the following is a
quote from the Planning Director for the Town of Telluride.
"The aspect of vacation ownership that we find beneficial to the community is that it
addresses our desire to have a larger bed base. While the vacation ownership
projects in Telluride sell usage time to owners, they also offer units for short-term
rentals when they are not being occupied by their owners. Like Aspen, Telluride has
numerous condos bought as second homes that sit empty the majority of the year.
These condos add nothing to our rental bed base, while vacation ownership properties
do if terms of sale are structured appropriately. "
Research repeatedly shows that vacation ownership owners spend 18 to 22 percent or
more on consumer expenditures while in the local community than do hotel guests. It is
estimated that such expenditures would annually be about $9.6 million compared to $6.2
million.
Economic impact theory shows that for every $1 spent in a community, another $1.35
of consumer expenditures are generated elsewhere in the community. This is referred to as
the "multiplier effect." When including the "multiplier effect," these expenditure figures
increase to $22.5 million from The Grand Aspen compared to $14.6 million from the hotel.
The Grand Aspen would generate about 64 employees compared to about 82 at the
hotel. When including consumer expenditures by occupants and employees, and both direct
and induced expenditures, the totals would be about $26.0 million from The Grand Aspen
compared to $18.5 million from the hotel.
Annual Sales Tax generated by The Grand Aspen (including both from occupants and
employees and from direct and induced expenditures) would be about $457,040 from The
Grand Aspen versus $314,091 from the hotel. However, the annual Lodging Tax would be
greater at the hotel — $174,149 compared to $71,774.
When combining these two taxes on an annual basis, the 51-unit vacation ownership
project would generate about $40,574 more than the 150-room hotel. When including
additional Sales Tax collected from appropriate maintenance fees, and more importantly, by
the Real Estate Transfer Tax, during the first three years of operation (i.e., the sell -out period),
The Grand Aspen should generate another $86,560 in Sales Tax and $650,250 in Real Estate
Transfer Tax.
RCI Consulting Inca — Eugene, Oregon ii Community Economic Benefits: Four Peaks, March/01
Over a 10-year period therefore, The Grand Aspen would generate about $1,055,630
more in taxes for the City of Aspen than would a 150-room moderately priced hotel. The
totals would be $5,938,030 compared to $4,882,400, or a 21.6 percent differential.
During this 10-year period, The Grand Aspen also would generate:
1_7
• 115,740 more occupant-nights/person-days
• 203,950 fewer vacant room -nights
• $75 million more of consumer expenditures
In recognition of the many economic advantages of a properly implemented vacation
ownership project, community leaders are supporting this type of development.
In addition to the quantifiable economic benefits generated by The Grand Aspen to the
City of Aspen, a series of other benefits also exist — especially when compared to a hotel.
These include:
1. Greater year-round stability in employment patterns and consumer expenditure
patterns due to the significantly higher year-round occupancy rates.
Obviously, seasonal unemployment rates would therefore be less, and local
merchants and service providers would have to worry less about severe
seasonal peaks and declines in their income.
2. Vacation ownership owners feeling more like citizens of Aspen than hotel
guests. Due to the feeling of "ownership" and annually spending more days in
Aspen than hotel guests, vacation ownership owners probably would better
"care" for the community, e.g., more charitable contributions, more concern
about its appearance, etc.
3. Some vacation ownership owners probably will upgrade to whole ownership
over time, thus paying more property taxes, extending the advantages in (2),
etc.
RCI Consulting, Inc. — Eugene, Oregon 111 Community Economic Benefits: Four Peaks, March/01
4. Less traffic and use of public facilities. Due to their longer average lengths -of -
stay, vacation ownership owners typically spend more time in their units, and
less time driving around sight-seeing, creating impacts on other facilities such
as police and fire protection, etc.
5. Higher repeat visitation patterns. Since "ownership" is attached to the concept,
vacation ownership owners tend to return much more frequently over time than
do transient renters. This stability lessens the need to always be attracting
more tourist flow.
6. General spreading out of the economic benefit across a greater number of
providers of goods and services in the community. As visitors stay for longer
periods of time and return to Aspen more frequently, they are likely to explore
the area and begin to also visit local shops and restaurants more "off the beaten
path."
RCI Consulting, Inc. — Eugene, Oregon iv Community Economic Benefits: Four Peaks, March/01
FROM : RJR I TER
FAX NO. : 9709275464 Mar. 01 2001 02:38PM P2
Con ting
Biographical Sketch
RYCHA D L. RAGATZ, PH.D.
RCI C°x- hitis, Inc. is a di'vwon of RC:I
irCla
RICHARD L. RAGATZ, Ph.D. is Executive Vice President of RCI Consulting. His
academic background includes a B.A.. in Geography (1961), a Master's of City Plaming (1963)
.from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Ph.D. (1969) from Cornell University. He was
a membcr of phi Kappa Phi Honor Society.
In addition to his consulting activities, he was an Assistant Professor of 1-Yousing and
Design at Comell University (1966-69), where he taught courses in Housing Makke# Analysis, .
For 12 years he was an Associate Professor (1.969-74) and Full professor (1974-81) of Urban and
Regional Planning at the University of Oregon where he taught courses in Housing Marketing
Analysis, Housing Planning, and Social Issues in Planning and Planning Theory. He was
Depwiment Head .from 1969 to 1974. He was a member of the American Society of Planning
Officials, the American Institute of Planners, and the American Institute of Certified Planners.
Ral;atz has been very active in the primary trade association representing the resort
industry -. the American Resort Development Association. He joined ARL)A in 196% the year it
was .fo;rmed, In 1987, 1989 and 1995, he was given special awards by ARDA for outstanding
contributions to the resort industry. The 1995 award. was Industry Loader of the Year.
He also has been active in the UrbanLand Jnstitute, having cooperated with that group on
a major national study in 1974 on the recreational properties industry, and a member since 1972.
His Ph.D. dissertation from Cornell in 1969 is recognized as the first national study on
vacation homes ever conducted in the U.nit<xj States. The study was updated in 1974 fez tht;
President's Council on Environmental Quality, i1n.1977 for the U.S. Forest Service, in 1990 for the
National Association of Realtors, and u11993 for the; .American Resort Development Association.
Since 1969, he has published. more than 50 articles on vacation housing for academic
journals and trade magazines. He also has delivered nioro than 200 speeches on, resorts and
tourism at conferences held throughout the world.
R.agatz his achieved international recognition as the leading market researcher ill the
resort industry. In his present capacity with RCT Consulting and in his former capacity as
President of Ragatz Associates, he has conducted national vacation home consumer surveys in the
United States, Cana4 the United Kingdom, Mcxico, Australia, the Caribbean, Malaysia, said.
Singapore, He has been involvcd in more than 1,000 studies in virtually every state and over 50
countries. Current and past clients include most major developers and lend= in tho resort
industry.
Areas of specialty include market feasibility analysis, consumer mid product research,
marketing plans, business plans, economic impact analysis and project evaluation.
767 Willamette StrOOL • Suite 307 - Eugene, Oregon 97401 - 541-1686.9335 - Fix, 541.686.8142
richird.ra atxt�rcic,rci.com
FROM : WRITER FAX Na. : 9709275-464 Mar. 01 2001 02:39PM P3
RCI CONSUL TING9 INC.
RCI Co;aaulting, Iue. (formerly Ragatz Associates, Inc.) is a consulting and market research firm that
provides services to the resort industry. The firm has conducted over 1,OOO studies, in 46 states and 40
countries. Clients represent both the private sector (from small, individually owned companies to
international corporations) and the public sector (frorn small municipalities to national governments)_ Our
services include:
Market analysis Project evaluation
Feasibility analysis Impact analysis
Consumer and product research Financial analysis
Strategy phmnm8 Marketing plans
In addition to hundreds of contracts for individual clients, the fxrm's background in the resort industry is
demonstratod through the conduct of several landmark studies, including:
+ National and regional studies of the resort timeshare industries in the United States (1995 and 1997), Asia (1999),
Canada (1993), California (19921 Hawaii (1992), Mexico (1993 and 1998), Puerto Yallarta (1993 and 199t3),
Cancun (1995 and 1998), Acapulco (1995 and 1998), lxtape (1995 and 1999), Mazatlan (1998), Manzanillo (1998),
Los Cabos (1998), the Canw-y Islands (1995), and the Caribbean (1994 and 1999), includng suppl
y and demand
characteristics and economic impacts.
+ Only comprehensive National survey in last 24 yew to determine the total number of U.S. rcmationW property
owners and characteristics of their properties. Included national poll to determine interest ira recreational par0perty
among non -owners (19W); updated in 1993 and 1995.
First national survey of resort timeshare buyers in the United States (1978); updated in 1980, 1992, 1983, 1989,
1993, 1995, 1997 and 1993,
+ First world-wide study Of the resort timeshare industry (1990); updated in 1992 and 1995.
+ First national survey of fractional interest purchasers (1989).
+ First niitaonal survey of the campresort industry - a four -volume study for Coast to Coast Resorts (1995); updated in
1997 and 1991.
+ First national survey of hotel condominium buyers (1984).
• National surveys ofresort timeshare owners in Brazil, (1998), Fmnce (1996), Germany (1996Italy (19961 Spain
(1996). Argentina (1996), the United Kingdom (1981 and 1987� Canada (1981 and I993), Australia (1983), the
Caribbean (1983), Mexico (1986, 1993, and 1996), Singapore 0992), and Malaysia (1992).
• Three -volume study for the Natiotml Timeshare Council documenting the socio-economic impacts of resort
timesharing (1990); updated in 1987;
+ First study by the British Department of the Environment on vacation homes (1976).
+ Largest study ever funded by the federal government
llnvironmeotal Quality) on privately awned reereatic�Iouprop to s Urban
I San Development
yr and President's Council on
and 1979). ) updatedU.S. Forest Service (1977
RCI Consulting is a member of the American Resort Development Association and the Urban Land Institute.
A corporate brochure is available from:
RCI Consulting, Inc., 767 Willamette Street, Suite 3077 Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 686-9335 (ter) - (541) 686-8I42 (fax) - ragatzrcic@aoLrouj
HOBSON
E RRA IU N I
A S S O C I A T E S
LAND USE ECONOMICS
DATE: February 28, 2001
TO: Scott Writer
FOUR PEAKS MANAGEMENT, LLC
FROM: Steve Ferrarini
HOBSON FERRARINI ASSOCIATES
SUBJECT: Comparative Analysis of the Benefits to the City of Aspen of
Development of Interval Ownership Versus a Hotel
EXECUTIVE MEMORANDUM
Hobson Ferrarini Associates has been retained by Four Peaks Management, LLC to
provide an objective evaluation of the comparative benefits of developing an interval
ownership product or a moderately priced hotel on a site in downtown Aspen, Colorado.
The analysis focuses on current industry trends, occupancy rates, user demographics,
and economic impacts.
Industry Trends
1. Interval ownership is a way for the general public to pre -purchase, at a fixed price,
an annual vacation at a lower cost than a wholly owned vacation home that they will
probably not have time to use for more than two or three weeks a year. Thus, the
interval consumer can structure a program that will give them as much vacation time
as they can afford or find time for, at a small fraction of the cost.
2. Interval ownership is a way for the general public to pre -purchase, at a fixed price,
an annual vacation at a lower cost than a wholly owned vacation home that they will
probably not have time to use for more than two or three weeks a year. Thus, the
interval consumer can structure a program that will give them as much vacation time
as they can afford or find time for, at a small fraction of the cost.
3. Today, interval ownership is growing at a compound annual growth rate of 7.2%,
compared to only 2.4% for all vacation properties in total. As noted in an industry
overview', attributes contributing to the phenomenal success of this industry are as
follows:
' The United Sates Timeshare Industry: Overview and Economic Impact Analysis. Washington DC:
American Resort Development Association (ARDA), 1997.
• Branding: Major hospitality companies like Disney, Marriott, Four Seasons, Ritz
Carlton and others have added creditability and security to buyers.
Wall Street Financing: Many of the hospitality companies have gone public and
sold stock to raise capital to build hotels and interval ownership products. In
1995 there were just five public companies in the industry with a market
capitalization of $262 million. By 1997, several other hospitality companies had
gone public and the combined market capitalization had increased to over $1
billion.
Flexibility: In order to better meet consumer needs, a proliferation of interval
ownership products have begun to enter the market. Different intervals are now
being offered that range from as low as a 1/7th share with five or six weeks of
guaranteed annually use to a 1/52nd share with one week of annual use.
Additionally, most new interval projects do not sell fixed time, rather usage has
become more flexible to meet the changing needs of buyers.
• Luxury Product: Most recently, large hospitality/hotel companies like Four
Seasons, Ritz Carlton, Auberge, Rosewood, Club Regent, American Ski
Company, Millennium Partners and The Owners Club have entered the interval
market with more luxurious products and interval sizes ranging from 1/4th to
1/5th shares, allowing the purchase of more annual vacation time in five-star
resorts. Thus, interval products range from relatively affordable to more
expensive luxury product.
Occupancy
1. Interval projects maintain higher average occupancy than comparable quality hotels
and, therefore, bring more people to the towns where they are located:
According to Smith Travel Research,2 annual resort hotel occupancy in the
United States averaged 68.1 % in 1999 (however average occupancy in Aspen it
was 56.8%, see Table 1).
RCI Consulting (pg 26)3 reported annual occupancy in interval projects
conservatively averaged approximately 80%-81 %, approximately 10 percentage
points higher than resort hotels. However, the report notes that the reported
average significantly underestimates occupancy in most projects because it
included new projects that had a large inventory of unsold units. Stabilized
projects perform better with most projects achieving occupancy rates in excess
of 80% and more than 25% exceeding 90% year round occupancy. Given the
2 Hotel Operating Statistics. Henderson TN: Smith Travel Research, 2000.
3 The Resort Timeshare Industry in the United States: 1997 — A Survey of Projects with Active
Marketing and Sales Programs. Indianapolis: Resort Condominiums International (RCI), 1997.
subject's location it would be expected to perform among the top 25% and
achieve occupancy rates in excess of 90%.
2. Hotel occupancy in Rocky Mountain ski areas tends to be high in the prime winter
and summer seasons, but very low in the shoulder seasons, bringing down the
overall annual average below the national average. Annual hotel occupancy in
Aspen and Park City illustrate this trend:
Table 1
Average Annual Hotel Occupancy Rates
Year Aspen CO Park City UT National
Avg.
1999 54.9% 53.4% 68.1 %
2000 56.8% 54.7% N/A
SOURCE: Smith Travel Research
3. Statistics published by Smith Travel Research further indicate that moderately
priced, economy, and budget hotels maintain lower average occupancy rates than
more expensive ones. In fact, occupancy rates decrease as prices decrease.
Table 2
Average Annual Hotel Occupancy Rates
By Price Category
Year
National
Avg.
Upscale
72%
Mid -Price
68%
Economy
67%
Budget
61 %
SOURCE: Smith Travel Research
4. There are several reasons why less expensive hotels perform more poorly, including
quality, condition, competition from less expensive accommodations (i.e. family,
friends, and RV and camping), and the fact that they target a segment of the
population that travels less frequently.
5. In seasonal resorts locations like Aspen, the inability to attract guests in the shoulder
seasons further erodes the performance of moderately priced hotels. As illustrated in
the table below, year round occupancy at moderately priced hotels located near
Colorado's destination ski resorts averaged 52.3% from 1998-2000. During the six-
month shoulder seasons occupancy averages only 39.7% and drops below 30% in
May. This segment of the market cannot typically attract off-season business by
discounting room rates because their rates are already reasonable and these types of
properties do not provide compelling accommodations.
Figure l:
Average Monthly Occupancy 1998-2000
Moderately Priced Hotels Near Colorado Ski Resorts
90 %
80%
1
� 70
60 %
50 %
40%
—
30 %
20 %
10%
0%
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
SOURCE: Smith Travel Research
6. Occupancy for interval ownership projects are higher than hotels for a number of
reasons including:
• Ownership: Interval owners have made an investment and therefore are
committed to using their time. If owners do not use their unit they often give
their time to family or friends or make the unit available through formal
exchanges programs to owners worldwide.
• Bonus or Float Time: Over 55% of the interval properties in the United States
also offer bonus time or float time. Bonus time represents nights that are not
being used for various reasons. This time is then made available to the resort
operator to rent to owners and/or the general public. Projects with a smaller
number of owners per unit usually build bonus or float time into the project by
not selling all of the weeks. In these projects owners can use this time free of
charge except for housekeeping costs. Thus, occupancy is substantially
increased and the consumer can take more frequent vacations at a lower cost.
Greater Owner Satisfaction: Survey research by RCI Consulting, ARDA and
DK Shifflet & Associates indicate that the vast majority of interval owners are
very satisfied with their purchase. RCI Consulting reports (pg 52), that 73.1 % of
interval owners enjoyed their vacations more and 66.3 % believe that, "since
owning, their lives have been positively impacted." Given these responses, it is
not surprising that interval owners have a higher level or overall vacation
satisfaction than hotel guests:
Figure 2
Overall Vacation Satisfaction
SOURCE: D.K. Shifflet & Associates Ltd.
User Demographics
A 1999 study completed by D.K. Shifflet & Associates shows that the household
demographics of interval owners are largely the same as households who rent hotel
rooms on leisure/pleasure trips. This finding is not surprising given that the interval
buyer is usually someone who has rented a hotel room for previous vacations and
believes that interval ownership will provide more benefits, greater vacation
satisfaction, and a better value over renting a vacation home or hotel room.
a The Benefits of Owning Resort Timeshare. Indianapolis: Resort Condominiums International (RCI),
1998.
2. After the initial purchase, the ongoing annual costs of owning an interval is far less
expensive than staying in hotel rooms. This is one reason why the demographic
profile of interval owners is very similar to hotel guests and why households
interested in one- to two -weeks of vacation ownership do not need to be affluent.
Figures 3-5
Demographic Comparison
Interval Owners vs. Hotel Guests on Leisure Trips
20%
10%
0%
Education Level
No College College Graduate Degree
SOURCE: D.K. Shifflet & Associates
Economic Impacts
1. Interval ownership impacts to the local community more positively than hotel
guests for a variety of reasons, including.
• Higher Occupancy: As previously discussed, interval projects maintain higher
year round occupancy and therefore attract a larger number of people to the
communities where they are located. This is particularly significant in
seasonal locations like Aspen when the amount of tourist activity can drop by
as much as 50% during the shoulder seasons.
• Larger Expenditures: Interval owners and their family/guests (collectively
called a party) outspend average hotel parties on local goods and services by
more than 25%. One of the reasons that they can afford to spend more money
is they do not have to pay a large hotel bill at the end of their stay.
Table 3
Average Daily Spending, 1999
Local Goods and Services
Type
Hotel Party
Interval Party
% Difference
Food
$73.36
$92.34
25.9%
Shopping
$52.92
$61.18
15.6%
Entertainment
$50.68
$71.82
41.7%
Miscellaneous
$16.24
$18.24
12.3 %
Total
$193.20
$243.5 8
26.1 %
SOURCE: D.K. Shifflet & Associates
• More Visits: Interval owners stay longer and return to the same area more
frequently than hotel guests. As a result, they become more a part of the
community, take more pride in it, and are more apt to visit and spend money in
a variety of establishments because they will have more time to explore parts
of the city beyond the major tourist destinations.
• ARDA reports (pg 51), that the average interval owner took 2.5 vacations
in the resort area during the five years preceding their purchase, but plan to
take approximately 4.0 vacations in the same area in the five years after
they purchase.
• RCI Consulting reports (pg 31)6 that the average number of days an
interval owner spent in the location where they purchased was 3.2 days per
trip before they purchased, but 6.8 days per trip after they purchased.
• D.K. Shifflet statistics confirm the above.
5 Industry Overview
6 Timeshare Purchasers: Who Are They, Why They Buy. Indianapolis: Resort Condominiums
International (RCI), 1998.
Summary of Conclusions
1. Interval development in downtown Aspen is expected to provide much greater
benefits to the larger community by attracting people who will spend more money
on vacations, stay longer and will be invested members of the community.
2. The above benefits will accrue while still being able to attract largely the same type
of consumer to Aspen that a moderately, upscale priced hotel would attract, because
interval owners can purchase as much vacation time as they can afford. In fact an
interval project in downtown Aspen would be expected to attract a demographic
group that is probably under represented in Aspen currently due to the cost of
vacation property and many lodging facilities.
3. In terms of local expenditures interval owners spend 26% more on local goods and
services than hotel guests. However, because interval projects maintain higher year
round occupancy, even with fewer rooms and/or lock-offs7 an interval project at the
subject would generate approximately 65% more in local expenditures than a hotel.
Table 4
Aggregate Annual Spending Estimate
Hotel vs. Interval
Hotel Interval
Rooms/Lock-Offs 150 124
Times: Days per Year 365 365
Times: Average Occupancy 57% 90%
Equals: Occupied Room Nights/Annual 31,200 40,700
Times: Daily Expenditures $193 $244
Equals: Total Ann'l Expenditures (000) $6,021 $9,931
SOURCE: D.K. Shifflet & Associates and Hobson Ferrarini Associates
Lock -off definition: Large interval (two plus bedrooms) units are often built so the unit can be divided
into several units that can be used independently, thus effectively creating more rooms in the project.
In these cases the owner has the discretion to use all or a part of the overall unit. If less than the whole
is used the owner is rewarded with more vacation time and the operator is free to rent these rooms to
the general public.
APPENDIX A
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS
The real estate industry continues to be dynamic. Challenges and opportunities are arising from
global financial markets, improvements to technology and communications, increasing
affluence, emerging sources of financing, and other factors that impact demand for real estate.
Since our founding in 1976, Hobson Ferrarini Associates has responded to the ever -evolving
real estate industry by expanding and improving the services that we offer to our clients. We
always strive to add value and provide a competitive advantage to our clients' real estate
activities. We have and will continue to accomplish this goal by helping our clients stay at the
cutting edge of new and emerging trends and markets.
Our comprehensive real estate advisory services include:
• Development Advisory Services
• Periodic Real Estate Market Reports
• Investment Advisory Services
• Litigation Support
• Public Policy and Metropolitan Development Advisory Services
• Strategic Planning for Private and Public Organizations
• Valuation Services
Our assignments involve all types of real estate products and portfolios, including office,
residential, urban and suburban mixed -use complexes, land development, industrial, resort and
recreational developments, and planned communities.
We are particularly proud of the diversity and quality of our clients who include:
• Corporations
• Developers
• Financial Institutions
• Government and Public Agencies
• Institutional Investors
• Non -Profit Organizations
The hallmark of Hobson Ferrarini Associates continues to be clear and definitive
recommendations that add value and can be readily implemented by our clients.
Recommendations are based upon market, economic, physical, and political realities
influencing a given real estate asset or portfolio.
• Wallace Hobson, CRE, President 503.226.6616x 11 wmh ahobsonferrarini.com
• Steve Ferrarini, V.P. 503.226. 6616 x13 srfaJtobson ferrarini. eom
I
co
a
W
O (3)
4A
J Cd
Lid b
b
3
q
\1
7
Op
•
11
PIN
6
03
0
P.
w
0
M�
F�
®
O
■
Lo
a
F
~ y
V1
Cd
a
CL
m
•
•d
A
�
F
o
W
r^�
V1
O �
�
J
�
�
m
IL
N
Z
h
ca
Big
a
O
®
°
•
1�>
!
a
V
Lr)
a
�
G
E
~ a
o b �
0
O
^Ul
W
q
b
cn
b
a
pp
• r•-1
b
g
A
�
Oti
�7
PIW
,
T^
V1
0
0
N
0
0
0
V1
t-I
SI Z
a
0
I
Lj
i
0
pp
v
mz
m�
m Z
mz
m�
O
Q
m
J� L
of
`
s
L
s lulu
2
2
J
7-
s o s lu
Yam.. L 2
III�J
i■
i■ '!��'
i<
'U
ml
ifs
"I
U
Mrz
—
IC
_.-IMES:.
s of p n o
0 o a o u
= L R. ILri
Ili
O O o lu
lu� Z
m rl
O
cd
W
a
a
0
j D
O
A
LO
�i w
O
•.1
— c6
;> t4
O
W EH
_I
0
04
W
b
b
0
0
0
w
0
0
12
a
s
', �_ `1 ` 6
nor �
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I 72'_---� , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.3-2.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
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_ (which is days 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
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 23 day
l
of %3 -a , to the 6 day of /� IlT (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
(Attach photograph here) Signed before me this & day of
449^ by
ca
7�
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: WCOMMISSION EXPIRES
417101
Notary Pu
111.4,
'_11Pj .Wfii9v.,faV"
0�1,
} Z. 4
TAT
Gcs�"3
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I, Vo�YIIAI , being or representing an
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 the2V day of ,-+99(which isl"�1;7days prior to the public
hearing date of Wa O ).
By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day
of 1199 , to the day of
, 199 (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the pond sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here) Signed before me this
. by
day of lwdlL ,
(��- surrr�y
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
MY COf�"kySION EXPIRES
My Commission expires: 417101
**"�O'A/
r . Jr1
Notary Pu lic C1 j
4 Y'
it , tI1T.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD/SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW FOR
LOT 3 TO CREATE A PARCEL FOR THE EXISTING GARAGE AT THE
SUMMIT PLACE CONDOMINIUMS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 6, 2001, at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Hall, 130
S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership,
requesting to amend the conceptual approval of Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD to allow for the
creation of a new lot where the Summit Place Condominiums Garage exists. The property is
legally described as Lot 3, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD; and is referred to as the Top of
Mill site. For further information, contact Julie Ann Woods at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5100 or by email at
j uliew(a,ci. aspen. co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on February 19, 2001
City of Aspen Account
g:/planning/aspen/notices/AMPUDp&z. doc
STANFORD JOHN STANTON JAMES STEWART STAN & RITA
C/O LEE MILLER C/O WORLD-WIDE HOLDINGS CORP 10 GELDERT DR
7/' ' GALENA 150 E 58TH ST TIBURON, CA 94920
/ CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10155
STOLTZ WAGNER AND BROWN
C/O DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
5550 LYNDON B JOHNSON FWY STE
700
DALLAS, TX 75240-1414
TAUBER REAL ESTATE LLC
MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
27777 FRANKLIN RD STE 1850
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034
TRIPP PAUL
231 MARGARET ST
KEY WEST, FL 33040
VELMAR A COLORADO CORP
C/O GRUPO DE MAR S A DE CV
747 S GALENA #F 204
ASPEN, CO 81611
KINS DAN H TRUSTEE
3575 8TH ST
MOLINE, IL 61265-7157
STRAWBRIDGE GEORGE JR
3801 KENNETT PKE BLDG #13-100
WILMINGTON, DE 19807
TAVEL MORTON & CAROL
1139 FREDERICK DR S
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260
TRUST A UNDER THE WILL OF JACK P
HUNT
HUNT JAMES S JR C/O
1700 NW 97 TERR
CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
WAPITI RUNNING LLC
PO BOX 1003
ASPEN, CO 81612
WATSON MARCIA J
PO BOX 3412
ASPEN, CO 81612
TALLICHET DAVID C JR TRUSTEE 1/2
TALLICHET CECILIA A UND 1/2
4155 EAST LA PALMA AVE
ANAHEIM, CA 92807
TOBEY ROBERT W & PATRICIA A
41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-7113
VANMETER STEPHEN W & SHARON H
1352 BAY ST
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
WARGASKI ROBERT E TRUST
30353 N DOWELL RD
MCHENRY, IL 60050
WEEKS WILLIAM H
JOHNSON-WEEKS FAMILY OFFICE
22 GRIGG ST
GREENWICH, CT 06830
WEIGAND N R WELCH PATRICK T & DEBORAH P WERNER STEFANIA P TRUST
150 N MARKET ST ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING CO C/O V 9555 LADUE RD
WICHITA, KS 67202 GARWOOD ST LOUIS, MO 63124
747 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
WHEELER CONNIE CHRISTINE
MC CALLION GERARD
PO BOX 400
RED HOOK, NY 12571
ZUBROD MATTHEW S TRUST
PO BOX 12011
ASPEN, CO 81612
WMC INVESTMENT LTD PARTNERSHIP ZIMAND SHERRY
1001 MIDWEST CLUB PKWY 5425 OSPREY ISLE LN
OAK BROOK, IL 60521 ORLANDO, FL 32819
PASQUINELLI SALLIE S PATRICK GARY R & PATRICIA A PETROVICH NICK D
FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM PETROVICH ROSA DEL CARMEN
7,d 9ALENA ST #9 537 MARKET ST STE 202 FERNANDEZ
A CO 81611 CHATTANOOGA„ TN 37402 600 E MAIN ST ASPEN CLASSIC
ASPEN, CO 81611
PLATTS JOHANNA E
740 FLAGSTAFF RD
BOULDER, CO 80302
RAMYEAD VISHNU & TEIKA
6161 WOODLAND VIEW DR
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364
RHOADES CHRISTINE ANN LYON LIVING RIDOUT WAYNE E & ROBBYE L
TRUST 35 COUNTRY CLUB CIR
644 GRIFFITH WY SEARCY, AR 72143
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
REARDON GENE F & DIANA
PO BOX XX
ASPEN, CO 81612
ROARING FORK PROPRIETARY LLC
2519 E 21 ST ST
TULSA, OK 74114
ROLF ROBERT WILLIAM ROMER FRANK L & MARCY L ROOKE JOAN ELIZABETH
747 GALENA STREET 10204 E SHERI LN P O BOX 1035
ASPEN, CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 REFUGIO, TX 78377-1035
ROSE EDWARD D & JULIE 1/2 INT S C JOHNSON AND SON INC SALITERMAN LARRY
1001 MIDWEST CLUB TAX DEPT 412 650 S MONARCH UNIT 7
OAKBROOK, IL 60521 1525 HOWE ST ASPEN, CO 81611
RACINE, WI 53403
�HEZ MARIA J & AR JR SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SAX DONALD C
PO BOX 2986 13530 BALI WAY PO BOX 12351
LAREDO, TX 78044 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 ASPEN, CO 81612
SCHAINUCK LEWIS I SCHERER ROBERT P III SCHERER STEPHEN M
SCHAINUCK MICHELLE T 217 GOLDENROD AVE 169 SHORECLIFF RD
5750 DOWNEY AVE STE 206 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92625
LAKEWOOD, CA 90712-1468
SCHIMBERG HENRY A AND LINDA AS SHAW GEORGE G SHINE FAMILY LLC
JOINT TEN 101 HIGH ST 8677 LOGO 7 CT
C/O RACHEL DUGGAN DENVER, CO 80218 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46219-1430
750 DALRYMPLE RD APT D3
ATLANTA, GA 30328
SIMMONS SUSAN K SIMON HERBERT SKIERS CHALET LLC
31381 MONTERREY ST 8765 PINE RIDGE DR PO BOX 248
S LAGUNA, CA 92677 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46206 ASPEN, CO 81612
kSPEN DEAN STREET LLC SOLOMON GARY L SPEYER LESTER D ASPEN PERS RES
. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS 3139 N LINCOLN TRUST
TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60657 TENNSCO CORPORATION C/O
2231 E CAM ELBACK RD STE 410 PO BOX 1888
PHOENIX, AZ 85016 DICKSON, TN 37056-1888
LOWE JAMES H LOWNES VICTOR A M& M INVESTMENTS F/K/A W K
8232 AVALON DR C/O ASPEN LODGING CO PARTNERS
P ER ISLAND, WA 98040 747 GALENA STREET (DURANT 3-D) C/O CHARLES MAYER
ASPEN, CO 81611-1871 679 BRUSH CREEK RD
ASPEN, CO 81611
MACAPA CORP MADDRELL BEVERLY J 1/2 MARMONT LOIS 0
9465 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 2819 17TH ST PL C/O COBURN B
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 MOLINE, IL 61265 3355 SOLOMAN LN
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
MARSH JAMES W & BEVERLY M MATTESON SCOT & KIMBERLY A MAURER MICHAEL S QUAL PERS RES
AS JOINT TENANTS TRUST 1/2
815 TROPICAL CIR 16 VIA 10585 N MERIDIAN ST #101
SARASOTA, FL 34242 NEWPORT COASTCA 92657-1610 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46206
MCELWE BRIAN MCGORMAN MICHAEL & HELEN MCVICKER JULIET
C/O VALLEY FORGE INVEST PO BOX 215 1 PARK PL
120 S WARNER RD BALGOWLAH AUSTRALIA, 2093 BRISTOL, VT 05443
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
MEHRA RAMESH MEYERS NEIL S MIDDELBERG MARIA B
3115 WHITE EAGLE DR C/O RESORT WORLD DBA MODETTE
NAPERVILLE, IL 60564 2800 N POINCIANA 150 PURCHASE ST
KISSIMMEE, FL 34746 RYE, NY 10583
-cR BECKY B & PETER C MILLER DON E MILLER LELAND L
200-06 CROSS ISLAND PKWY 300 MERCER ST APT 31 H 11575 FOLSOM PT LN
BAYSIDE, NY 11360 NEW YORK, NY 10003 FRANKTOWN, CO 80116
MILLER TANYA B MOLITOR RONALD A & JOAN A MONTGOMERY M MEAD & ANNE M
2445 W GULF DR 8696 SWAN 945 OLD GREEN BAY RD
SANIBEL ISLAND, FL 33957 KALAMAZOO, MI 49009 WINNEKTA, IL 60093
MOORE JOHN W MURCHISON ANNE A NARDI STEPHEN J
MOORE ISABEL D PO BOX 8968 4100 MADISON ST
1 CITY CENTRE ASPEN, CO 81612 HILLSIDE, IL 60162
ST LOUIS, MO 63102
NILES LAURENCE E & LILY Y NOREN LARA L & STEPHEN C OLSEN MARSHALL G & SUSAN A
1172 BIENVENIDA AVE 10927 BRIGANTINE DR 2030 PN SEDGEWICK ST
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46256-9544 CHICAGO, IL 60614
_ILL ROGER & SALLY OSTERMAN MICHAEL & LINDA LUCE PASQUINELLI MARY ANN
rJ BOX 711 PO BOX 262 FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM #10
LAKE GENEVA, WI 53147-3579 PETTERSVILLE, NJ 07979 747 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HANSEN BRUCE HANSEN BRUCE G
HARDEN SHEILA
ED MONGE REMAX PROPERTY MGMT KEEFER OLIVE C/O
8111 CAMINITO MALLORCA
45r' - GALENA ST STE 202A 2020 S ONEIDA ST STE 210
P CO 81611-1857 DENVER, CO 80224 LA JOLLA, CA 92037
HEARST BARBARA B & PETER S HEATH HETTA S TRUSTEE HEMMETER GEORGE MEAD MD
131 TREASURE HILL 606 N SPRING ST 4587 COACHMAN CIR
SOUTH KENT, CT 06785 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
HIBBERD LORNA W FAMILY TRUST HILLMAN RICHARD HAYES JACOB PAUL MITCHELL
PINE ISLAND 2665 MAIN ST #260 400 E 20TH ST #10-10
RYE, NY 10580 SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 NEW YORK, NY 10009
JACOBI ATHOLE G MD JAEGER WILLIAM N JRP PORTFOLIO LP
SUTTON TERRACE #308 439 N DOHENY DR 2361 CAMPUS DR STE 204
BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 IRVINE, CA 92715
KELLY C A KERR WAYNE & CATHY KIRLIN DONALD W 25% INT
9820 SAGAMOR RD 2374 FOOTHILLS DR S PO BOX 3097
SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66206 GOLDEN, CO 80401 QUINCY, IL 62305
,'ELD ASPEN LLC KOSFREUDFIELD ASPEN LC KOSWISHFIELD ASPEN LC
NH i IONSBANK TOWER 10 S E 2ND ST STE 2800 100 S E 2ND ST STE 2800
100 S E 2ND ST STE 2800 MIAMI, FL 33131 MIAMI, FL 33131-2144
MIAMI, FL 33131-2144
KOSWISHMARLINFIELD ASPEN LCA KRIBS KAREN REVOCABLE LIVING KWEI THOMAS AND AMY
100 S 2ND ST 28TH FL TRUST 700 MONARCH UNIT 306
MIAMI, FL 33131 2170 MCKELVEY RD 700 S MONARCH ST
MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO 63043 ASPEN, CO 81611-1854
LEASURE BRIAN J LEFROCK JACK L LEVIN BARTON J AND NANCY M
410 BOYD DRIVE LEFROCK BARBARA S 701 S MONARCH ST #6
CARBONDALE, CO 81623-9248 647 WATERSIDE WAY ASPEN, CO 81611
SARASOTA, FL 34242
LEVITUS STEPHEN I LLOYD ASSOCIATES
324
LEVITUS PERRI A LIEBEL E DAVID LLOYD ASSOC LTD
CINCINNATI
7205 SHANNON DR 24E 4THS,T OH 45202 12 LEYS RD OXSHOTT
EDINA, MN 55439 SURREY ENGLAND KT220QE,
13 CHRISTOPHER M & WARNER B LONG GODFREY M JR LOVETT WELLS T
1/T ELIZABETH ST 7755 ANNESDALE DR LOVETT MARY M
ATLANTA, GA 30307 CINCINNATI, OH 45243 18 STONE CRK PK
OWENSBORO, KY 42303
EAST JAMES COLLIER TRUSTEE OF EDGAR ROBERT G ELDER TRUST
THE SCHERER ROBERT P JR ELDER JERRY TRUSTEE
El 'AMES COLLIER REVOCABLE 167 COUNTRY CLUB DR PO BOX 308
T GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-2901 LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308
58 .' ST
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207
ELMORE DAVID G ERICKSON CLAIRE LAND ESTABROOKS FAMILY TRUST
3200 S DECKER LAKE DR ERICKSON BETTY LOU 37 EMERALD BAY
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT 84119 1231 INDUSTRIAL RD LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
HUDSON, WI 54016
ETKIN DOUGLAS M & JUDITH G FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM FINKLE ARTHUR A & AMELIA
29100 NORTHWESTERN HWY STE 200 ASSOC INC 2655 LE JEUNE RD PENTHOUSE #1
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 747 S GALENA ST CORAL GABLES, FL 33134
ASPEN, CO 81611
FLAGSTAD DANIEL G & MARY J
FLYNN MICHAEL T
FORD WARWICK S & NOLA M
715 E SCRANTON AVE
GOOCH WILLIAM A
6 ELLERY SQUARE
LAKE BLUFF, IL 60044
2021 1 STAVE #TG
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138
SEATTLE, WA 98121
FRANCIS LESLEE K
FREEDMAN MICHAEL & NANCI WOLF
FRIEDKIN THOMAS H
PO BOX 1327
32460 EVERGREEN
7701 WILSHIRE PL STE 600
ASPEN, CO 81612
BEVERLY HILLS, MI 48025
HOUSTON, TX 77040
r ...ADMAN KARL FRONSDAL ARNE GAME JAMES A & MICHAELA
10 CHERRY HILLS DR HUNDSUNDVEIEN 35 P 0 BOX 451
CHERRY HILLS, CO 80110 1368 SNAROYA PALISADE, CO 81526
N O RWAY,
GARDNER CHARLES L GHANEM MICHAEL GIANULIAS JIM & MARILYN H
GARDNER RITA WALSH C/O FOREIGN CARS CONTINENTAL INC PO BOX 2990
840 LOCUST AVE 70 SW 10TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
WINNETKA, IL 60093 DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33441
GLASS WALTER M GLATTS HUGH GORDON MARIANNE
C/O MGI CORP 2735 MEADOWLARK LN 420 E 54TH ST STE 20C
231 S JEFFERSON ST 4TH FL WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409 NEW YORK, NY 10022
CHICAGO, IL 60661
GRAY W CALVIN JR & CONSTANCE M GRIGSBY GEORGE T JR GUEST KELLEY & CATHERINE
PO BOX 507 PO BOX 145 PO BOX 5578
SAVERNA PARK, MD 21146 HOLLY SPRINGS, NC 27540 CARMEL, CA 93921
TNER THOMAS & NANCY HAGER FRANCES HALL THOMAS L PERS INCOME &
„'JTRUSTEES C/O ASPEN LODGING CO MGT ASSET TRUST
747 S GALENA 747 GALENA ST 12835 PEMBROKE CIR
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LEAWOOD, KS 66209
L-vt v Lc+
3
ANDERSON BRUCE J
700 c MONARCH #207
A' CO 81611-1854
BAER THOMAS H
150 CLAYTON AVE
ERIE, PA 16509
BENNETT WOOD INTERESTS LTD
PO DRAWER 1011
REFUGIO, TX 78377
BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LIMITED
PARNTERSHIP
1206 N WALTON BLVD
BENTONVILLE, AR 72712
BRIDGE TIM
C/O LEE MILLER
747 S GALENA
ASPEN, CO 81611
u ELLANO WILLIAM A & MARY B
1001 MIDWEST CLUB
OAKBROOK, IL 60523
CHLOWITZ ALLAN D FAMILY TRUST
1740 BROADWAY #604
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
CROYLE PHILIP H & EDANA
405 LONDONDERRY DR
WACO, TX 76712
ASPEN MTN MINING CORP
PO BOX 203
ASPEN, CO 81612-0203
BATMALE MARK
PO BOX 9345
ASPEN, CO 81612
BESMAN PASCAL & LINDA
275 KINGS POINT RD #4D-E
KINGS POINT, NY 11024-1012
BLEILER JUDITH A
PO BOX 10220
ASPEN, CO 81612
BUSH STEVEN S
0046 HEATHER LANE
ASPEN, CO 81611
CHIATE KENNETH R
CHIATE JEANNETTE
20628 ROCKCROFT
MALIBU, CA 90265
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
DART ELIZABETH RODWELL
747 GALENA ST ALPENBLICK B10
ASPEN, CO 81611
DEGEL ROBERT H REVOCABLE LIVING DICKIE E GORDON M D 1999
TRUST REVOCABLE TRUST
706 DANISH DR C/O CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT
GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75050 747 S GALENA
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
PO BOX 1248
ASPEN, CO 81612
BECKMAN SUSAN R
P 0 BOX 8167
ASPEN, CO 81612
BIELINSKI JUDITH
2121 TROWBRIDGE CT
GLENVIEW, IL 60025
BRADFORD JEAN S TRUST NO 1
1743 WAZEE ST
DENVER, CO 80206
CASTELLANO M MARK II
PO BOX 273385
BOCA RATON, FL 33427
CHILDS EVELYN
0284 COUNTY RD 102
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
COLE CONSTANCE P
1647 E MAPLEWOOD AVE
LITTLETON, CO 80121
DEAN PHILLIPS INC
TOWN AND COUNTRY BANK
524 N 30TH ST
QUINCY, IL 62301
DIECKHAUS ROSE MARY 1/2 INT
338 RAMSEY ST
SULLIVAN, MO 63080
3COL PAMELA M DUBS DAVID CRAIG DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
#5 OLD TOWNE SQ #216 2165 E OCEAN BLVD 747 S GALENA ST
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ASPEN, CO 81612
,�
A �
iI -,-
i
��
z4:::57--s
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
being or representing an
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:
XBy 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_ (which is days 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
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the, day
of � /, to the 6 day of (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
/ march
Attach photograph h he��) Sibned before me this l0 day of
( P � p
by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: WCOMMISSION EXPIRES
r
977,�&Iv
Notary Pu c
S T P, `
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I 7' V� , being or representing an
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 2b day of �� �/ (which isA/days prior to the public
hearing date of ).
By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day
of , 199 , to the day of , 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 hotogra h here) Signed before me this 6 day of / JAaAf,
by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
�IYCOM��iaSIo�� EXPIRES
My Commission expires: 417101
1-1vao '00Me5?
Notary Pu 'c
.;� .
i
A 4 v
TAT
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD/SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW FOR
LOT 5 (GRAND ASPEN SITE)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 6, 2001, at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Hall, 130
S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership,
requesting to amend the conceptual approval of Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD to allow for
fraction ownership. The property is legally described as Lot 5, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and
PUD; and is referred to as the Grand Aspen Hotel site. For fiirther information, contact Julie Ann
Woods at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO
(970) 920-5100 or by email at juliew(a-),ci.aspen.co.us.
sBob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on February 17, 2001
City of Aspen Account
g:/planning/aspen/notices/AMPUDp&z. doc
Lot 5
AJAX MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES LTD ANDERMAN ELLEN A .3333% ANDERSON BRUCE J
A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 865 S JOSEPHINE 700 S MONARCH #207
PCB 1709 DENVER, CO 80209 ASPEN, CO 81611-1854
A CO 81612
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BAER THOMAS H BAKER HUGH LEE JR
PO BOX 1248 150 CLAYTON AVE CASEY NANAH B
ASPEN, CO 81612 ERIE, PA 16509 555 E DURANT AVE STE 2K
ASPEN, CO 81611
BATMALE MARK BAUER RACHAEL ANN BEAN ROBERT B
PO BOX 9345 PO BOX 886 HILLTOP RD WILSON POINT
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612-0886 NORWALK, CT 06854
BECKMAN SUSAN R BESMAN PASCAL & LINDA BICKERS DOROTHY 0
P 0 BOX 8167 275 KINGS POINT RD #4D-E 555 E DURANT ST
ASPEN, CO 81612 KINGS POINT, NY 11024-1012 ASPEN, CO 81611
BIELINSKI JUDITH BOURQUARD RICHARD E BRADFORD JEAN S TRUST NO 1
2121 TROWBRIDGE CT O'SHAUGHNESSY JANE A 1743 WAZEE ST
GLENVIEW, IL 60025 2492 E TERRARIDGE DR DENVER, CO 80206
HIGHLANDS RANCH, CO 80126
L T CONDOS BRIGHT EDGAR A G JR
A LUUISIANA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 300 PLAZA ONE SHELL SQUARE
300 PLAZA ONE SHELL SQUARE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70139
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70139
BURGESS HUBERT & JO ANNE LIVING
TRUST
7138 MEADOWCREEK DR
DALLAS, TX 75240-2715
CASTELLANO WILLIAM A & MARY B
1001 MIDWEST CLUB
OAKBROOK, IL 60523
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CARELLA RICHARD J & JOAN
418 MILL CREEK RD
GLADWYNE, PA 19035
CHABAY ILAN
555 E DURANT #3D
ASPEN, CO 81611
COLONY RAYMOND F & ANITA L
631 VIA DE SUENOS
GREEN VALLEY, AZ 85614
BRONSON PHYLLIS
PO BOX 11389
ASPEN, CO 81612
CASTELLANO M MARK II
PO BOX 273385
BOCA RATON, FL 33427
CHLOWITZ ALLAN D FAMILY TRUST
1740 BROADWAY #604
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
COLORADO RESORT PROPERTY
GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
10218 ELLA LEE LN
HOUSTON, TX 77042
3AC SANDRA L TRUST #1 25% COOPER JOHN A COULOUR VENTURES LLC
4468 JUNIPER DR 1801 FOREST HILLS BLVD 12405 N GRANT ST
KEWADIN, MI 49648 BELLA VISTA, AR 72714 THORTON, CO 80241-2415
CRAWFORD JACK B DALY CONSTRUCTION INC DALY UDITH J
J
PO BOX U3 1590 HOMESTAKE DRIVE DALY UDITH J
Ar CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 1590 HOMESTAKE DRIVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
DART ELIZABETH RODWELL DAVIDSON STUART C DEAN PHILLIPS INC
747 GALENA ST ALPENBLICK B10 DAVIDSON SALLY F TOWN AND COUNTRY BANK
ASPEN, CO 81611 3415 VOLTA PLACE NW 524 N 30TH ST
WASHINGTON, DC 20007 QUINCY, IL 62301
DEGEL ROBERT H REVOCABLE LIVING DRAKE NANCY W DRISCOL PAMELA M
TRUST C/O GLAUBERMAN #5 OLD TOWNE SQ #216
706 DANISH DR 9 E 40TH ST - 7TH FLOOR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75050 NEW YORK, NY 10016-0402
DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION DURANT-GALENA CO DURWARD SUSAN & QUENTIN
EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT 14 PO BOX 1709 1383 FOX RIDGE TR
747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81612 SIOUX CITY, IA 51104
ASPEN, CO 81611
E W PROPERTIES LLC ELMORE DAVID G ERICKSON CLAIRE L AND
C/O B MASON TIAA-CREF 3200 S DECKER LAKE DR ERICKSON BETTY LOU
211 N BROADWAY STE 1000 WEST VALLEY CITY, UT 84119 1231 INDUSTRIAL RD
ST LOUIS, MO 63102 HUDSON, WI 54016
L t3ROOKS FAMILY TRUST FALENDER STEVEN M FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM
37 EMERALD BAY 712 S GALENA ST ASSOC INC
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 ASPEN, CO 81611 747 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
FAULKNER JOHN L
FAULKNER JOHN R
FLAGSTAD DANIEL G & MARY J
PO BOX 147
PO BOX 250601
715 E SCRANTON AVE
ASPEN, CO 81612
FRANKLIN, MI 48025
LAKE BLUFF, IL 60044
FLYNN MICHAEL T
FORD WARWICK S & NOLA M
FRANCIS LESLEE K
GOOCH WILLIAM A
6 ELLERY SQUARE
PO BOX 1327
2021 1 STAVE #TG
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138
ASPEN, CO 81612
SEATTLE, WA 98121
FRONSDAL ARNE
FRAZIER JAMES M & RUBY JANE
FRIEDMAN KARL
HUNDSUNDVEIEN 35
624 E BLACKWELL AVE
10 CHERRY HILLS DR
1368 SNAROYA
BLACKWELL, OK 74631
CHERRY HILLS, CO 80110
NORWAY,
.E JAMES A & MICHAELA
GARRITANO THOMAS A
GERMANOW IRVING
P 0 BOX 451
BO 41-1144
13 TOBEY WOODS
PALISADE, CO 81526
CHICAGO, IL 60641
PITTSFORD, NY 14534
GIANULIAS JIM & MARILYN H GLATTS HUGH GOODWIN WILLIAM N
PO__ROX 2990 2735 MEADOWLARK LN 604 LOCUST ST STE 212
-)RT BEACH, CA 92658 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409 DES MOINES, IA 50309
GORDON MARIANNE
420 E 54TH ST STE 20C
NEW YORK, NY 10022
GROSSE EDWIN J & ADELINE M
23049 FARMINGTON RD
FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48336
HALL THOMAS L PERS INCOME &
ASSET TRUST
12835 PEMBROKE CIR
LEAWOOD, KS 66209
HARDEN SHEILA
8111 CAMINITO MALLORCA
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
METER GEORGE MEAD MD
4587 COACHMAN CIR
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
HILLMAN RICHARD HAYES
2665 MAIN ST #260
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
JACOB PAUL MITCHELL
400 E 20TH ST #10-10
NEW YORK, NY 10009
JAEGER WILLIAM N
439 N DOHENY DR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
GRAY W CALVIN JR & CONSTANCE M
PO BOX 507
SAVERNA PARK, MD 21146
GURTNER THOMAS & NANCY
CO TRUSTEES
747 S GALENA
ASPEN, CO 81611
HANSEN BRUCE
ED MONGE REMAX PROPERTY MGMT
450 S GALENA ST STE 202A
ASPEN, CO 81611-1857
HEARST BARBARA B & PETER S
131 TREASURE HILL
SOUTH KENT, CT 06785
HENN PRESTON B & BETTY D
3501 W SUNRISE BLVD
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33311
HYMAN BARBARA L
150 BRADLEY PL #405
PALM BEACH, FL 33480
JACOBI ATHOLE G MD
SUTTON TERRACE #308
BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004
JFG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
44125 EAST HWY 82
ASPEN, CO 81611
GRENKO PROPERTIES LTD
PO BOX 1120
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
GUSSEL JOHN THOMAS
PO BOX 447
WISCONSIN DELLS, WI 53965
HANSEN BRUCE G
KEEFER OLIVE C/O
2020 S ONEIDA ST STE 210
DENVER, CO 80224
HEATH HETTA S TRUSTEE
606 N SPRING ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HERSHORN PETER
555 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
IMMO SASSAFRAS INC
C/O ROBERT ANDERSON
4401 NORTHSIDE PKWY STE 340
ATLANTA, GA 30327
JACOBY ENTERRPRISES INC
WYOMING CORPORATION
111 CENTER ST STE 2500
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
KETTLE CORPORATION
PO BOX 8080
ASPEN, CO 81612
ANOFF T GREGORY & PATRICIA KIRLIN DONALD W 25% INT KIRSCHENBAUM DAVID TRUSTEE
2664 HUTTON DR PO BOX 3097 C/O NORTH OF NELL CONDOMINIUMS
555 E DURANT AVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 QUINCY, IL 62305
ASPEN, CO 81611
4 t
KOSFIELD ASPEN LLC KOSFREUDFIELD ASPEN LC KOSWISHFIELD ASPEN LC
NATIONSBANK TOWER 10 S E 2ND ST STE 2800 100 S E 2ND ST STE 2800
10r E 2ND ST STE 2800
N =L 33131-2144 MIAMI, FL 33131 MIAMI, FL 33131-2144
KOSWISHMARLINFIELD ASPEN LCA KOVAL BARBARA TRUST KRAJIAN RON N
100 S 2ND ST 28TH FL KOVAL BARBARA AS TRUSTEE 2700 NEWPORT BLVD #222
MIAMI, FL 33131 555 E DURANT C/O NORTH OF NELL NEWPORT, CA 92663
ASPEN, CO 81611
KRAJIAN RONALD N KRIBS KAREN REVOCABLE LIVING KUYFAR & CO
617 E COOPER AVE #114 TRUST A PARTNERSHIP
ASPEN, CO 81611 2170 MCKELVEY RD 2609 SPRING GROVE TERR
MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO 63043 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906
KWEI THOMAS AND AMY
LARSON KARL G & M MADELEINE LEFROCK JACK L
700 MONARCH UNIT 306
PO BOX 8207 LEFROCK BARBARA S
700 S MONARCH ST
ASPEN, CO 81612 647 WATERSIDE WAY
ASPEN, CO 81611-1854
SARASOTA, FL 34242
LEVITUS STEPHEN I LIEBEL CRAIG E LIVINGSTON DAVID
LEVITUS PERRI A 324 E 4TH ST MYRIAD INVESTMENTS INC
7205 SHANNON DR CINCINNATI, OH 45202 1003 PARCHEMENT DR S E
EDINA, MN 55439 GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49506
LOVETT WELLS T
L -, CHRISTOPHER M & WARNER B
LONG GODFREY M JR
LOVETT MARY M
127 ELIZABETH ST
7755 ANNESDALE DR
18 STONE CRK PK
ATLANTA, GA 30307
CINCINNATI, OH 45243
OWENSBORO, KY 42303
M & M INVESTMENTS
MADDRELL BEVERLY J 1/2
MANDELBAUM MERVYN & JEANETTE
MAYER CHARLES C/O
2819 17TH ST PL
TRUSTEES
MANDELBAUM DANIELLE &
679 BRUSH CREEK RD
MOLINE, IL 61265
JACQUELINE
ASPEN, CO 81611
1735 SOUTH SANTA FE AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90021
MARSH JAMES W & BEVERLY M
MATTESON SCOT & KIMBERLY A
MAURER MICHAEL S QUAL PERS RES
AS JOINT TENANTS
16 VIA AMBRA
TRUST 1/2
815 TROPICAL CIR
NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657-1610
10585 N MERIDIAN ST #101
SARASOTA, FL 34242
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46206
MCELWE BRIAN MCGORMAN MICHAEL & HELEN MEHRA RAMESH
C/O VALLEY FORGE INVEST PO BOX 215 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR
120 S WARNER RD BALGOWLAH AUSTRALIA, 2093 NAPERVILLE, IL 60564
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
ZA RAMESH TRUSTEE MEYERS NEIL S MIDDELBERG MARIA B
fRA RAMESH J DECLARATION OF C/O RESORT WORLD DBA MODETTE
TRUST 2800 N POINCIANA 150 PURCHASE ST
3115 WHITE EAGLE DR KISSIMMEE, FL 34746 RYE, NY 10583
NAPERVILLE, IL 60565
MILLER BECKY B & PETER C MILLER DON E MILLER LELAND L
20n-n6 CROSS ISLAND PKWY 300 MERCER ST APT 31 H 11575 FOLSOM PT LN
P )E, NY 11360 NEW YORK, NY 10003 FRANKTOWN, CO 80116
MILLER TANYA B MOEN MICHAEL MOLITOR RONALD A & JOAN A
2445 W GULF DR C/O EVEREN SECURITIES 8696 SWAN
SANIBEL ISLAND, FL 33957 604 LOCUST #212 KALAMAZOO, MI 49009
DES MOINES, IA 50309
MONKARSH JERROLD D & JOYCE MONTGOMERY M MEAD & ANNE M MOORE PHILIP B & KATHLEEN
TRUSTEES 945 OLD GREEN BAY RD 747 S GALENA ST
9061 SANTA MONICA BLVD WINNEKTA, IL 60093 ASPEN, CO 81611
LOS ANGELES, CA 90069
MORGRIDGE JOHN D & CARRIE A MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES INC NARDI STEPHEN J
TRUSTEES OF 333 E DURANT AVE 4100 MADISON ST
MORGRIDGE REVOCABLE TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 HILLSIDE, IL 60162
368 WILLOUGHBY WY PO BOX 3279
ASPEN, CO 81612
NAYLOR IRVIN S NILES LAURENCE E & LILY Y NOREN LARA L & STEPHEN C
100 BOXWOOD LANE 1172 BIENVENIDA AVE 10927 BRIGANTINE DR
YORK, PA 17402 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46256-9544
I. . iH OF NELL CONDO ASSOC OSTERMAN MICHAEL & LINDA LUCE OWEN RICHARD W FAMILY TRUST
555 E DURANT AVE PO BOX 262 11200 LUXMANOR RD
ASPEN, CO 81611 PETTERSVILLE, NJ 07979 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PASQUINELLI MARY ANN PASQUINELLI SALLIE S PATRICK GARY R & PATRICIA A
FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM #10 FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM 537 MARKET ST STE 202
747 S GALENA ST 747 S GALENA ST #9 CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
PATTERSON L S & F E TRUST 60% PEDERSON JOSEPH G PETROVICH NICK D
SCHNEIDER C A PATTERSON 40% BASTIL DEAN D PETROVICH ROSA DEL CARMEN
580 CEMETERY LN 10500 W SILVER SPRING DR FERNANDEZ
ASPEN, CO 81611 MILWAUKEE, WI 53225 600 E MAIN ST ASPEN CLASSIC
ASPEN, CO 81611
PHILLIPS STEVEN J PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF PLATTS JOHANNA E
4323 GRAND AVE APT 105 ASPEN LLC 740 FLAGSTAFF RD
DES MOINES, IA 50312-2439 601 E HOPKINS 3RD FLOOR BOULDER, CO 80302
ASPEN, CO 81611
HY SHIRLEY RAMYEAD VISHNU & TEIKA RESNICK EDITH L TRUSTEE
.,,v NORTH OF NELL 6161 WOODLAND VIEW DR 2245 CAMEO LAKE CT
555 E DURANT WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302-1605
ASPEN, CO 81611
8 4
RHOADES CHRISTINE ANN LYON LIVING RIDOUT WAYNE E & ROBBYE L
TRUST 35 COUNTRY CLUB CIR
6a 'RIFFITH WY SEARCY, AR 72143
L 'A BEACH, CA 92651
ROLF ROBERT WILLIAM
747 GALENA STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
SALITERMAN LARRY
650 S MONARCH UNIT 7
ASPEN, CO 81611
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
ASPEN MTN LOT 5
13530 BALI WAY
MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292
SEGUIN MIKE A
PO BOX 1914
ASPEN, CO 81612
jNE A RICHARD & CAROLYN J
124 RIGHTERS MILL RD
GLADWYNE, PA 19035
ROMER FRANK L & MARCY L
10204 E SHERI LN
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
ROARING FORK PROPRIETARY LLC
2519 E 21 ST ST
TULSA, OK 74114
ROSE EDWARD D & JULIE 1/2 INT
1001 MIDWEST CLUB
OAKBROOK, IL 60521
SALTON MARY SASSAFRAS IMMO INC
221 VALLEY RD C/O ROBERT ANDERSON CONSULTING
ITHACA, NY 14850 LLC
4401 NORTHSIDE PKWY - STE 340
ATLANTA, GA 30327
SCHERER STEPHEN M
169 SHORECLIFF RD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92625
SHAPIRO EUGENE B & MARLENE R
C/O MARGEN MANAGEMENT CO
5 REVERE DR STE 320
NORTHBROOK, IL 60062
SLT ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC
C/O STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
TRUST
2231 E CAMELBACK RD STE 410
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
TAUBER REAL ESTATE LLC TAVEL MORTON & CAROL
MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 1139 FREDERICK DR S
27777 FRANKLIN RD STE 1850 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034
TIPPLE INN #12 LLC
GARY JACOBS
P 0 BOX 59 - ATTN: ADELINA GUZMAN
LAREDO, TX 78042-0059
TULIPANI FAMILY TRUST
747 S GALENA ST #201 A
ASPEN, CO 81611-1872
TOBEY ROBERT W & PATRICIA A
41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-7113
VANMETER STEPHEN W & SHARON H
1352 BAY ST
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
SCHIMBERG HENRY A AND LINDA AS
JOINT TEN
C/O RACHEL DUGGAN
750 DALRYMPLE RD APT D3
ATLANTA, GA 30328
SHERWIN GREG
2992 SHADOW CRK DR #M302
BOULDER, CO 80303
SOLOMON GARY L
3139 N LINCOLN
CHICAGO, IL 60657
TICONDEROGA COMPANY
3108 COVINGTON LAKE DR
FT WAYNE, IN 46804
TRIPP PAUL
231 MARGARET ST
KEY WEST, FL 33040
WARGASKI ROBERT E TRUST
30353 N DOWELL RD
MCHENRY, IL 60050
KINS DAN H TRUSTEE WATSON MARCIA J WEATHERBY LIVING TRUST
3o75 8TH ST PO BOX 3412 C/O WEATHERBY
MOLINE, IL 61265-7157 ASPEN, CO 81612 555 E DURANT AVE #313
ASPEN, CO 81611
a
WEIGAND N R WEINGLASS LEONARD WERNER STEFANIA P TRUST
150 N.MARKET ST PO BOX 11509 9555 LADUE RD
V` A, KS 67202 ASPEN, CO 81612 ST LOUIS, MO 63124
WHEELER CONNIE CHRISTINE
MC CALLION GERARD
PO BOX 400
RED HOOK, NY 12571
YARBOROUGH JULIA K LIVING TRUST
1329 LUSITANA ST STE 602
HONOLULU, HI 96813
ZIMAND SHERRY
5425 OSPREY ISLE LN
ORLANDO, FL 32819
WITZ EUGENE
NORTH OF NELL CONDO ASSOC C/O
555 EAST DURANT
ASPEN, CO 81611
ZEFF DANIEL
235 W 56TH ST #17R
NEW YORK, NY 10019
ZODIAC PROPERTIES LIMITED
628 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
WMC INVESTMENT LTD PARTNERSHIP
1001 MIDWEST CLUB PKWY
OAK BROOK, IL 60521
ZEFF ELEANOR E
ZEFF ROBERT H
555 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
MEETING DATE: 03/06/01
NAME OF PROJECT: ASPEN MOUNTAIN AMENDED CONCEPTUAL
PUD (TOP OF MILL) LOT 3 & LOT 5
CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian
STAFF: Julie Ann Woods
WITNESSES: (1)
Kim Wyle, Architect
(2)
Scott Writer
(3)
Sunny Vann, Planner
(4)
David Parker
(5)
Ron Garfield, Attorney
(6)
Dr. Richard (Dick) Ragatz
(7)
Steve Ferrarini
(8)
Bill Poss, Architect
(9)
John Burlingame, Hyatt
(10)
Jack Crawford, public
(11)
Chris Hamilton, public
(12)
David Boothe, public
(13)
Steve Fallander, public
(14)
Gerry Moncard, public
(15)
Mary Grosso, public
EXHIBITS: 1. Staff Report (x) (Check If Applicable)
2. Affidavit of Notice (x) (Check If Applicable) 03/06/01
3. Maps (vicinity, renderings, floor plans)
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the Aspen Mountain Conceptual
PUD Amendments (Top Of Mill) Lot 3 & Lot 5 to April 3, 2001. Eric Cohen second.
APPROVED 4-0.
VOTE: YES 4 NO 0
ROBERT BLAICH YES NO
ROGER HANEMAN YES _x_ NO
ERIC COHEN YES _x_ NO
JASMINE TYGRE YES �x_ NO
RON ERICKSON YES _x_ NO
PZVOTE