The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.Little Nell Lodge.21B-85Little Nell LodgeGMP/ 21 B-85 Precise Plan �,an1�1L� o��3 'A r ASPENoOPITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT', 1. November 5, 1986 Aspen Skiing Company Mr. Peter Forsch, Director Resort Services/Real Estate Box 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Little Nell Lodge Dear Peter, It has come to the attention of this office that a clarifi- cation is necessary in the land use review performed by this department on the above mentioned project. Under the heading of AIR POLLUTION, Solid Fuel Burning Devices:, there is discussion of the applicant committing to install only "gas log" type fireplaces in the hotel. At the time, this statement was offered by the Aspen Skiing Company as an answer to the issue of fireplaces in new developments. This department went on to accept the "gas log" commitment as an acceptable response to the fireplace issue. Since the December 14, 1985 review of the proposal new information has surfaced which dictates the need for this interpretation. Find attached a memorandum from the Environmental Health Department to the Building Department outlining the definition. In summary, it states that a "gas log" device has the capability to burn wood as the result of construction characteristics such as an 8 or 6 inch flue. That in itself would limit the hotel to only one such device. The term "natural gas appliance" is the only type of device that will be exempt under the terms of the existing solid fuel burning ordinance. It will be to the benefit to the Aspen Skiing Company to review the attached memo and contact this office with any questions. The project can obviously continue, but it is import- ant that the managers and design staff be aware of this technical interpretation. Sincerely, Aw�_01111� Thomas S. Dunlop, Oirector Environmental Health Dept. cc: Planning Office Building Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 - - _ ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT - M E M O R A N D U M TO: Building Department FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Environmental Health Director DATE: October 24, 1986 RE: Woodburning Laws as they Apply to Gas Logs and Other Gas - Burning Devices 1. The Aspen and Pitkin County woodburning laws limit all fireplaces and stoves, regardless of what people may choose to install in these stoves. i.e. ONE FIREPLACE IS ALLOWED PER BUILDING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER GAS LOGS ARE INSTALLED IN IT. What is regulated is the number of fireplaces. 2. The only devices not included in this limitation are LISTED NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES. The law's language, "incapable of burning wood" describes why these are exempt. It does not imply that there is another class of devices "incapable of burning wood" which is also exempt. Listed natural gas appliances are the only devices at this time considered incapable of burning wood. 3. Fabricated devices which are alleged to be incapable of burning wood are not exempt. Gas logs are designed for masonry fireplaces. GAS LOGS MUST BE IN FIREPLACES CAPABLE OF BURNING WOOD. 4. To make a site -built device surrounding gas logs, incapable of burning wood, is not acceptable. Such fabrications are not allowed:. In other words, FABRICATED DEVICES CONTAINING GAS LOGS ARE NOT EXEMPT. 5. SMOKE SHELVES ARE IRRELEVANT. In summary, what is allowed is one fireplace and one certified stove per BUILDING.. THE ONLY EXEMPT DEVICES ARE LISTED NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES. If any citizens need further explanation of this, our office would be happy to discuss this with them. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 MEMORANDUM CAAB REVIEW TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 3p Environmental Health Department DATE: December 14, 1985 RE: Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ The above -referenced submittal has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns. AIR POLLUTION Solid Fuel Burning Devices: The applicant has committed to install only "gas log" type fireplaces in hotel suites and one wood -burning fireplace in the main hotel lobby. This approach is in conformance with policies of this department. The applicant should be commended in this novel design feature to address the fireplace issue. As the result of many air pollution studies which have been performed in the Aspen Metro area, it is well documented that every development, large or small, has the potential to negatively impact air quality. The Aspen Skiing Company's progressive approach to this very sensitive issue should be considered as a model for other future developments to follow. The applicant has met and/or exceeded their required compliance with current woodburning device legislation. Construction Air Pollution Prior to any demolition of existing buildings, the applicant shall certify through a qualified source that there is no asbestos present in those buildings. Inspection, sampling and analysis of any suspected asbestos materials will be required. If asbestos is present in the buildings, the applicant shall retain qualified asbestos removal personnel to remove the material. It shall be handled as a hazardous waste and disposed of in a designated landfill after the removal plan has been Page Two Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan December 14, 1985 approved by this department and the Colorado Health Departm- ent. Colorado Air Pollution Control laws, Regulation 8 Section II.3.4 dictates the need for this action. Further, during demolition and construction the applicant will be required to remove any mud and dirt carry -out onto City streets by vehicle traffic from the site. This soil shall be removed by means of a mechanical street sweeper which will use a water/brush method. The soil contained within the machine shall be re -deposited on the applicants property. Daily cleaning of the impacted streets will be the applicants responsibility. DEMOLITION During actual razing of buildings, the applicant will be required to prevent windblown (fugitive) dust from leaving the property. This control may take the form of spraying the immediate demolition site with water. Other examples of acceptable control techniques include dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site, shrouding the work area, etc. Contact by the project sponsor shall be made with the Colorado Health Department to determine if an emission permit and/or a fugitive dust control plan is required for both the demolition and construction phase of the project. That determination is relative to the estimated emissions which will be generated (tons per year). Contact Mr. Scott Miller, Colorado Health Department, 222 S. 6th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, or phone him at 248-7150 to inquire about Regulation 1, Section III, D,2,h titled "Demolition Activities" of the "Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards," Revised March 1983. UNDERGROUND PARKING It will be a requirement of this office that adequate air handling facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate any buildup of air contaminants inside the underground parking structures. NOISE ABATEMENT The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen Ordinance 2 series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All demolition and construction noise related activities shall be covered under the maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance. A project of this magnitude can be expected to generate persistent 0 0 Page Three Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan December 14, 1985 sound levels that may be annoying to the neighborhood. The applicant must be aware of this and be conscious of methods and approach to minimize generation of complaints to this office. Time of day, duration of specific activities and using the most technically quiet equipment are a few mitigating measures that may be involved. If complaints are received, the referenced ordinance will be the governing document used in enforcement. The submittal details plans for a night club to be included in the project. Construction techniques shall be employeed which will not allow sound generated from this facility to exceed the noise abatement ordinance maximum allowable decibel levels. Such sound levels would be measured at the property line. As a point of information, the applicant should also be considerate of guests at the lodge and design the night club to not interfere with their comfort. CONTAMINATED SOILS No evidence of mine dumps or mine tailings being present on the project site are indicated in the Chen and Associates report. However, during demolition, excavation and construction if such soil types are discovered the following shall apply. All suspected mine waste materials shall be sampled and evaluated for Lead, Zinc, Arsenic, Cadmium and other metals commonly found in mine dumps or mine tailings. The sample analysis shall be provided to this office from a qualified laboratory for evaluation. If elevated levels of heavy metals are identified, mitigating measures will be required. Professionally competent people in the field of geology will be required to develop the mitigation plan. SEWAGE DISPOSAL Service to this project of a public sewage collection system as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District is in conformance with policies of this office. This will include installation and maintenance of grease traps as required by the District. WATER SUPPLY Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with policies E Page Four Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan December 14, 1985 of this office. FOOD SERVICE All food service establishments shall comply with Colorado Rules and Regulations governing such facilities. This will include not only restaurants, bars and lounges, but also mountain restaurant food storage areas. Proper licensing of these facilities through this department will be required prior to service of food to the public. Compliance with Section 11-2.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Restaurant Grills" will also be required. This section addresses the type of cooking devices which can be installed and operated in new or remodeled food service establishments. SWINNING POOLS/SPAS Swimming pools and spas must comply with the Rules and Regulations governing such facilities as required by Colorado standards. Throughout this review reference has been made to various rules, regulations, ordinances and laws. Copies of all of them may be found in this office. It is recommended that architects under contract to this project become familiar with them during the design phases. TSD/co/LittleNell f 0 D CITY OF ASPE 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 NE I4)RANDU M DATE: August 19, 1986 TO: City Clerk FROM: City Attorney RE: I /4 ?uG%6 Forwarded herewith is the original SPA agreement for the Little Nell base development which can be executed by the Mayor and recorded with the plat, subject to the following: 1. Mayor and City Clerk's signatures on Page 3, including acknowledgement of signatures appearing on Page 37. 2. Fully execute the vendor's agreement; please insert date of City Council approval of precise plan on Page 1. 3. Fully execute the agreement with regard to providing ease- ments, in particular: - Fill in recording information in the first "whereas" cl a use . - Fill in recording information in Paragraph 1, on Page 1. - Execute and date the agreement on Page 2, including insert- ing a ac kno wl edg em ent for the Mayor. - Fill in recording information on Page 1 of Exhibit "A" and Ex hih it " B" . 4. With regard to the employee housing restrictions, I have requested that Gideon Kaufman update his escrow instructions to be dated subsequent to the execution of the deed restrictions by the Skiing Company and that the original be delivered to the City C1 er k. With regard to the deed restrictions the following infor- mation must be completed: - I have dated the dedication as of July 3. Memor and un to City Clerk August 19, 1986 Page Two - The recording information in the second "whereas" should be filled in. - The date of the City_ Council approval should be inserted in the third "whereas" clause on Page 1. The recording information should be inserted on Page 2. Please note that the above information should be completed with regard to both dedications. 5. Also please assure that the following exhibits are appended: - Exhibit "1 " - copy of precise plan. - Exhibit "3 " - utility plan - Exhibit "4" - specific cost breakdown for utility plan - Exhibit "5 " - 1 a nd sc a pe pl an - Ex hib it "6 " - letter from Alan Richman dated March 18, 1986 6. Also to be filed are the following: 1. Partnership authorization certificate 2. Vendor's agreement 3. Agreement with regard to providing easements As you know the deed restrictions are to be held in escrow by the City Clerk pending the appropriate im nl em enta t io n date. I request that after the documents have been recorded, copies of the recorded and fully executed documents including all exhibits be forwarded to the agencies listed below, together with copies of the escrow letter and deed restrictions pertaining to the pro- perty. As always , please do not hesitate to call if you have any ques- tions concerning this matter. PJT/mc Attachment 10B cc: City Manager • Planning Office City Engineer Water Department 3u i ld ing Department I -busing Office CITY OIVASPE 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 May 15, 1986 Mr. Fred Smith Aspen Skiing Company P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Various Items Dear Fred: I am writing to notify you of several items related to Aspen Skiing Company activity of concern to the City of Aspen. I would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss these items. 1. Little Nell - It would appear that loaded trucks existing the site at Nell have disturbed the pavement on Galena at Dean. My inspection of the area last Saturday morning indicated that excavation work by the project in Dean Street has removed the surface from the area. Water flowing from behind the Tippler has saturated the ground in the area of the excavation causing the concrete slabs in the street to become unstable. I would consider the Nell project responsible for stabilizing the base material and repairing the street. 2. South Aspen Street - Runoff water in the area of Lift lA has been directed across to the west side of South Aspen Street and allowed to flow down Aspen to the City catch -basin at Durant. High quantities of sand in the runoff have completely filled and closed off the storm sewer twice this Spring. We would ask that the Aspen Skiing Company either reroute these flows to reduce the impact on South Aspen or build a small settling pond in the area of Lift lA to reduce sediment loads in the flow as it enters the street. 3. Landslide - I have been on the mountain about once a week over the last month and have not identified any profound evidence of significant movement by the large landslide mass. I would request your response on the following: a. Tower Ten Road - There is an area above the Tower Ten Road just east of Strawpile run that appears to be preparing Page Two Various Items May 15, 1986 to slough onto the road. Contained within the area are at least two very large round boulders. I would recommend the Ski Company at least break up the major boulders to prevent them from taking off should the area slough. b. Jim Reser of Alpine Surveys has been directed to survey the monuments he placed during the Chen study for the Aspen Mountain Lodge to determine whether significant additional movement can be detected in the landslide mass. This should cost between $1,000 and $1,500 and I would like to suggest a 50-50 split between Aspen Skiing Company and the City. Results should be available by the end of next week at which time we can decide if additional monitoring is appropriate. C. The Chen and Associates report for the Aspen Mountain Lodge project dated September 20, 1985, recommended several measures to remedy stability problems in the slide area (attached). I would like to know Aspen Skiing Company's plan for implementation of these recommendations. Please feel free to contact me if we need to inspect any of these conditions. Thank's for your assistance. Very Truly Yo rs, a W. Hammond Director of Public Services JH/co/Smith Enclosures CC: Bill Thompson, U.S. F.S. Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director Don Davis, Pitkin County Sheriff's Department Ebbie Tacker, Acting Streets Superintendent Keren McLaughlin, Assistant City Attorney the ht,M of Ow- 1<x�--r slide thereby increasing the foro-,s tending to move the slick, downslopo. Increased movements in the Lower slide, as m-asured by observation of the survey ironurrents, inclinometers and piezometers, coincide with increases in the groundwater Level associated with spring snowmelt infiltration. In addition, the measurement devices indicate relatively low rates of movement during the winter when low groundwater readings were recorded. The theore- tical safety factor with no water above the failure surface was calculated to be 1.23 versus 1.09 at the peak groundwater level. D-7.0 REMEDIAL MEASURES Remedial stabilization measures should account for differences between the upper and lower slide mass. D-7.1 Upper Slide Increased movements in the upper slide, located above Dago Road, could be triggered by temporary increases in groundwater pressure. However, the general lack of groundwater in our field investigation and the results of our stability analyses indicates groundwater pressures are not contributing signi- ficantly to instability above Dago Road. In our opinion, the most effective measures to achieve stability in this area are removal of the slide material and surface drainage control. Therefore, we reccmnend removal of the mine dump slide material to the extent necessary to reduce the driving forces. This will require removing most of the landslide above the basal shear zone and regrading the surface. The D-8 excavated material should be hauled to a suitable site off of Aspen Mountain or to a Location on the mountain which will not dversely effect stability. After removal, w�- recommend maintaining good surface drainage in the graded area. This may include lined drainage ditches, interception ditches and small diversion structures. Reduced snowmaking in the landslide area and removal of snow in the spring are measures that should continue. D-7.2 Lower Slide Mass In the lower slide mass below Dago Road, it appears that reducing the pore pressures near the basal shear zone will be the most effective and least expensive method to stabilize the lower slide. Reducing the water pressure on the slide has the greatest impact on stability as discussed above. In addition, it is relatively cost effective when caTpared to extensive regrading to achieve less effective results. We recommend installation of horizontal drains, extending sufficiently far into the landslide to intercept the basal shear zone. We estimate a minimum horizontal length of 150 feet will be requi red . The number and location of drains will depend on the effectiveness of individual drains after drain installation. Performance of the drains should be monitored with several piezometers near the basal shear zone. 'rile horizontal drains should be systematically placed to achieve reduction in pore pressures. Piezometer installations should be located to monitor pore pressure reduction and maintained to provide future monitoring of the drains 4 effectiveness. D-9 Monitoring of piezon>ters and the existing surface movem>nt points could be used to evaluate the total requirements for Horizontal drains. t..� suggest beginning with a test drilling program of a few horizontal drains. If these appear successful in removing water from the slope additional drains can be installed. Since the drains can be sheared off by future slide moveimnt, it will be necessary to place the number of drains believed necessary at one t ime . Horizontal drains may require manifolding and frost protection to ensure their continued year-round performance. Drains should discharge in a manner that can be readily observed and easily measured. Records of the discharge should be maintained on a regular basis. We also recommend the same surface drainage features and precautions described above for the upper slide mass. Efforts should continue to reduce snowmaking on the slope and to remove excess snow in the spring. c 133d 'NOIiVA313 Q W - W Q Q ^ ^ W V) Q p p O O O O cL O O o 0 3 m O C�\ crl\ ap 00 oo 00 .S Q� w O O ui J F- - N 0 O S31VI30SSV 2 b3Z3nWHOS A8 0311V1SNI — o 11311 NU I ivi','d3SOO = �,►� a31NOZ3 I d a313WOZ31d C S m M / Q M M / 0 / O 2 Z S�313WONIlONI / Sb313WOZ31d w J 0 Z Z O Q — Q U N N N ^ LL C7 N W W Li. O W O �. N r J Q Q z a.. O w r - U V) W .-, O O o W W W M M M J 2 i- V) - o Z a_ CO U ^ Q H Ln U- o w �n m ~ O I J N O N I W W I cc CL O O o W m :3 OQ=1d � i O I F- J S O o O Q L7 li. M M OWa' LI) LO z V) N V) LJ L) V) O U Q Ll Q Q m LL) L7 > W Z E Z CL O Z F Q W F- w UJ W W V) f U Z J O V) w 0 0 W O W O O V) =) w- _ - w W N LL Q Z O X CL J x O .J p J LJ m IN W W ' Q U W O N LL1 J V) ,J V) N d Q W 0 U O W m F- r �o U W Q - O - O w z a N w o O J V) V) V) cl: Q Li 1: / CL CL O / 1 L 7 / O Ln Q I W U Q LLJ LL E V) X O O Z W O CLO d m Q 0 1= W V) tN N W X 3 7 J a Or, o / — O L.)W Z o w Z w m 0 / o D; z O 3 z wmof-O m Q W W V- )- m Q o 3 E r o W / F- O - J Q 2 J Q V) > W W - Z J U / H W O r O Q V1 U Q 2 W w Q O l.L w F- O W = V) O V) OLA 2= Q Z W W / N m Q !- F- Y U U W p � m / W O o i- m LJ O 0.. CO Z o b313WONIlONI / Sb313WOZ31d Q 0 m /0 Q o i O / W We N Qr / = Q N z Q L.J Q W / t/) Z Q O m N a313WOZ3Id b313WONIIONI / Sb313WOZ31d p p O O O 0 CTI� 00 � co 00 00 133d ' NO UVA313 O O W O O J^ ^ Q n U Ln - C W Q Q Q Z - z Q O X O U 0 N U d 5 m w C O W V) Q = ::- p O O � � 1 cxO 00 00 It co N co a • CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 May 8, 1986 Mr. Warren Burke Shaw Construction 743 Horizon Court, Suite 109 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Re: Excavation Scheduling, Circulation and Staging at Little Nell Bear Warren: I have reviewed and acknowledged your letter exhibits dated May 7, 1986, regarding excavation at the Little Nell site. I find these items acceptable in keeping with the requirements of the SPA Agreement section B.M. I have approved your letter (attached) and am reiterating the following items as we discussed this morning; 1. Fencing - It is acknowledged that fencing of the staging areas will not be required so long as those areas are in use only for storage of materials and equipment. Shaw Construction and its subcontractors shall not store or handle materials so as to create a hazard for pedestrians on adjacent sidewalks. 2. Grading - Shaw Construction is to submit to this office copies of the final grading and excavation plans along with Chen and Associates approval of each stage of the work prior to commencement of that stage. ;. Employee Parking - Contractor employee vehicles may park on the streets subject to existing time and location restrictions. Shaw Construction and its subcontractors will be responsible for obtaining permits for extended time parking should they so desire. 4. Schedule - The excavation schedule you propose appears acceptable, requiring a little over 3 weeks to complete. I would view the June 9 completion date as critical and, should it appear that the schedule is falling behind, will recommend longer hours and/or work weeks to complete major excavation by that date. C� J Page Two May 8, 1986 Warren Burke If you find these items acceptable, please sign below and I will authorize permit issuance (as far as my concerns over the excavation stage of the work) to Jim Wilson. Very Truly Yours, Uj Ja W. Hammond Director of Public Services Accepted Warren Burke, Shaw Construction Co. Superintendent JH/co/Nell Enclosure cc: Jim Wilson Alan Richman E SHAW Construction May 7, 1986 Mr. Jay W. hammond City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jay, Enclosed is a copy of the it I have outlined all may pertain to Public Right RE: Little Nell Base Our Job #1124 Little Nell Site Plan. On construction staging as it of Way. Enclosed also is a City of Aspen Map indicating all excavation truck routes, in and out of town. They will be as follows: export from the project will go out on to Durant Street then east to Aspen Street then north to Highway 82 and west to the Tiehack Ski Lift turn off. Coming back into town as follows: back east on highway 82 to Original Street and south to Durant Street. We anticipate (10) hours per day, (5) days per week, (10) trucks at (2) trips per hour, or a total of two hundred (200) trips per day through town, moving four thousand cubic yards per day. We are capable of expanding or subtracting trips according to the city's reaction. The excavation work is scheduled to begin May 19, 1986 with the main bulk of the work to be completed by June 9, 1986. At present the city has not instated traffic control at any point along the route, however, we intend to comply with all reasonable requests. We have met with Lee Caissons at Aspen Environmental Health, and she is in agreement with this plan. Environmental Health's main concern is fugitive dust and mud control, which we have addressed to their satisfaction. Horizon Park Plaza 743 Horizon Court, Suite 109 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 303/242 9236 • • Page Two (2) All construction equipment and staging will be on site not to interfere with the Public Right of Way, with the exception of some (down the road) vehicle parking of subcontractor employee cars. I am aware of the impact this project could have on the up coming summer season, this is why we should begin work no later than May 19, 1986 in order to complete the excavation haul off as early as possible. Jay, if you are in agreement with this plan as written and graphically shown, please sign below and forward a copy to Jim Wilson at the Building Department. S/in erely., Warren urke ~ Shaw Construction Company Supt. WB/lc cc: Steve Meyer, Shaw Construction Company 0 • May 1, 1986 Mr. Bill Kane Design Workshop 710 E. Durant Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. John Cottell Hagman Yaw Architects 210 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill and John, The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a response to your inquiry as to which portions of the west wing of the Little Nell project will be subject to receipt of an allotment under the commercial growth management procedures. To aid in this analy- sis, I have reviewed the determinations made by the Planning Office in 1982 with respect to the Rubey Park Visitors Center commercial GMP application. I use this precedent because that building also involved a mix of commercial and public space, some of which was found to be exempt from the need to obtain a growth allotment. The criteria for the exceptional competition decision at that time was whether the space was private and commercial versus public and open to general use. I have also sought the advice of the City Attorney in reaching my conclusions. Following are my determinations with regard to your project: 1. The gondola building itself serves the purpose of housing mechanical facilities and should be exempt from the commer- cial GMP allotment procedures. 2. All of the ski area administrative offices are commercial uses and subject to receipt of an allotment. 3. The ski patrol, ski instructor and lift operators lockers and ski storage are all private uses which serve the needs of the applicant and are not open to the public. In a L] Bill Kane May 1, 1986 Page 2 sense, the locker, being the place where the individual stores his or her street clothes, is the "office" for these employees and therefore meets the test of being commercial space. 4. Since the proposed public lockers are to be rented, they are also considered private, commercial space. This determina- tion is identical to that made for the Rubey Park project, which also proposed storage lockers. Further, it is my understanding that eventually you intend to convert this space into retail use, once the hotel is built and lockers are available to the public therein. Therefore, it is appropriate for you to compete to obtain the right to use this space for retail purposes right up front. The determinations regarding the public and private lockers represent a conservative, literal reading of what constitutes commercial development for the purposes of the quota system. However, I also recognize that these areas will not cause significant impacts on public services and yet they amount to a substantial amount of square footage for which allocations will be required. Therefore, I suggest that when you apply for an allotment on August 1, you submit a letter providing a rationale for why these spaces need not be subject to the quota system (see Section 24-11.2(i) of the Code) and we will have P&Z and Council make the final decision on this question. Your application should therefore identify two alternative allotment requests for us to consider in recognition of the minimum and maximum allot- ment you will need. I hope that these comments clarify this issue. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, AICP Planning and Development Director AR: jlr 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Little Nell Base - Building Plan Check DATE: April 30, 1986 I have reviewed the plan set which you referred to me. I have the following comments with respect to this application. you have already been provided with the most recent version of the SPA Agreement for the property, which addresses most of the issues pertinent to the construction program. Frey passages for your consideration are: o Detailed construction schedule, page 9 which provides the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official with the authority to address construction impacts. o Use of west wing building, page 30, subsection 8, which requires that the administrative spaces below the gondola terminal be left uninhabitable until commercial GMP allotments are secured for its use. The applica- tion for commercial development will not be submitted until August 1, and no allotments will be granted until at least the end of October; it is therefore incumbent upon you to choose the method of controlling use of this space as per the agreement. o Grading plans for Aspen Mountain, page 28, Subsection 2 and page 29, subsection 6, which require that the City and County Engineers sign off on all regrading work before it is initiated. Further, page 27, subsection 1, requires the City Engineer to review the recommended additional soils hydrology studies. Please insure that these activities take place in the proper timef rame. o The interim landscape plan, Phase I is described on page 11, and is to be implemented prior to the coming ski season. Please coordinate the review of this plan with me during the later phases of this summer's construction as the subgrade work is completed at the base area. o The utility plan is designated in detail on pages 19-21 and should be coordinated with the City Engineer if any questions arise. o Trail improvements and easements are described on page 24 in subsection 3. The cross country and hiking trails should be accomplished as part of the current regrading program. The remainder of the Agreement, with minor exceptions, addresses issues associated with the hotel, which will be part of a later construction phase in 1987 or 1988. In accordance with the statement on Page 27, Section 2, I have reviewed the gondola terminal building for conformance with representations made during the process. The applicant indicated that the building height would be 25 feet above the loading platform (20 feet for machinery, 5 feet of clearance for mainte- nance workers) . I find the peak of the roof to be about 29-1/2 feet above grade. The nearly 10 percent difference from repre- sentations is of concern to me, as height was a crucial issue in the Council's deliberations. I would like to have you explore with the applicant whether the building can be brought closer to 27 feet from grade (by, for example, reducing the number of steps up to the platform to 2 or 3 rather than 5 as shown) , provided that in no event do we make the function of the building suffer, given its importance to our resort. I have spoken to Fred Smith, Planning Director for ASC to determine the status of the existing Little Nell lift and lift towers, since the plans provided to me show these facilities remaining in place. Fred explained to me that the lift and towers are to be removed, with work to be accomplished by ASC rather than a contractor. You should require that the demolition plans be submitted to you before you approve the construction of the new gondola building. I hope these comments are of assistance to you. Given the complexity of the project, I would expect to coordinate construc- tion review with you throughout the project, and to participate in some on -mountain site visits this summer. Feel f ree to call on me any time you have a question. cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer AR. 56 April 28, 1986 Alan Richman Director of Planning City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Little Nell Base Development Dear Alan: A 6 0 design workshop, inc. 710 e. durant RED n, colorado 81611 303/925-8354 Enclosed is a revised set of Little Nell Base Development SPA Precise Plan drawings (6 sheets) incorporating the following changes and additions: 1. Sheet 3 of 6: Addition of the word "paving" to Note 3 under Zone 4. 2. Sheet 4 of 6: Addition of a note regarding buildings to remain during Phase 1. 3. Sheet 5 of 6: Designation of trash area and loading dock. 4. Sheet 6 of 6: New sheet showing details of skier drop off. Exhibit 2 of the SPA Agreement has also been revised to incorporate these changes. When I receive confirmation that these changes are satisfactory, the originals will be circulated for signature by the Aspen Skiing Company. Yours truly, Dave Ellis `�- DE/ms cc: Paul Taddune Jay Hammond Gideon Kaufman Peter Forsch Bill Kane community development land planning landscape architecture • • GIDEON I. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 April 22, 1986 Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Parking and Transit Issue/Little Nell SPA Dear Alan: ,,.T1rL'EPH0NE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 I write this letter to confirm my understanding of -the modifidation made by the City Council to the Planning and Zoning condition requiring the lA parking lot to be available for transit related uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission wanted not only to retain thirty parking spaces on the parking lot near 1A, but to also make this spot available for related transit issues. It is my understanding that the City Council took a different position and stated that transit related uses were not contemplated in the original agreement, and, therefore did not impose that requirement upon the Aspen Skiing Company. Therefore, the only requirements relating to the parking lot coincided with our current lease agreement which calls for the availability of thirty parking spaces on or near the present location. If this is not your understanding, I hope to hear from you right away. Otherwise, I will convey this information to Bob Hughes, who, representing Commerce Savings & Loan, expressed some concern about adding conditions to a property that has been purchased from us. If Bob has any additional questions, I am sure he will contact you directly. Thank you very much for your help and consideration. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation i C7 / By / Gide n Kaufman GK/bw cc: Robert W. Hughes, Esq. • April 22, 1986 Alan Richman Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Alan: design workshop, inc. 710 e. durant aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-8354 Enclosed is a set of the Little Nell Base Development SPA Precise Plan drawings (5 sheets) incorporating the modifications you requested following the April 14 City Council meeting. By copy of this letter, Paul Taddune and Jay Hammond are also receiving a set. The originals will be at Design Workshop when you are ready to circulate them for signatures. Yours truly, 2)"' '�5K-<-6 Dave Ellis DE/ms Enclosure cc: Paul Taddune Jay Hammond Gideon Kaufman Peter Forsch Bill Kane community development land planning landscape architecture 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official CC: Jay Hammond, Public Services Director FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Staging Area for Gondola Construction DATE: April 22, 1986 You have asked me to comment on the potential use of the Benedict property as a construction staging site for the gondola construction on Aspen Mountain. I have reviewed that Little Nell SPA agreement, which provides that the City Engineer and Chief Building Official, in the exercise of their reasonable discretion, are responsible for mitigation of construction impacts. However, I can advise you that it is my determination that the Benedict site would be an appropriate location for staging, due to its location proximate to the mountain and the limited development between the staging area and construction site which would be impacted by helicopter flyovers. I do not believe that there is a zoning issue to be addressed by the proposed construction staging area. The establishment of a temporary staging area does not constitute development which changes the basic use or character of the land, and therefore is not a land use under the terms of our zoning regulations. I have received the attached letter and flight plan from the applicant indicating that the actual staging is likely to involve two periods of about one week and two weeks respectively. This very temporary use is not subject to the use table limitations of the zoning code, nor is it addressed by other sections of the code. Since the zoning code does not limit this activity, it is your responsibility to ensure the temporary nature of the use, the protection of the public health and safety by the mitigation of impacts of the use, and the return of the area to its prior state following completion of the construction. In this regard, I recommend that you obtain the following: 1. A timetable for the dates when staging will begin and end and limits on the times of day of operation. Based on my contact with the Board of County Commissioners on this item, I recommend that work not begin prior to 8: 00 A. M. and be conducted only 5 days per week. 2. A bond or other protection to ensure cleanup of the site. 3. A limit on use of the site for recreation when the helicopters are carrying the gondola towers and similar material s. Please feel free to consult me or the City Engineer to assist you in handling these issues. AR.418 406 SOUTH Ail LL E BOX 1248 Alan Richman Planning Director Aspen Pitkin County Dear Alan: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY C ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 O PHONE 303/925-1220 Thank you for your continued effort to carry the ball on the Gondola project we hope that the information enclosed will help. A topographic map is enclosed to depict the helicopter routes. The helicopter will not fly over homes or population centers. The helicopter will have two separate times or working periods. The first period will be for the flying of concrete, which we will let cure for about one month.• The second period will be the flying of structures. We expect to fly the initial period in July, either from the top of the mountain or from our staging area, for less than one week depending upon weather. The first flight period will be subject to POMA scheduling, availibitity of helicopters, wind and rain, and any other factors. The second period for the flying of towers might be anywhere from the end of August to the begining of October, this will be from our staging area, again subject to all the factors listed above, but this period may take up to two weeks, because we have 60 structures to fly. Helicopters like to fly early in the day. In higher elevations, with heavy loads a helicopter can attain better lift in the cool of the morning. Due to the amount of work, scheduling, costs and various other factors a helicopter daily schedule should include as much of the daytime hours as possible and a start as early in the morning as possible. I hope the public maintains a stance of continued support for our Gondola project, and realize the inconvenience to be minor compared to the rewards. Sincerely, Fred Smith ASPEN MOUNTAIN BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN SNO MASS BRECKENRIDGE �� s cQ5�04Ti GF IHFGNtENN/q! ° Lg�AASPEN QUADRANGLE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ^' COLORADO—PITKIN CO. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Ma,n3.\$a9 cF°°�,C*PX J� Z.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) NE/4 ASPEN 15' QUADRANGLE \� 101 39°1 4345000, T T 1( 12- 480 F 39*07" 1( i' 52'30" WOODY CREEK 1.9 MI. 340000m E 3 1 50' R 85 W WOODY CREEK.' 343 (RUED/) 3441 345 47'30" 346 347 1 640 000 FEET 348 5' I 39 22 0 'I / \�� _ 8ppp— \\�likk Lenado s000 4345 g- N I \\ OF- - L,a -J \ III il.;,- �\\ /.�/% / /,��—� '�O //\ .� _ u-�_��^ I1 / /�/ - / 935 e ( \ 4344 �LM W H I E E R o ;'A�T. I F, O R E S TD% AJ 1S, Gulch \,1'�0 � \ � �' ti°o RAI_-' �� TR 6 � � I � � � / ; � 510 It L - / L 1'\ � r_\ % fi III � 34 � ��, v� I� I I � 9 _ ,-' �� --- ----'� �� —� — �I' \ ��FEE 4343 SARDI� FIELD c e, �I �� I 343 LI IUl INDEF NITS i (} QO o I :�_il,oll�,��-_ r -\ �� 4342 v \ ERlV A. �� Ay ..i �Rq, JI ��/-9so �1 tea, '\-=..' I �Al I VI e`g-=_J r �—TII 342/p�. V BM - �80 A \�I: Red //x 7716 v �. ��, �A\� Ate- �A �VI -�� - •�� /�� _/� 0° �/ _ �� - Butte BM \ \\ o . 0 1 Aspen c 8283 3 \ �_\\ �� 7 .. �3 �\ 12' 341 v w • 0� oq vv J A o `o ; �8go0� - 1 \ oo� .ya2'ze6a ; • �-� � �1� >" �_T ��_ �`.. � _ � r�,,"l��' �_� �� 341 - /\• �O\ o i 00 �\\� a q 0 eo Grounds LUOLF COURSE19 Shalt/' sIrwacker�l ftn Park Re Radlo';g 11 6 m \ o ji ti •i • .�•�Sp Il °TQwer o Shaft >� '- 340 o 0 • ;il ^e •• (BM 7907) / , ` I ° • v �� J- �� J C Johnson •��Tnel v n Smuggler Tunnel unI/ J< b/ �� • °• O o G „J Shaft flu X III F1 ��/f�� ` \ / O O°� \ ;-i: 00 �`•:�'. '��•L. III l�.l:� oo° • O i P I on • $336 4335 � _ 00EE 4334 l t�VeI'•'Q u Pit,/ 0 �� AA vA I Tank• ,u/h�''�, �� .�• �� ' \ I �I 9700 v � ru 1 �� I\ \ e� T. du�i Iotte Park,\ i X c \ I !-LAI _ i°nA 0 k, I/ \� Aspen Park pgund , 9) 4333 15 X 0" 3 (HA YDEN PEAK) 3 16°5F'30�' 1339 340• ASHCROFT 6 M1. FFF0000 50 342 43 46621/1 SE 345 47'30" 346 y\ Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey Control by USGS and USC&GS 5 Off\\\ Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial �P�o62 photographs taken 1958. Field checked 1959 and 1960 v Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum 10,000-foot grid based on Colorado coordinate system, central zone 1000-meter Universal -transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 13, shown in blue Certain land lines are omitted because of insufficient data There may be private inholdings within the boundaries of the National or State reservations shown on this map MN GIN /.V2 ° 1°09, 1/258 MILS 20 MILS UTM GRID AND 1960 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET 1 SCALE 1:24 000 1 2 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL 'DATUM OF 1929 THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DENVER, COLORADO 80225, OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 A FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST COLORADO ■ QUADRANGLE LOCATION 1 ll \\\\ O I 11 \\ O j O o ul o z ic - 11 - II n O - n W 11 XJ 9 7 433E C \\ a Peat Bog p IG -� II a Warren II Lake o u 4 a 10 `I 434( 1` 6) / 092E 433 010362 l/ \ 1 433 34700om E I INTERIOR —GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA-1— 106'4'. '15, 000 30" , 12000m N 9' 07'30" i' ROAD CLASSIFICATION 2L Fss� Medium -duty......... Light-d uty �t A Unimproved dirt State Route ASPEN, COLD. NE/4 ASPEN 15' QUADRANGLE f N3907.5—W 10645/7.5 v7: 7 1960 DMA 4662 III NE -SERIES V877 C� • Alpine Surveys 414 North Mill Street Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 April 3, 1986 Job No. 85-121 REVISED DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE LITTLE NELL S.P.A. (This description supersedes that of February 24, 1986) A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 102 IN SAID CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE S 75009'11" E 220.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 102 TO A POINT 10.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT H OF SAID BLOCK 102; THENCE S 14050'49" W 241.76 FEET TO A POINT HALFWAY BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WATERS AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF UTE AVENUE; THENCE N 75009'11" W 29.34 FEET ALONG SAID HALFWAY LINE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21, UTE ADDITION; THENCE N 38035'40" W 16.98 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 21; THENCE S 45021'00" W 124.28 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 21 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 21, UTE ADDITION, SAID CORNER BEING ALSO A POINT ON LINE 1-9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE N 75009'11" W 50.00 FEET; THENCE N 14050'49" E 51.30 FEET; THENCE N 30009'11" W 34.00 FEET; THENCE N 75009'11" W 235.35 FEET; THENCE N 15030'00" E 126.67 FEET TO A POINT ON LINE 8-9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE N 74023'18" E 13.11 FEET ALONG LINE 8-9 TO CORNER NO. 9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE S 40001'52" E 52.02 FEET ALONG LINE. 1-9; THENCE S 75009'11" E 4.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT R, BLOCK 98, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 14050'49" E 10.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT R TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DEAN AVENUE; THENCE S 75009'11" E 60.24 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF VACATED HUNTER STREET; THENCE N 14050'49" E 50.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT I, BLOCK 97, CITY OF ASPEN; Page 2 Job No. 85-121 Revised Description of Entire Little Nell S.P.A. April 3, 1986 THENCE S 75009'11" E 75.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT A, BLOCK 102, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 14050'49" E 100.00 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 88,567 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. 4 • 0 Alpine Surveys, Inc. 414 North Mill Street Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 April 3, 1986 Job No. 85-121 DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND TO BE ZONED C.-S.P.A. A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT A, BLOCK 102, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE S 14050'49" W 55.92 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 102 TO THE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 1-10 OF THE G.H. HEWITT MILL SITE AS DEPICTED ON THE MAP OF UTE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN FILED IN TOWN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 15 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE S 70042'00" E 40.52 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 1-10 TO CORNER 10 OF SAID HEWITT MILL SITE; THENCE S 51053'00" E 40.80 FEET ALONG LINE 10-9 OF SAID HEWITT MILL SITE TO CORNER NO. 9; THENCE S 40006'00" E 114.44 FEET ALONG LINE 9-8 OF SAID HEWITT MILL SITE AND THE EXTENSION THEREOF TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 21, UTE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE S 45021'00" W 113.53 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 21, UTE ADDITION, SAID CORNER BEING ALSO A POINT ON LINE 1-9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE N 75009'11" W 50.00 FEET; THENCE N 14050'49" E 51.30 FEET; THENCE N 30009'11" W 34.00 FEET; THENCE N 75009'11" W 235.35 FEET; THENCE N 15030'00" E 126.67 FEET TO A POINT ON LINE 8-9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE N 74023'18" E 13.11 FEET ALONG LINE 8-9 TO CORNER NO. 9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE S 40001'52" E 52.02 FEET ALONG LINE 1-9; THENCE S 75009'11" E 4.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT R, BLOCK 98, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 14050'49" E 10.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT R TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DEAN AVENUE; THENCE S 75009'11" E 60.24 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF VACATED HUNTER STREET; 40 Page 2 Job No. 85-121 Description of a Parcel of Land to be Zoned C.-S.P.A. April 3, 1986 THENCE N 14050'49" E 50.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT I, BLOCK 97, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE S 75009'11" E 75.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT A, BLOCK 102, CITY OF ASPEN, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 44,839 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. !9E MDRANDU M TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City [9anager NO FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Off ice t\Y--, RE: Little Nell SPA Agreement DATE: April 3, 1986 The staff has been working with the applicant to develop a comprehensive SPA Agreement in a form which is acceptable for you to review. We anticipate that a draft will be available to place in your boxes on Friday, April 1.1. Please review this document so that it can be discusser', in detail at your meeting on April 14. MEI4DRANDU M TO: Aspen City Council - THRU : Hal Schilling, City Mana g FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: 2nd Reading - Ordinance 53, Series of 1986 - Little Nell SPA Rezoning DATE: April 21, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends adoption of this Ordinance, which is the final Council action required with respect to the Little Nell Base Area Redevelopment Project. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council tabled this Ordinance on April 1 to provide for re -noticing to insure that all legal obligations are met. First reading approval was granted by Council in conjunction with the conceptual approval in 1985. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Ordinance 53, Series of 1985, extends the SPA Overlay designation across the lower portion of the site (approxi- mately 1 acre) which is zoned C - Conservation. The Ordinance was approved on first reading on September 17, 1985 and then tabled until the Precise Plan could be submitted and reviewed. The applicant's zoning boundary change differs significantly from that which was considered and eventually denied by City Council in 1983. The extent of the area requested for SPA designation is considerably less than that previously identified and corresponds directly to that area in which the hotel, commercial and ski support facilities are to be located at the toe of the slope. In fact, by extending the boundary, we insure that the location of the lifts is considered at the same time as the remainder of the base area development. The attached Exhibit identifies the approximately location of the proposed new SPA boundary. We find that the increase in the SPA boundary meets the test of being unique and providing public benefit in that it permits integrated planning of the lift locations in conjunction with the remainder of the base area development. Without the SPA Overlay, our review of the ski lifts would be limited to the conditional use review process. The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adjustment with the following qualifications: a. The area designated C-SPA is not used in the calculation of the FAR for the project, since the hotel is not an allowed use in 0 • this zone. b. In the event that growth management allocations for the project expire, the boundary of the SPA should revert to its prior configuration until a new conceptual and precise plan is submitt- ed. The above two items have been addressed to our satisfaction during the precise plan review process and are reflected in the SPA Agreement. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission recom- mended in favor of the rezoning in conjunction with their review of the conceptual plan. Their vote on the precise plan was 5 in favor, 2 opposed. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance 53, Series of 1986." AR.3 2 BOB f>•f>_ / R 15 g ' R 1�/ (P ull) RESI NCEPLANNER A � Cj LANDSCAPE ----- �L��a I ecGD I�E yhO NCE OURA ' •'� CONDOS `If AJAX CONDOS \ - A'A•I.1.1. i ' fLDG. e00 I SPEN AL } RE CES 1 a r.w O BLDG. e F—TIPP"— I CON OS ED .LDG. 100 ` — — -4 _ — _0 1 TIPPLE INN o. (AR \ • Bn e IaE}I..�. ippa �w�.,wsi - CONTINENTAL INN oa+ y fir• ❑ s W OODSTONE INN faMmat� a➢sim�fsvrr� 1 ` ..ae' j^-y.u•r IW1 I MI aYa sae -DEAN STREET b ILTp7pT�e]L�E NELL r C IATE DUM NT I i NORTH OF HELL BLDG. _ •9MM so a.. a W!,.o L'9'�•LI ♦i9�•'. •'>_" J M 11.94w ,aun sw_�-ems M�= DUR.NI AVENUE �w�wrM�rarN ��— — — — — — —�� rwM�ranw�w�ra�I�e�a�N w� �=�DUR ANT • vENUE w SOUAR I RUSEY PARK i DURAN IALL SLDG. J f.}E^S^1xe}}s DURANT/ L.Y^wr^1 I <_AJAX TN. 00.GALEN __mkrLOG. (_D+.T--.H—)2mYe -' Olt- Wlev o ar w• ar lal M. •fe' W1 OYlf IM �i i o O/ Existing L= _— COOPER --- .vENUE � LAND USE I 7 O L-3 _- C-1' --- - i a • CITY,OFASPEN 130 A #reet aspe1611 9 April 17, 1986 Rich Cassens Rea, Cassens and Associates 4388 South Windermere Street Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Rich, In accordance with the SPA regulations of the City of Aspen, this letter is to advise you that I have reviewed the plans and speci- fications prepared by your firm for the Aspen Skiing Company pertinent to the construction of the water main and pump station facilities to serve the Little Nell base development. To the best of my knowledge, these plans and specs, identified as A6-1131, are in accordance with the City of Aspen Water Department regulations and said plans and specs as identified, are approved. ncere,l.,y, Markalunas, Director n Water Department JM:ab cc: Jay Hammond, Public Service Director Paul Taddune, City Attorney ASC, Project Mgr. Planning Dept. April 16, 1986 Jay Hammond City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 design workshop, inc. 710 e. durant aspen, colorado 81611 303/925-8354 RE: Little Nell Base Development -Grading Plan and Schedule Dear Jay: The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief summary of the items discussed at our meeting of Thursday, April 10 which was attended by Fred Smith (Aspen Skiing Company), Al Claybourn (Chen & Associates), A.J. Zabbia (Rea Cassens & Associates), you, and myself. The Aspen Skiing Company proposed to modify the original Little Nell Base Development SPA Grading Plan by removing approximately 53,000 cubic yards of earth from the site instead of placing it as on -site fill.. Approximately 17,000 cubic yards of fill will still be placed on the lower bench just above the Aspen Mountain_ Road. The advantages of these modifications are as follows: 1. The 30,000 cubic yards of fill originally proposed below the midway unload station on Lift #a has been eliminated. This eliminates any concerns regarding slope stability problems resulting from the fill. It also eliminates the possibility that placement of the fill would alter current drainage patterns in this critical area. Finally, the overall construction time frame for slope regrading will be improved by eliminating the slowest and most difficult segments of the on -site haul. 2. By removing approximately 75% of the material from the site, the start date for grading can be moved up to May 19 without jeopardizing any slope stability concerns. All excavation will be removed from the site until Chen & Associates completes the slope stability analysis for the proposed fill, expected in late May or early June. 3. The early start allows for hauling through the city when traffic volumes are low. Several excavators have indicated that the overall slope regrading could be completed no later than July 1, pending good weather, compared to mid August under the earlier proposal. This will dramatically reduce the impacts of slope regrading on adjacent property owners. To take maximum advantage of the early start date and the low tourist season prior to June 15, extra hours, and possibly the weekends, will be worked. community development land planning landscape architecture It • The only disadvantage to the proposed modification is the impact of truck traffic hauling the material to the Buttermilk ski area. The conclusion of the meeting was that the proposed modification made sense and the advantages considerably outweighed the disadvantage of the haul. Your approval of the plan was conditioned upon: 1. The Aspen Skiing Company obtaining support for the modification from adjacent property owners including the Aspen Alps and North of Nell and possible reaction from the Aspen Resort Association regarding impacts of the hauling on business at that time of year. 2. The implementation of necessary dust control and street cleaning measures. The subject of Aspen Mountain run-off entering the Aspen Alps project was also discussed. You identified the proposed lodge improvement district's concern for intercepting the historic drainage entering the Aspen Alps above the 800 Building and rerouting the flows down the Little Nell slope to Spring Street. Before making any final decision on this matter, Fred Smith requested Rea Cassens & Associates to evaluate the feasibility of intercepting the drainage from Basin A3 as well as the Aspen Mountain Road drainage. It was confirmed that the project is being designed to accommodate the 33,000 cubic feet of detention required under the worst case scenario until such time as the new aerial topography and revised drainage study indicate that this volume can be reduced. We are proceeding with our planning and contractor negotiations based on the above modifications and will be following up with necessary revised grading plans and letters of review from both Chen & Associates and Rea Cassens & Associates. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please advise. Yours truly, Dave Ellis DF/ms cc: Fred Smith Al Claybourn A.J. Zabbia John Cottle L5 C ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT APR - 9 086 MEMORANDUM TO: PAUL TADDUNE, CITY ATTORNEY FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: LITTLE NELL SPA AGREEMENT DATE: APRIL 7, 1986 1- �- Regarding section 8, subparagraph (b) Water, this portion of the SPA outlines what the Ski Company is required to do. Although not explicit, can we assume from the section that this facility will be relocated and installed in a manner satisfactory to the Water Department? Since our engineers (Rea, Cassens and Associates) will be employed by the Aspen Skiing Company, I do not believe there will be a coordination problem. However, should there be a dispute as to what constitutes satisfaction, question, who will have the final say? Since our facilities are to be disrupted, relocated, and substituted for, I have emphasized to Rea, Cassens that the Water Department expects the subsitute of its existing facilities to be quantitatively and qualitatively the same as what now exists. This cannot be specifically spelled out in an SPA agreement, but I believe the inference is there. Should there be a conflict as to what represents the City's best interest, who would have the final say? One suggestion, perhaps the following wording should be incorporated into the agreement: "such relocation and/or reconstruction shall be in a manner satisfactory to the City of Aspen". Please fell free to call me on this. JM:ab cc: Jay Hammond, Engineering Dept. �iPlanning Dept. 0 • April 4, 1986 Gideon Kaufman 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 ____j 0 L��yv%�j F 0 Ldyraht D aspen, coi&ado 61611 APR - 4 W 25-8351 RE: Legal Descriptions for Little Nell SPA Rezoning Dear Gideon: Attached are the two legal descriptions prepared by Alpine Surveys for the Little Nell C-SPA rezoning. The first is the "Revised Description of Entire Little Nell SPA;" the second is the "Description of a Parcel of Land to be Zoned C-SPA." The respective areas of the C-SPA and CC -SPA zones are 44,839 sf. and 43,728 sf. Yours truly, �% Dave Ellis DE/ms cc: Alan Richman Jay Hammond Katherine Koch Paul Taddune Bill Kane community development land planning landscape architecture 16Cu i6cT Alpine Surveys 414 North Mill Street Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 April 3, 1986 Job No. 85-121 REVISED DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE LITTLE NELL S.P.A. (This description supersedes that of February 24, 1986) A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 102 IN SAID CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE S 75009'11" E 220.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 102 TO A POINT 10.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 11 OF SAID BLOCK 102; THENCE S 14050'49" W 241.76 FEET TO A POINT HALFWAY BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WATERS AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF UTE AVENUE; THENCE N 75009'11" W 29.34 FEET ALONG SAID HALFWAY LINE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21, UTE ADDITION; THENCE N 38035'40" W 16.98 FEET ALONG SAID NORTIERLY LINE OF LOT 21 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 21; THENCE S 45021'00" W 124.28 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 21 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 21, UTE ADDITION, SAID CORNER BEING ALSO A POINT ON LINE 1-9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE N 75009'11" W 50.00 FEET; THENCE N 14050'49" E 51.30 FEET; THENCE N 30009'11" W 34.00 FEET; THENCE N 75009'11" W 235.35 FEET; THENCE N 15030'00" E 126.67 FEET TO A POINT ON LINE 8-9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE N 74023'18" E 13.11 FEET ALONG LINE 8-9 TO CORNER NO. 9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE S 40001'52" E 52.02 FEET ALONG LINE. 1-9; THENCE S 75009111" E 4.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT R, BLOCK 98, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 14050'49" E 10.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT R TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DEAN AVENUE; THENCE S 75009'11" E 60.24 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF VACATED HUNTER STREET; THENCE N 14050'49" E 50.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT I, BLOCK 97, CITY OF ASPEN; • �x�„61T- / • Page 2 Job No. 85-121 Revised Description of Entire Little Nell S.P.A. April 3, 1986 THENCE S 75009'11"'E 75.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT A, BLOCK 102, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 14050'49" E 100.00 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 88,567 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. �X��r z Little Nell Ski SI pe Au kt A3p Re w ndola _4' Tippler Tipple Inn Dean Avenue Q) Little Nell Hotel V) North of Nell inWLJ N 0 Lul LEU .. Now .... LUI EWILJ LUJ Durant Avenue Im LM CM EM Ow COU cw SPA Precise Plan Illustrative Site Plan Sheet 2 of 4 Plant List sr.s� 'ti•tw SA :. a•3•{h �yy LaL M-ia.4 ir�•a.o..e . Oay+h1 -►4» c. ry Liar i ^^ vf•,r{ «•I, y � A -..Mar pp•t L •� araJ►w �►+ti+ va.a..�GLw tt4 i.•.. J•A M' •••• a.w•w - •f•o.�r 4 tea... ��••r • .� r �s •f'a.t ri it�.6 J. � a:rcf L.- t Storm Detention Sp fluor u�•-• � o• r;,;• T Pedestrian Trall %a _ .- r i 5c.:o_G •��. ll � \��pr, lY�� ; r . �. 1� ri, . ,•!.. 1 . sae ,a.. nii M w ^G.. / • ,,1 ,` ay .I !� I • •'I:•'� I 1 , .Lpf1.' 0 S•W,.;., � t •'•� O� �;`�� a m man a�•a R Ca j Li Service Area ' Zone 4_— ..,:aNew naaa 1 L til t ` --- t Tippler �•_ � Zone .l •'fit +.�. Pool Courtyard t' p1r?-t . '• : is i<: r"i Zone o �t Little Nep Hotel of ! �r,• { t North of Nell Stlram__ r t Nlj . Zone 4 tD1 one 1 1 Skier Drop oil Durant Avenue Plant Melerl•I Lighting •taa era L^ %Xt.t -3r ..t 2-� „-Gr rr =• sry.. ra � e` '2GYA At -•.a __L �_.- ^ • •.�� _.f. A 'LXG ' D_S Ii = _{ _ .ti0/J 7�`u._L- i II. a'a„H_�7 V� ...e K -�._ • -ate• O� (Orr_. .v � M ±Agt•'t',< �J^3 Paving Seating xi.. .. rc.n..- !6ti a•¢ i a . «- y^c-a. ✓ _s ro 5 _ • � �-r 1A'rart^6.7 Yc-•.►i!.•w. s• •rCr Ja:J ^ n!/!•err rota-�o�c„ Zone 1 Zone 3 • r•^f t^a Ar _ N va �• ,aI•� N •ca^s • .G...v! •r.� J '�•! U••!.. a. J .O• _ 'fa LA.:.t, .:..."•�G �.►.►..rr ' vs S: - r ••O/ �a s�'L••'A/N•- -T 4v.4 �Lrtira.4• -M._. r ✓OIL'/ice 7AI••Lr. r o f.r•.0 t- u^a ) %!• R J Y•• 7 •.La / r.6 "'t-1 L i •Y.. I� +t!��S'i _a G.... L. K I_!!.•4. , Ar ' G; .•_f-q , i7i. a •, N� •aa _P/s_tr{i ^ :O •.: is .!-•. !/ =a -v!r. y ^G^7 ^ - --t i %Il�c r{9 hD a14r'ra0• Zone 2 Zone 4 _. - tf S+t� ..-r A G:.•.•_ r r' ^S L � iN CGrI_Lra'a XAIyL '•','$•.J•,_•!�-t Arli^a„A. w•H Gd _^L-c^ --• �-l^ L^� � _C%. =6 rr•»a YYCT "'iM- '-S L.4.L• •j' Nu. �'f7 � .fir .'VG t.7 '�- • L^ _� __-4J.L000 <%L. i... rKHV•i'�^ .aw'G Vwa'� K-•� •7 LVr ram ^_ -'•i = rrr_�••�'�r��•i'�_ ? Zone 4a 9L<• a /r rG^i G.r CGV} a -... . y.e S• t �i7 Zone 5 Z.•• ! .c•/-ate w:r Gb_ aa' Y-a7 N L II r9 •�/.4- Tipple Inn .tae� Arc. Planters Stair ^Df Svsw t 44 It- - OI -Ira-..'!'� N'• •-LrL ir..t a• sa+a.• �. Ticket Klosks rn CU •w�s»«s M-1cn 29, 1956 �GMP. SPA L,f BL r.,.I SPA SPA Precise Plan Landscape Development Plan Sheet 3 A 4 AX 303-925-1220-., �ts a ��\ ro\� \ \ \\ \ \\ \ eV r • \\Li �I .4V•i Gondola J_I I r1t , I LAWSCAPE v-�Terminal gA.S.ffices . .. . . .. Tippler "eviiiiiiiiii Tow t NewWest Wing BuTjdin-�, CIVIL ENGINEE .l c- / ►.•JCM '••' r__ __________ i! _— �� '• r . dwt� ago \ s bq r •� �GEOTECHMt 1 I f t ENGINEER - of 11161111111, zoo CC. $0223 M. t 1 ♦ 1 I I / f- - r �(.Jr• ...A ) I I t \ Y ..O�G ._t, .r 7n I '�� a .ix'�: + i 1 i • 1 ab..-l.t tl �• ��4� 1. / Y x' I i t i _a�>_�= oc.. -s --��, i v Little Nell Building n � I I T""- ✓.e•.,. p1 ------ all -c.r .•one 1 i I ' •'t North of Nell Building V n ip 4,2,84 ••r •r� i SPA Preclae Plan Interim(Phase 1) Landscape Plan Durant W aril Avenue b i•h w 4 rrrl� Nr. M Durant Avenue Sheet 4 0l 4 7 1• SPRING STRF£7 , I I e I 'I w.l V I t I II ,I. J J W z wW J Z J m f J —� HUNTER I re•x.[• I SEE SHEET.6—p.. FOR AREA DETAIL I I `•• W � 4, ` I Om ..c. • I:' I � W I a J I •' i a I i � / K.s GALENA 51RFF7 ��f%gin-Lw'4ei'[tw' II SSE DE TA4' I i I , ' I i SEE•DETA4';'� SEE DETAIL'2' •��+•�+•rn.D.•.K.w. e�"a'.``�ti r' ! I I 1 i a:.•.aaw ].u.a 4•... •.c.0 ::c .. ],u %'_ .:•.µa•.a SEE DETAIL'p' Z ......•,. ,��KY' � _ t .: DES t s y 1 � 3 I ll WATEI 1 REA 1 • ---.--�—rL— --1 I i j ♦ / 1 I i 7 TIPPLE INNWOOD3TONE / CONTINsNTAL N INN 1 I �L, T If �i 1 I--- INN— 1 /I1 F it, LITTLE NELL DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF NELL E1LDG. % F— ,, �/ / `NYM•�fN W.les .� «.N\N. «.l•.K•..\ hl,lll� _ SCA cza ------------- t— r— I- - 7 SO. , i j--- —� -- —` �_. r «.mow.. j - - •� - ' -• � I '' I I _ 7 e 791 I I 1 I ASPEK LINE!NE�L�S SAUN 711� TATSANIT44YSE EM 1 CONS TING NGINEa S tTESAS c.¢Ko qp.l awe- 4e7e¢ EXHIBIT 4 Little Nell Base Development SPA Agreement Site Utility Costs Phase 1: Water $ 207,100 Sanitary Sewer 69,500 Electric 125,400 Telephone 15,600 Phase 1 Subtotal $ 417,600 Phase 2: Water $ 45,000 Total $ 462,600 • EXHIBI`!' 5 Little Nell Base Development SPA Agreement Landscape and Paving Costs Zone 1: Planting, paving, irrigation and street furniture 19,250 sf ® $15.00/sf $ 288,750 Zone 2: Special finish concrete 8,750 sf @ $3.50/sf 30,625 Zone 3: 10 trees C $500 ea. _ $5,000 3,000 sf of sod or ground cover and irrigation 0 $1.75/sf = 5,250 Zone 4: 25 trees Q $500 ea. = $12,500 75 shrubs $25 ea. = 1,875 3,000 sf of irrigation $1.50 sf = 4,500 1,920 sf of sidewalk $3.50/sf = 6,720 700 if of curb and gutter Q $10/lf 7,000 Zone 4a: 30 trees © $500 ea. _ $15,000 125 shrubs © $25 ea. = 3,125 3000 sf of irrigation Q $1.50/sf = 4,500 10,250 32,595 22,625 Zone 5: 30,000 sf of wildflower/ native grass seeding Q $.30/sf 91000 Total $ 393,845* * Includes $118,400 for Phase 1 improvements in Zones 1, 2 and 5 ItE MDRAN DU M TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager FROt-": Alan Richman, Planning Office � FZF: Little Nell SPA Agreement DATF : April 3, 1986 The staff has been working with the applicant to develop a comprehensive SPA Agreement in a form which is acceptable for you to review. We anticipate that a draft will be available to place in your boxes on Friday, April 11. Please review this document so that it can be discussed in detail at your meeting on April 14. ME MDRANDU M TO: Jim Wilson, Building Department FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office', RE: Aspen Mountain 1986 Off -Season Improvements DATE: April 1, 1986 The Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan addressed lift construc- tion primarily within unincorporated Pitkin County. As part of the Plan approval process, the Board of County Commissioners granted the following exemptions. 1. Lift construction, renovation and upgrading to the extent that the majority of the work is already inspected and approved by the Colorado Tramway Board and the USFS dupli- cate inspection and imposition of fees from and by the Pitkin County Building Department. 2. Exempt lift construction renovation and upgrading from the 28 foot height limitation of the Code. In addition to these exemptions, we placed several conditions on the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of an excavation permit for Little Nell. The primary condition which you should be aware of is: "An excavation permit will not be issued for Phase I of the Little Nell base area redevelopment unless and until the ASC provides written acknowledgement and acceptance of the operational plan for Lift #4 contained in this letter as a pre -requisite to such a permit." Therefore, give us a call to see if we have received the letter from ASC before you issue an excavation permit. It is important to understand that the County exemptions relate only to the portion of the project which falls in County juris- diction. The base of the gondola and all of Little Nell is in the City. Alan is working on the Little Nell review and it will not be completed for a while. When the Little Nell review is complete you should get together with Alan to find out if there are any additional building process exemptions or conditions. `cc: Alan Richman Peggy Severs GH.11 PLANNING AND ZONING C0�!!_dISSIQN MEETING 14ARC❑ 4, 1986 MOTIONS !lotion: Blomquist moved that the terms of Condition 413 had been met; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Blomquist moved to defer the judgement as to the visual compatibility of the lift/gondola building to City Council review in as much as it has only been possible for the applicant to prepare functional detail which the Commission finds meets the intent of Condition #12; Markalunas seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion:_ Hunt moved to approve that the applicant has met Conditions #10, #22, #5, and #11 subject to memorandums from the City Engineering Department dated January 20, 1986 and March 3, 1986 and referencing to memorandums from A.J. Zabbia of Cassins and Assoc. dated February 20, 1986; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. 1 7 UA3 :LA 1 ' ' �� t ad -r �►�-ti \,_j L- �-� �.) Q-IL I UA3 :LA 1 ' ' �� t ad -r �►�-ti \,_j L- �-� �.) Q-IL I it k Z4 I �A k, b �A J)' '^�OJty� tip .. Y �L �.�v� ��\ QX�A✓A �CJ. �.�r�— l • r -) 4k C, - _ w•A a \ � `r` , '1 -k j %.I— ,, (—" \ \ .�, ` Pr.r O �- D C- " t.. \ 1 \,%r- -4-iJ \ L J �ti \ Qj A - `—,,c p\L 4 �c,q•� '� �i e,,. w `� • ,-- �� . J e --�_a ��S e V —1\N i i �P� �5 a . K • 0 �tv �G\ • W�l�" v � J hN- �// /1F(l David +Friends ,oPI2 /5;(�oc&1-7ov iez-� �t1f# 6e� �s—Y L� �-- 77'1Z ��zr�PT�i� T� conlGE�l— a�7 7 � r1 IJ Coy✓ ctG��J 72k- L X/ eD. /� yti�itD 77ff-7le- 7hoK-IA.GtI21<� /-V� S'/ 1411 7 e V u/il -- 41J % /nlC�u,D�i� AlfSIftJO /:r/) 7*(E �n/,v f 'u ,%�T' �S�/� 05"e, OWdd�,it-i 77Ybe, Tg�mal 7T-Z�V DAVID WHITE CONSULTANT PO BOX 3887 ASPEN, CO 81612 (303) 925 •S#e-r- • 601o6 Z,�t f I�YVd 6161.01A/ *Z7?,rr(-M . 6 VA1Je411-- 10-r s6o*C*7-z�-c 4040WAII C --- S�i� e,✓ ��C�2i�i �� `%ram � �f�' ✓o�-",,�e,'� J1,V,5 e-- IVA�ifllel /o/ 7W / ��cyam, ,� �� r �s,�� l ,�v<✓� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Planning Office City Engineer FROM: Roger H. Hunt, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Little Nell SPA Development Plan; Minority View DATE: March 19, 1986 I am generally in favor of the Little Nell Redevelopment as proposed. However, the skier drop-off area and the impacts on Durant Avenue caused me to vote against the conditional use of the hotel (included in P&Z Resolution 86-3). The problems I see with the proposed drop-off area are specifically: 1. It does not comply with the City Council's condition regarding that area, neither is it an improvement to that condition. 2. Assuming the concept of full frontal drop-off is an acceptable alternative, the intrusion into Durant Avenue with curb extensions and placing the parallel parking in line with present angle parking on either side of the project is unacceptable for street maintenance and will probably have an adverse effect on street circulation especially when the increased impacts of the gondola and the hotel come on line. 3. The skier drop-off exit and the hotel entrance design has placed too much (all) automobile movement conflict in the circulation lane(s) of Durant Avenue. 4. Though the above "technical" problems can be solved by the City Engineer (who shares my concerns), the end result would have major differences which the City Council may not like and may well not have approved of if seen before hand. 5. Finally, all intrusions into Durant Avenue, including extensions of the Hunter Street Mall, should not be allowed without the consideration of future circulation and transit needs. For example, it may be necessary to convert to parallel parking on each side of the project in the near future. Allowing the project now to put in protrusions beyond the parallel parking line creates an unnecessary future expense. The majority of my fellow commissioners chose not to identify the above problems. I bring them to your attention only because I think you can make better decisions if you know as much as possible up front. Thank you for your consideration. Res t iv e 1 y, Ro er H. Hunt mor- LITTLE NELL SPA PRECISE PLAN Report to Council -- Remaining Concerns of Allan Blomquist 1. I would normally have voted no -- except that the Trade-offs make the project desireable. 2. The advantageous Trade-offs are: a. The gondola as a summer operation. b. Small conferences as a summer business. C. Improved drop-off, mall, ticketing for skiing with positive potential for summer. d. Putting ASC into the hotel business, something they have not always understood in ARA-ACR matters. e. Potential summer use of Aspen Mountain/Richmond Hill. 3. The Council should require: a. That all of the Ski Company land within the City limits be plated with the base as Lot 1, the trails, road and malls as Lots 2 - ?, for public access, and the ski slope as Lot OS for open space in perpetuity (and settle if Aspen Mountain Road is County or City inside City) . b. Something more definitive concerning skier parking, i.e., re joint venture with future City lots or garage. MINORITY POSITION OPPOSING APPROVAL OF LITTLE NELL SPA. The SPA was placed on this parcel because of its unique attributes (the location at the base of Aspen Mountain) and the variations requested are justified only if the result is to the "public benefit." There are several reas which result in the public detriment with this design. NO "GRAND ENTRANCE" - The development of this property is crucial to the link between Aspen and Aspen Mountain. This design effectively walls off the town from its mountain. Although the applicant claims to have "preserved" the view through Hunter Street, this is not the applicant's property to preserve. The applicant is actually appropriating public real estate (Hunter and Dean streets) for private uses. And the gondola station will block off the view from Hunter street anyway. The City Council required a "grander entrance" as a condition of approval but this condition has clearly not been met, and cannot be met with the planned footprint. SHADING - The applican''-l', shadow study shows that part of Durant street will be in the shade all day long, and much of it will be in shade except for the noon hour during the coldest months. This means dangerous icy conditions on Durant street, on what is now the only reamining patch of Durant which is safe for pedestrians to cross for access to the mountain. Only a different footprint can solve this problem. CROWDING & CLUTTER - Two lifts with milling areas and mazes, a trench cut into the hill to accommodate the gondola (would this be necessary if the gondola station were located nearer Durant where the hotel is planned?) commercial and administrative ski company space, plus a 92-room hotel is packing too much and too many uses onto this small and sensitive site. Crowding, both visual clutter and use conflicts will result. 1 ,1 Mari Peyton, Planning & Zoning Commissioner March 18, 1986 CJ • Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, Colorado 81611 March 18, 1986 Mr. Fred Smith Planning Director Aspen Skiing Company 0060 Atlantic Avenue P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612-1248 Dear Fred, I am in receipt of your March 4, 1986 letter which requests that insubstantial modifications be made to the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP). The Planning Office has reviewed the improvements proposed by the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) for construction during the 1986 off-season and compliments ASC for aggressively working to improve the skiing experience on Aspen Mountain. The Planning Office has reviewed your proposal to amend the AMSAMP to include a new Lift #4 at the base of Aspen Mountain serving Little Nell. As you know, the Board of County Commis- sioners recommended certain improvements to the AMSAMP proposed as part of Resolution No. 85-44. Specifically, the Board proposed that the ASC be given the option of retaining Lift #4 or a similar lift system with certain operational restrictions as part of the AMSAMP. Since the Board made this recommendation I consider your proposal to construct a new Lift #4 to be an "insubstantial change" to the AMSAMP as long as Lift #4 is operated in accordance with the operation plan as set forth in this letter. Pitkin County's major concern regarding Lift #4 relates to the impacts upon the City of Aspen from an increase in the daily capacity to Aspen Mountain and potential safety problems which could occur on the Aspen Mountain trails system particularly at the end of the skier day. Therefore, the conditions of the Mr. Fred Smith Planning Director Aspen Skiing Company March 18, 1986 Page 2 County's approval are designed so that Lift #4 will not operate as an Initial Access Lift except under special circumstances. It should be explicitly understood by the ASC that any changes to operations of Lift #4 which deviate from the conditions set forth below which lead to a daily capacity increase will require a substantial amendment to the AMSAMP. Based upon the authority vested in me by Section 3-1.12(e) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, permission is granted to the ASC to construct a new Lift #4 on Aspen Mountain subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The Aspen Skiing Company will revise the AMSAMP map proposed conditions to reflect the new location of Lift #4 and submit copies of the map to the staff prior to the issuance of an excavation permit for Phase I of the Little Nell base area redevelopment . 2. Lift #4 may be a fixed grip triple chair with a design capacity of 1200 persons per hour. We will consider requests for a quad upon further amendment requests. 3. Lift #4 will not be operated before 10:00 A.M. except in the event of : o Breakdown, slowdown, or non -completion of alternative initial access lifts (Gondola, #1A). o Major special events on Aspen Mountain such as World Cup Races, Summit Series Races, Town League Races. o Isolated, temporary, experiments are being conducted to observe the impacts of operating Lift #4 during the first two hours of mountain operation on the functional characteristics of Aspen Mountain, particularly end of the day mountain egress. Prior to such temporary, isolated experiments the Aspen Skiing Company will notify the Planning Director and Forest Service. It is the mutual understanding of the County and ASC that the principle function of this lift's opening at 10:00 A.M. will be ski school checkout, but it will also be available to the general skiing public. 4. It is explicitly understood that changes to the operation plan for Lift #4 or increases to the capacity of Lift #4 will require an amendment to the AMSAMP. Mr. Fred Smith Planning Director Aspen Skiing Company March 18, 1986 Page 3 5. An excavation permit will not be issued for Phase I of the Little Nell base area redevelopment unless and until the ASC provides written acknowledgement and acceptance of the operational plan for Lift #4 contained in this letter as a pre -requisite to such a permit. Based upon the discussions which we have had with you, we recommend that you consider operating Lifts #3 or #7 or both until 3:45 P.M. as one means of relieving end of the day egress pressure on Spar Gulch and Copper. As your plans for Aspen Mountain evolve we would welcome the opportunity to discuss operational modifications with you prior to your submission of future amendments. This letter shall be recorded with the County Clerk and Recor- der's Office and will serve as an amendment to the AMSAMP. We look forward to on Aspen Mountain. please let us know. the opening of the new Lift #4 and the gondola If we can be of any further assistance to you Sincerely, ASPEN/PIT KIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, AICP Planning and Development Director AR: j1r:ltr.2 cc: Board of County Commissioners Tom Smith, County Attorney John Eldert, County Manager Glenn Horn, Asst. Planning Director MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manag FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director 'Svc RE: Little Nell Review Schedule DATE: March 19, 1986 Attached for your review is the Planning Office's analysis of the Little Nell Precise Plan. This comprehensive memo is the only one which we intend to produce for this stage of the review, and therefore should be brought to each of the following meetings (along with the applicant's executive summary which was provided to you earlier). DAT E T IME LOCATION Wednesday, March 19 Monday, March 24 Wednesday, March 26 Monday, March 31 Tuesday, April 1 5:00-7:00 PM Regular Meeting 5:00-7:00 PM 4:00-6:00 PM 5 : 00 -7 : 00 PM Council Chambers Community Center Council Chambers Council Chambers Council Chambers Please call me if you have any questions about the schedule or the attached memo. AR.1 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council TH RU: Hal Schilling, City Manage FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director 1 RE: Little Nell Precise Plan DATE: March 19, 1986 APPLICANT: Aspen Skiing Company ZONINGAOT SIZE: The base area of Little Nell is presently zoned CC/SPA and C. Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1985, which received first reading approval from Council at the conceptual stage, will place an SPA Overlay on that portion of the base area zoned C. Final action on that ordinance should only be taken when Council is ready to take final action on the Precise Plan. The area zoned CC/SPA comprises 43,124 s.f., while the area zoned C requested for inclusion within the SPA Overlay comprises 45,738 s.f., for a total lot size of 88,862 s.f. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: At this stage of the review process, the following land use reviews are before the City Council: 1. Final action on SPA Precise Plan; 2. Final action on Ordinance 53, Series of 1985; 3. Final action on change in use GMP exemption to convert the Holiday House from lodging to employee housing; 4. Final action on encroachment (vendor's agreement) into Dean Street; and 5. Allotment of lodge units to the project (multi -year allotment requested; allotment for additional commer- cial space not yet submitted, but anticipated on August 1, 1986) . Final actions taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission included the following: 1. Grant of Conditional Use Permit for hotel in CC zone and ski lifts in the C zone district; and 2. Grant of mountain view plane and 8040 greenline ap- provals. 0 • PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: In order to provide Council with an organized sequence in which to consider this application, we suggest that issues be taken in the following order: A. Analysis of proj ect's compliance with conditions of concep- tual approval: 1. Architecture, site design and lift configuration. 2. Access, circulation and parking. 3. Geologic hazards, drainage, grading, utilities and employee housing. 4. Miscellaneous issues which have been resolved. B. Evaluation of consistency with precise plan review criteria. C. Specification of zoning regulations to apply to the parcel, variations permitted, construction schedule and mitigation of construction impacts. D. Growth Management allotments. E. SPA Overlay Rezoning (Ordinance 53, Series of 1985) . Our review of these issues follows, and should be used alongside the executive summary provided to Council by the applicant which provides the graphics to illustrate the points contained herein. A. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. Council Resolution No. 85-33 set 25 conditions of approval of the applicant's conceptual plan. These conditions set the framework within which the applicant and the P&Z have been working to develop a precise plan in keeping with the site's unique location and function. Therefore, our analysis of the applicant's compliance with these conditions forms an integral part of our evaluation of the suitability of the precise plan itself. 1. Conditions Concerning Architecture, Site Design and Lift Configuration. The issues to be discussed in this section are open space (Condition No. 1), skier drop off (Condition No. 7), visual impact (Condition No. 4), shadows (Condition No. 15), pedestrian gateway (Condi- tion No. 1 9) , encroachments (Condition No. 23) , lift building design (Condition No. 12), lift service (Condition No. 13), snow shedding (Condition No. 16) and FAR (Condition No. 2). "l. The applicant shall amend the site plan to provide 2 • • open space along the length of the Durant Street frontage of the hotel, so as to create a courtyard of at least 10 feet in depth. The open space requirement shall be considered in coordination with rather than in addition to the area to be set aside for the on -site drop-off facility required in condition #7 below." During the conceptual review, we raised a concern that the open space on the site, being at the rear of the building, did not meet the requirement of Section 24- 3.7 (d) that open space be open to the street. By the conclusion of that stage of the review we suggested that the open space along Spring Street could be justified as technically meeting this requirement. Therefore, when the condition was rewritten, reference to the technical requirement was dropped in favor of a simple statement that open space be provided along Durant to create a courtyard effect. When Condition No. 1 was written, we had in mind that the skier drop-off area could be set in the midst of open space, and that the two areas need not result in a total requirement for 20 or more feet of set back. However, we did not anticipate that the drop-off area would be designed to occupy the entire frontage, and would essentially be used instead of providing open space, as it was in the original design provided to the Planning Commission at the Precise Plan stage. The original Precise Plan reviewed by P&Z showed the building moved back the minimum of 10 feet which had been required by Council, with the skier drop-off thereby extending partly into the Durant Avenue right- of-way. This aspect of the Plan received relatively low scores from P&Z in the GMP process, and caused the applicant to re -think the project's design. The revised plan, which was accepted by P&Z, was for the building to be moved back another 10 feet on the site, with the following results: o The skier drop-off is accommodated fully within the applicant's property. o Views to the mountain have been improved. o Shadow effects on Durant Avenue have been reduced. o Four hotel units and a limited amount of accessory space have been eliminated from the project. 3 • • The major trade-offs for these several benefits are: o The image of the hotel on Durant Avenue is still influenced by the presence of the parking area. To mitigate this problem, the applicant proposes to continue the Hunter Street paving program into the drop-off area, and to do plantings in front of the hotel and along the drop-off lane. a The building no longer sits along Durant, but instead is placed well back from the street. To maximize pedestrian activity in the downtown, and to be consistent with the character of our victorian town, it is normally considered prefer- able to have storefronts directly on the street. Buildings such as Ajax Mountain and City Plaza are examples of how "dead" open space is not prefer- able to on -street building frontage. The appli- cant demonstrated to the Planning Commission that the arcade in front of the building could serve the function of an active street front and would draw people walking in either direction along Durant or from the Hunter Street Plaza into this walkway. o There are potential conflicts from the drop-off onto Durant Avenue, which are discussed in detail below. Given the overlapping benefits which accrue from moving the building back to its proposed location, we feel that the proposal is a reasonable solution. we support the applicant's argument that the mall area through Hunter Street, and extending from the deck of the hotel to the deck at the Tippler is the best location to have people gather, given its sun exposure, mountainside views and the skiing/socializing and shopping activi- ties which are planned there. Once it is accepted that a hotel is an appropriate use for the site, as was done by Council at the conceptual level, we feel that the orientation of the hotel and the pedestrian spaces has been properly planned. 7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an auto -taxi -limo drop-off facility of adequate size for the needs of the ski area, which is in addition to any drop-off area for hotel guests. As the Council is concerned about maintaining adequate traffic flows on Durant Avenue, it is expected that the applicant will address the proper location for this facility within the 4 0 • project's property boundary." In conjunction with pushing the building back an additional. 10 feet, the applicant presented several alternative designs for the skier drop-off area. The P&Z originally chose an alternative which totally separated the traffic circulation in the drop-off area from that for the hotel. This solution pushed the entrance to the hotel off the Durant/Spring corner, onto Spring Street and created an impractical series of turning movements out of the drop-off area and into the hotel. A revised plan, which was presented to and accepted by the P&Z subject to final approval by the City Engineer has the following key features: o The drop-off function is contained within the applicant's property, and provides 9-10 spaces. o The planting island between the drop-off and the street is intended to buffer the view of the hotel frontage. A sidewalk has also been provided in the island to enhance pedestrian movement. o Parallel parking for four cars will be permitted alongside the island. The edge of this parking is at the edge of the angle parking which now occurs at the North of Nell and Aspen Club Lodge Build- ings. The City Engineer has serious concerns about the impacts of this design, due to the presence of three curb cuts on Durant Avenue. Jay Hammond is reviewing the plan, and considering recommending that the curb cuts be reduced from three to two. As will be demon- strated to you at the meeting, either of these ap- proaches creates car turning conflicts, but with three cuts these conflicts are on the public street, while with two cuts the conflict is on the applicant's property. 4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter Street, and propose any design changes which will reduce obstructions of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations shall be provided at the Precise Plan stage." The applicant has provided a computer simulated view of the hotel as it will appear from Hunter Street at the Durant and Cooper corners. These simulations are 5 evidence that the critical viewplane from the town to the Little Nell run and Bell Mountain will be preserved through the hotel's design approach. The Council should require that these simulations be augmented by the addition of the proposed gondola terminal building to insure that this viewplane has been preserved. It should also be recognized that the views presented from the east and west on Durant demonstrate that the building will fill in the one remaining open area along this street, and complete the "walled in" feeling from the Aspen Club Lodge and North of Nell Buildings. Finally, Council should be informed of the applicant's commitments to P&Z that no equipment on the roof of the building will be visible from Durant Avenue or the base area, and that no height variation from the 40 foot CC zone standard is required to build this project. "15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the effects of the building along Durant Avenue and Spring Street, and mitigate the problems caused by the building's shadows for pedestrians crossing the street." The applicant's original shadow study stated that "Durant Avenue will be in shade for most of the winter. In December, shadows from the Little Nell Hotel will shade the street north of the Hotel all day. By the end of February, most of the driving surface of Durant Avenue will be in the sun from 10:30 - 1:30. The south side of Durant, adjacent to the Hotel, will remain in shade all winter." This study was revised after the building was moved back to demonstrate a significantly less, although still apparent, shading effect on the street. The applicant's response to this problem is that "a major pedestrian crossing be constructed at the intersection of Durant and Hunter Street" at the applicant's expense. Included in this plan is a neck down of the street to two travel lanes at the intersec- tion. We advised P&Z that with Durant acting as a major thoroughfare for downtown, this neck down may be ill advised, and may create turning conflicts into the drop-off area. The Commission considered our concerns, and the manner in which the neck down in front of the courthouse functions, and determined that the neck down is a desireable addition to the plan. The Commis- sioners felt that if the neck down were pulled back 1 to 2 feet, it would allow pedestrians a chance to react to on -coming traffic, but would improve their view of that traffic. Further, they felt that much of the shading problem had been solved by the new building C.1 \J CJ location, and therefore, accepted the mitigation proposed as adequate. "19. The applicant shall make every effort, including working with the City of Aspen, to increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway to the mountain so as to make it a more "grand" entrance in the winter and summer." In essence, the plan for the pedestrian gateway to the mountain is quite similar to that proposed at the conceptual level, and was not found by P&Z to be significantly more "grand." The applicant made the following representations to the P&Z as to improvements in the gateway concept: o Pushing the building back has slightly increased the width of the Hunter Street entrance to the mountain. o The roof on the western portion of the building has been sloped more than in other locations to increase the feeling of spaciousness in the pedestrian mall. o The mall paving/landscaping theme has been carried into the drop-off area in front of the hotel. o A paving link will be created between the deck at Little Nell and that of the Tippler, to include the maze area for the gondola, which will be a substantial milling area for apres-ski, events and summer visitors. o There will be formal landscaping at the rear of the hotel, which will transition into a more natural mountain environment in the vicinity of the lift towers. Council should be aware that the ASC has broken the mall proposal into Zone I, comprising all of Hunter Street and that portion of Dean Street between Hunter and the Tippler, and Zone II, which involves the Tippler frontage to Galena Street. ASC intends to pay for the improvements in Zone I, and to participate with its neighbors in the improvements to Zone II. The likely vehicle for these improvements is the Lodge Improvement District, but the ASC agreed that if Zone I is completed before the District is underway, they would pave Dean Street with materials consistent with the rest of Dean Street, and restrict the entrance to the Street such that it is limited to authorized 7 vehicle access only (e.g., Tipple Inn residents and service vehicles for the Tippler). This arrangement appeared to satisfy both the Planning Commission and the Tipple Inn residents, who had previously objected to the ASC proposals in this area. "23. The applicant shall disclose at the Precise Plan stage all plans related to the Dean Street right-of-way, including any requests for encroachments as may be necessary." The applicant has disclosed the plans for Dean Street and made an encroachment request of the City Engineer- ing Department for paving, landscaping, street furni- ture, ski ticket sales booths and skier drop-off parking. We have, however, received a comment from the City Attorney that an encroachment may be the wrong tool to address these improvements. Paul suggests that the use of Dean Street by ASC for its ticket kiosk, landscaping and street furniture is similar to the arrangement by McDonalds to add facilities to, and use the mall, which was done by a "vendor's agreement" with the City. In this sense, we differentiate the en- croachment of a private building into a public right- of-way from the use of public space for public type improvements, to allow business to be conducted in these areas. We, therefore, recommend that Council enter into a vendor's agreement with the applicant, in which the applicant indemnifies the City for any liability associated with its improvements, and agrees to maintain the mall. for the period of the agreement. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the new base lifts, demonstrating that these buildings are visually compatible with the base area and that the principal storage area for either chairs or gondolas will not be above grade at the base area." The applicant was only able to provide P&Z with the design parameters for the gondola building, as the structure itself is still in the design stage. The applicant's presentation identified some of the critical variables which defined the building's location, including the following: o It is essential that the gondola follow a route which keeps its prof ile as low to the ground as possible, to minimize wind disturbance. Given existing lifts and mountain forms, orientation of the lift building is relatively fixed. 0 0 • o The gondola requires an extensive flat area, including a "negative" grade, to permit accelera- tion of the cars to necessary speeds. This area also serves the function of skier slow down, maz ing and entry to the building. The design of this area is intended to minimize skier climbing to get into the building. o The building's form is set by its function, including a height to cover the machinery and allow for maintenance work (about 22-25 feet) a width to provide not only for the lift, but also for the underground entry to the building of supplies for the mountain restaurant (about 40-45 feet) and a length to include the acceleration facilities (about 55-60 feet). It was noted that if the capacity of the lift were to be increased at some point in the future, the length of the building would also increase (to 100-110 feet). o It is the architect's intention to create a building which uses primarily transparent materi- als to create visual interest and minimize its impact on views. The Planning Commission deferred its consideration of the detailed design of the building to the Council Precise Plan review, recognizing that the required drawings would take some time to complete. As was noted above, the Council should pay particular atten- tion to the building's effect on the Hunter Street viewplane and make every effort to preserve that public view corridor. We also recommend that consideration be given to refraining from affecting the function of the gondola by setting artificial building constraints which will be counter to the best interests of the community over the long-term. 13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment as to how lift service will be provided on Little Nell for special events, ski instruc- tions and for secondary access to Lift 5. The applicant will show the location of all lifts proposed for the base area and will provide a commitment that their installation will be initiated in 1987. The applicant shall be required to specify to the City which lift system is intended to be installed prior to review of the Precise Plan by the City Council, also giving the Planning Office approximately two (2) weeks to review the proposal and obtain referral comments from w other agencies prior to the initial presenta- tion of the Precise Plan to Council." Since the applicant has chosen to install a gondola, rather than a detachable quad chair, the issue of lift service to Little Nell has come into clearer focus. Attached for your information is a letter which I wrote to the ASC amending the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP) to provide for the installation of a new lift #4A. The lift is expected to be a triple chair (although double or quad configurations are still under consideration), capacity of 1200 skiers at one time (SAOT) which will not operate as an initial access lift . The lift will function as a backup to the gondola, if the latter is out of service or running at reduced capacity, and will provide ski school and special event access to the Little Nell Run, but will not operate until 10:00 A.M., while the gondola will open at 8:30 A.M. If the ASC intends to alter the operation of the lift, this will be considered a major plan amendment, to allow the City and County to address the on -site and off -site impacts of any capacity increase which would result. The new lift program has been reviewed with, and found acceptable by the U.S. Forest Service, which is now considering the amendment to their Master Plan for Aspen Mountain. I have also received verbal comments from the USFS that their landscape architect has looked at the base area design for the ski area and feels that it will function properly. Finally, the USFS has indicated that they are meeting with ASC to develop a program to bring the lift towers into conformance with applicable visual appearance criteria (i.e., painting) and would like a condition applied to the project to insure that this occurs. "16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techni- ques to be employed on the roof of the hotel to manage snow shedding to insure that it does not interfere with or endanger pedes- trians below." The applicant has provided us with a schematic drawing of the features designed into the building to manage the snow on the roof. The techniques employed include a flat slope on the roof top to retain snow, avalanche guards at the edge of the sloped portions of the roof, use of dormers to protect entryways and use of a flat roof on the arcade to protect pedestrians. This presentation satisfied the concerns of P&Z, and should be reviewed by Council to insure that you are also 10 comfortable with the proposed approach. 2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan submission, request a variation of the proj ect' s FAR if it is above 1 . 5 : 1, since the land zoned Conservation does not count toward the overall project FAR. The applicant may also request special review approval to increase the allowable commercial FAR of the property to 1.7:1 by providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on or off site." The applicant has indicated that the project's FAR is about 1.93:1, using the land area zoned CC, and about 0.94:1, using the land zoned CC as well as that zoned C. These numbers are based on the actual building size proposed at 81,265 s.f., plus 2,000 s.f. requested by the applicant to provide for miscellaneous building needs which may become apparent during final design and construction. Since the Conservation zone does not allow the hotel or retail uses, we continue to recommend that the same method of FAR calculation as was used for the Aspen Mountain PUD be applied to this project. This rule states that we do not calculate the FAR using land in a zone in which the use is not allowed. Council should also note that Ordinance No.2, Series of 1986, elimi- nates the ability to obtain bonus FAR when off -site housing is provided. Therefore, the applicant should be viewed as requesting an FAR variation from 1.5:1 to 1.93:1, a substantial increase of about 25 percent over the allowable FAR, although within the maximum 2.0:1 permitted in the CC zone when employee housing is provided on -site. This variation should, however, be permitted, if Council finds the design of the building to be suitable for this site as presented. The Planning Commission supported the Planning Office in its calculation methodology, and recommended that you grant the requested FAR variation to the project. 2. Conditions Concerning Access, Circulation and Parking. The issues to be discussed in this section include parking needs (Condition No. 3), adequacy of streets (Condition No. 9), service areas (Condition No. 8) and trails (Condition No. 18) . 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the parking needs of the facility to meet 11 • the demands from the lodge rooms, skiers, adminis- trative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities, and shall increase the number of spaces to be provided at the Precise Plan stage." TDA has accomplished the requested study and based on their recommendations, the number of parking spaces has been increased from 77 to 116. (Note: There are 83 spaces, not 85 on Level -22, and 33 on Level -12, for a total of 116 and not 118 spaces, as represented.) Following is a category by category calculation of the applicant's proposal as compared to the Code requirements: SPACES TYPICAL CODE CODE CATEGORY STANDARD APPLIED PROPOSED* STANDARD** REQMT Lodge Units (92) 0.55-0.7 spaces/unit 53/67 1/unit 92. Administrative Replace Existing 27/7 3-4/1000 s.f. 17 Offices (4883 s.f.) Retail (20,553 s.f.) 0.1-0.8 per 1000 s.f. 2/17 4/1000 s.f. 82 Restaurant 1/1000 s.f. 5 4/1000 s.f. 20 (5196 s.f.) Skier (1300 skiers AMSAMP approval 46*** N/A N/A added) (off -site) * Range reflects winter vs. summer. ** No parking is required in the CC zone for lodge or commercial uses. These standards reflect those of the most similar zone for the proposed mix of uses, the L-1/L-2 zone districts. *** As a condition of AMSAMP, ASC agreed to provide 46 spaces either at Little Nell, off -site (no location designated) or via cash contribu- tion to parking or transit facilities of at least $460,000, but not more than $6 90, 000 (based on $10-1 5, 000 per space, to be specified by a City study). The condition also stated that "under no circumstances will the automobile parking requirement of Pitkin County be increased unless ASC proposes additional daily capacity increases on Aspen Mountain in the future." Based on the standards applied by the consultant, the applicant argued that 92-101 spaces will be demanded for the project in the winter versus the summer (92 = 53 + 5 + 27 + 2 + 5; 101 = 67 + 5 + 7 + 17 + 5), and, therefore, some credit should be given to ASC against the 46 space require- ment. The P&Z rejected this request, but approved the proposal to provide 118 spaces subgrade on site as meeting the project's needs. It should be noted that in the discus- sion of the impact of the project on City streets, the consultant stated that 67 cars would be generated by the ski 12 • • capacity increase approved by Pitkin County in 1985. The P&Z considered increasing the 46 space requirement by an additional 21 spaces, but this motion was defeated by a 4-3 vote. Staff has numerous comments on the information provided by the consultant, including the following: o The parking standard applied to the Aspen Mountain Lodge and to the hotels at the Highlands base of 0.7 spaces per unit is the minimum which we can justify for this facility. o It is reasonable to assume that many of the visitors to the shops will already be on the site for other reasons. However, the standard of one space per 1000 s.f. of restaurant is exceptionally low. We would expect some guests to the luxury dining facilities to arrive at the port cochere and expect valet parking to be available. Further, no space has been provided for visitors who may attend a conference on the site, whether they be in -town residents or guests from other lodges. Invariably, some limited parking will be needed for such facilities. The accessory parking need for conference is included in the above -noted standard of 0.7 spaces per unit but not in the lower standard proposed by the applicant. o Parking for ski area employees, based on 40 percent of employees driving, is reasonable, given the Ski Company's excellent bus service for employees. o The 46 space requirement from AMSAMP represents a very low standard applied only to the capacity increase for the mountain. No provision was made for the increased attractiveness of the Little Nell Base Area due to the high speed lift to be installed. No provision was made for any parking with respect to existing skiers on the mountain. While we do not suggest a reassessment of the on - mountain parking commitment which emerged from the Master Plan, we strongly suggest that you reject any request to meet some of this requirement by requiring any less than the 118 spaces proposed for the hotel and other uses. We recommend that at a minimum the Council require the same number of parking spaces as did the Planning Commission, in addition to the 46 spaces required by AMSAMP. o Council should be aware that a condition of AMSAMP 13 from the City's referral review was that "ASC shall agree to maintain the existing parking lot (of at least 30 automobile parking spaces) located on Aspen Street within the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit related uses. The Agreement shall be in the form of a recorded covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin County and the City of Aspen." This parcel of land has passed from the ASC to John Roberts, who has since provided an option to purchase the lot to Hans Cantrup as part of his 601 Aspen Street Residential GMP project. ASC has a lease with Roberts which recognizes that 30 parking spaces must be provided on this site, proximate to the site, or underground and proximate to the site. The lease does not, however, recognize the City's desire to consider the lot for transit related uses. We recommend that this issue be addressed by the applicant as part of Council's review and that an appropriate condition be carried forward with this project. o Another condition of AMSAMP was that "ASC shall institute a taxi -limo -auto drop-off facility at Lift lA within the time frame of the three year improvement program for Aspen Mountain." This Condition seems particularly important if we are to continue to have a viable second entry point for Aspen Mountain for the near term. Also valuable would be a shuttle between the Little Nell Base and lA to respond to overcrowding at the gondola and to otherwise better distribute skier impacts on the town. We recommend that Council also carry this condition forward in its review of the Precise Plan, and further ask the applicant to make representations as to any auto disincentives such as vans which are being designed into the hotel and the remainder of the base area. 9. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle traffic volumes associated with skiers, hotel guests, employees, service vehicles, and visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic problems which will result from the project. The applicant shall also take into account the access needs of emergency vehicles, including, but not limited to ambulances and fire trucks. 14 0 • The TDA study of streets shows a daily net traffic increase on Durant of about 250 trip ends per day in winter (60 trips at the peak hour) and about 375 trip ends per day in summer (42 trips at the peak hour). However, in the original study, no accounting was made of the approximately 300 vehicle trip ends per day due to the mountain capacity increase. The implementation of this increase, through constructing the new high- speed lift, is clearly a part of this project, and was not accounted for in AMSAMP. The consultant provided an updated review of the street impacts to P&Z, demonstrating that even with the inclusion of the ski capacity increase, Durant could accommodate expected vehicle trips, particularly since the skier drop-off has been moved out of the right-of-way. Spring Street was also demonstrated to have sufficient capacity, and is discussed in further detail below with respect to service and emergency vehicle access. 8. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the proposed service yards on Spring Street and Dean Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been provided for truck stacking and that proper turning movements can be accomplished within these streets. The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental Health Department as to any air and water quality devices which may need to be installed in these areas (and in the parking facility for cars). The applicant shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler management entities and shall try to accommodate the service delivery needs of these buildings in a single location off Dean Street. Finally, the applicant shall demon- strate that the service delivery area on Dean Street will not cause safety problems for pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents of the North of Nell, and that the needs of the facility could not practically otherwise be met by a single facility on Spring Street." There have been two major improvements to the service yard proposal since Council reviewed this application at the Conceptual stage. First, the service area adjacent to the Tippler on Dean Street has been entirely eliminated, which will significantly benefit pedestrians in this area. Service to the hotel is proposed in a covered area off Spring Street, as is receiving for on -mountain restaurants, which will be transported beneath the site, to the gondola building 15 • and up the mountain. This solution will substantially reduce Snow -cat traffic to the base area, as will the plan to remove the maintenance facility and move it up to the mountain location. The second change came about during the P&Z's review of the project. The applicant agreed to construct a modified "cul-de-sac" at the end of Spring Street which would improve the turning capabilities of trucks in the service area, and allow the largest likely service vehicle to maneuver past vehicles parked at the new entrance to the Aspen Club Lodge. Although the modified cul-de-sac would remove two of the Aspen Alps' parking spaces adjacent to the Little Nell property, its benefit to that facility is that it would reduce or eliminate the through traffic which is currently experienced at the Alps' drop-off area. It should be noted that the ASC has a 30 foot circulation easement over that portion of the property zoned "park" over which a portion of the cul-de-sac would be built. Finally, it was agreed that the applicant would be responsible for providing landscaping to buffer the Alps from any visual impact from the service yard and cul-de-sac. The Council should be aware that the utility/trash service area requires a variation, as permitted by the SPA regulations. There is a minimum rear yard require- ment for the utility/trash service area in the area and bulk requirements chart for the CC zone, referenced to Section 24-3.7(h)(4), stating that the area be on an alley and setting standards for its dimensions. It appears that an area for this building would require a minimum length of 20 feet for the first 6,000 s. f . of building area and 5 feet for each addition 6,000 s.f., resulting in a length of about 83 feet for the service area. The P&Z recommends that you grant a variation of this requirement to 36 feet which more accurately represents the needs of the project. 18. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through the property connecting the trail near the Aspen Alps with the Dean Street trail and will include any required ramps for bicycles or other year-round trail facilities in their site plan at the precise plan stage. The applicant will also examine the potential for creating a pedestrian trail connecting to the Aspen Mountain Road within the context of the base area regrading and provide an alignment for said trail if it is found to be feasible." 16 The original proposal by the applicant was to provide a trail which swung from the Aspen Alps, to the south of the lift, in the flat portion of the site, connecting to a ramp and to the Dean Street trail. However, the location of the gondola, and its associated structures, makes a trail in this location infeasible. The applicant now proposes to connect the Dean Street and Aspen Alps trails through the base area, using the paving area behind the lift and providing signs for connections as needed. The applicant has also expres- sed a willingness to provide an unpaved, graded trail connection to Aspen Mountain Road for summer hikers out of the base area, but no design has been provided to date. Finally, we have been informed that the appli- cant has been working with the Nordic Council to provide a trail across Aspen Mountain above the Aspen Alps near Aspen Mountain Road. The applicant should be required to provide a year-round trail easement to the City for this trail, and to accommodate the needs of the trail in the slope regrading program. 3. Conditions Concerning Geologic Hazard, Drainage, Grading, Utilities and Employee Housing. The issues to be discussed in this section include geologic hazard (Condition No. 10), grading (Condition No. 5) , drainage (Condition No. 22) , pumphouse relocation (Condition No. 11), and employee housing (Condition No. 14). "10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and shall demonstrate that any hazard posed to the property can and will be fully mitigat- ed. The applicant shall also investigate the soils hydrology in the area to demonstrate the suitability of the site for development purposes." Chen and Associates has prepared two studies of the base area subsurface, slope regrading and the on -mountain geologic hazard during this phase of the project. The two principal recommendations of their first study concerning subsurface conditions were that: o A program of test holes should be drilled and observa- tion wells installed to provide information on ground- water. o A subsurface investigation program should be conducted to provide information on subsurface soil conditions and to analyze slope stability. 17 • 0 The later study recommends that: o Monitoring of groundwater conditions be done through the spring run-off period. o Additional design level foundation study be performed. o Additional slope stability analysis be performed for fill placement areas. o Further surface water hydrology study be performed when aerial topographical information can be obtained in the spring. Jay Hammond, City Engineer, feels that there are not any unsolvable subsurface geological problems for the site and recommends that you find that this condition has been met if: 1. The additional studies recommended by Chen are com- pleted; and 2. The final structural design and grading plan is certified by the geotechnical engineer as not impacting slope stability and surface hydrology to the detriment of this project or its neighbors. With respect to the potential off -site impacts from flood or debris flow from Copper/Spar Gulch, and Vallejo Gulch, Jay states that: "Additional information is also required regarding the flood and debris flow risk from the Vallejo Gulch area onto the project site and adjacent sites. Adequate mitigation should be provided to protect the project and any adjacent properties impacted by new grading. Related to the work undertaken by Chen to evaluate the geological hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell redevelopment site is the ongoing effort to evaluate the hazards and mitigation across the entire base of the mountain. To the extent that the Aspen Skiing Company is the major land holder within the upslope source areas and since a failure to mitigate the problems in the upslope area could affect Little Nell and other downslope sites, we would recommend that ASC be required to commit to ongoing hazard study, engi- neering and mitigation construction in those areas under their control via direct ownership, leasehold, or other usage agreement as a condition of the Little Nell approval." This language should be carried forward in the agreement to be written between the applicant and the City. "5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for the earth work which is proposed to occur at the base area, including any activity associated with the base of the new lifts which may fall outside of the SPA boundary, and shall identify the locations for any material deposition which is to occur." The current grading plan for the site calls for a balanced cut and fill program between the material to be removed from the lower portions of the Little Nell slope and the material which will be placed at the upper end of the slope, princi- pally in the vicinity of Aspen Mountain Road and at the top of the new Lift #4A terminal. The regrading of Aspen Mountain Road is intended to create no more than a 14 percent grade on the road, in keeping with current grades on the road. The applicant will need to obtain an encroachment permit from Pit kin County for the work on this County road prior to initiating any regrading activities. Further, Jay's comments with respect to geologic stability should also address the proposed grading program. "22. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan at the Precise Plan stage which meets the standards of the Engineering Department concerning the 100 year storm and which addresses drainage from Aspen Mountain as it affects the site and drainage from the development site itself." During the course of P&Z's review, the applicant's represen- tative, A.J. Zabbia, provided the City Engineer with adequate information to indicate that this condition had been met. The basic detention facility will be a 12 foot deep trough, 24 feet wide, and 90 feet long, in front of the gondola building, which will be fenced or otherwise pro- tected against any skier or hiker crossing. Incidentally, the trough helps in the functioning of the gondola by providing the negative grade needed for the acceleration of compartments. "ll. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to implement said solution at the applicant's cost." The applicant's has made the following representation with respect to this problem: "The pumphouse relocation and well modification will 19 occur in essentially two phases. In 1986 the facili- ties providing pumping capability to serve the Little Nell 0.5 MG steel tank; control and telemetry equipment to serve the tank; and controls for the motorized butterfly valve at the well will be relocated inside a new proposed pumping station thus eliminating the 12 inch steel line up the Little Nell slope. In conjunction with Hotel construction and final improvements in Hunter Street, the Little Nell well will be modified by pulling the existing turbine pump, cutting the casing below grade, and installing a submersible pump and controls. The existing wellhouse will be removed and a subsurface vault with a removable access lid constructed in its place. The chlorinator and necessary control equipment will be relocated in a room provided in the commercial structure with an outside door. The water produced by the Little Nell well will be pumped directly into the system through the existing motorized butterfly valve." The City Water Department supports this solution, provided that all plans, equipment and access easements are viewed in advance of any construction. Council should also be aware that the applicant has committed to undergrounding all utilities on the site east of. Galena Street. 14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of the project in a manner accept- able to the Housing Authority and Planning Commission. The number of employees to be housed will be determined at the Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commitments as part of the growth management plan application." The applicant's proposal is to house 30 employees, repre- senting 36 percent of the net new employees generated by the project. The Housing Authority concurs with the generation figures submitted by the applicant, and the method by which the employees are to be housed. The Planning Commission recommends that you grant the requested change in use of the Holiday House from lodge to residential use. We would also note that the AMSAMP requirement that four additional employees be housed is proposed to also be met at the Holiday House. Therefore, 17 units (2 persons per unit) will be converted at this time, while 5 other units were previously required to be deed -restricted by Hans Cantrup. The remaining six units on the site will likely be used to off -set the employee housing impacts of the commercial 20 development at the Little Nell base area. 4. Conditions Concerning Miscellaneous Issues Which Have Been Resolved. The following issues were fully resolved during the course of the P&Z's deliberations. 20. The applicant shall demonstrate in the Precise Plan submission that all questions as to the ownership of the Hunter Street right-of-way are in the process of being resolved, to insure that permanent guarantees of the availability of Hunter and Dean Streets for pedestrian access will be provided. The Precise Plan shall not be approved until the pedestrian access issue has been resolved to the City's satisfaction. The appli- cant will also demonstrate that the boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted accordingly." The applicant has obtained title to the contested land in Hunter Street. The Tippler boundary problem has been resolved by only including in the SPA plan that land which is not subject to any dispute. If the boundary issue is resolved in the favor of the ASC, the added land will only enhance the project. 6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the City's 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane review procedures to the proposed development. Should it be found that either review procedure applies, the applicant will submit the necessary materials at the Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the review criteria of the Code." The Planning Commission gave final 8040 Greenline and Mountain V iewplane approval to the project at the time of its Precise Plan review. "17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed buildings do not encroach into the land within the Park zone near the Aspen Alps." The applicant proposes no building activity on the property in question. Emergency skier service is proposed through this site, with ambulance pick up on Spring Street. Further, the cul-de-sac will encroach into this land, but on the portion of the site which has an easement over it f or circulation. These uses would not appear to affect the status of the land in the Park zone district. "21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental 21 • • Health Department with detailed information on any fireplaces which will be included in the project, demonstrating their compliance with applicable Code provisions." The Environmental Health Department is quite pleased at the applicant's proposed use of "gas log" type fireplaces, which meet or exceed current woodburning device legislation. "24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary change shall only occur in conjunction with final approval of the Precise Plan for the project . " This procedure is being followed by the tabling of Ordinance 53, Series of 1955, at second reading until the Little Nell project completes its Precise Plan review. "25. In the event that the growth allocations for the project shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall revert to its prior configuration." This item should continue forward as a condition of ap- proval. B. Evaluation of Consistency with Precise Plan Review Criteria. The evaluation of the project's consistency with the Precise Plan review criteria should be conducted using the following language from Section 24-7.7 as the standard of evaluation. "(b) The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the reasonableness and suitability of the Precise Plan, its conformity to the require- ments of this article, that the adverse effects of the proposed development have been minimized to the extent practicable,and that it complies with the City Council's intent in originally designat- ing the site with an SPA overlay, including the reasonable conformance of the Precise Plan with the approval granted to the conceptual plan." Each of the criteria in the Code are considered with respect to this project below. 1. Compatibility with Neighboring Development - The proposal is surrounded by other short-term tourist uses. Its height is 40 feet, in compliance with underlying zoning and lower than the North of Nell or Aspen Square. Its FAR of 1.93:1 is well below that of the North of Nell Building and its mass is offset by use of various architectural techniques. Problems noted at the P&Z review stage concerning open space, shadows and skier drop-off as they affect this site 22 and the neighborhood have been adequately addressed by the applicant. 2. Utilities and Roads - The project will upgrade water, sewer and fire service to the area, underground existing utili- ties, and provide for detention of stormwater from the site and the mountain and routing to the City's storm sewer. The project will add significant volumes of traffic to Durant Avenue, although within available street capacities. The City Engineer remains concerned about traffic conflicts between cars entering and exiting the skier drop-off and those on Durant itself. 3. Environmental Suitability - The applicant has initiated studies of the identified hazards affecting the site. If the recommendations of the consultant and City Engineer, summarized above, are followed, the site appears to be suitable for development. 4. Land Planning Techniques - The techniques employed by the applicant include the use of subgrade space for the support services to the hotel and ski area, removal of the mainte- nance function from the base area, use of stepped back architectural form to preserve the Hunter Street viewplane, provision of substantial open space at the rear of the parcel, and upgrading of Hunter and Dean Streets into pedestrian malls. The design of the gondola terminal is an important factor which has yet to be reviewed but must be sensitively accommodated on the site. 5. Conformance with Aspen Area Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates this site as "recreation/accommodations", which is intended "to allow for the recreation and accommo- dation needs of the visitor to Aspen in an area that is especially suited for this because of its unity with, and identity to, the proposed transportation system, the ski area and the central area." The conformance of the project with the Growth Management Policy Plan has been discussed at the conceptual stage, and is reviewed again below. 6. Expenditure of Public Funds - The project does not appear to directly require the expenditures of additional public funds, although there will be costs to the improvement district to upgrade that portion of Dean Street not addres- sed by the applicant. The applicant will enhance services to the neighborhood in a variety of categories. The Planning Office and the Planning Commission find that the project is generally consistent with the intent of the above six review criteria. C. SPECIFICATION OF ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, VARIATIONS 23 0 0 PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Section 2 4 -7 .6 (c ) requires that the application specify the zone district regulations and variations which are to apply to the development, while Section 24-7.6(d) requires the provision of a schedule specifying the timeframe of the development. The zone district regulations recommended by the Planning Office and Planning Commission are a combination of those of the two underlying zones (CC and C). In all cases, however, the regulations are limited by the Precise Plan as it has been presented to the P&Z and Council, since Section 24- 7.5(b) states that "the plan (including all conditions of approval and representations of the applicant) shall constitute the development regulations for the parcel ." 1. Area and Bulk Requirements (with variations from underlying zone noted) a. Minimum lot area 3,000 s. f . b. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit No requirement C. Minimum lot width No requirement d. Minimum front yard 26 feet e. Minimum side yard No requirement f. Minimum rear yard No requirement g. Maximum height 40 feet h. Minimum distance between primary No requirement and accessory buildings i. Percent of open space required 25 percent for building site (minimum) j. External floor area ratio 1.93:1 (maximum) (83,265 s. f . ) (variation) k. Internal floor area ratio No requirement 1. Utility/trash service area 3 6 f e e t i n length (variation) 2. Off -Street Parking Spaces a. Internal to the project building 118 b. External to the project building 15 ( 9 in drop- off lane, 4 in p a r a l l e l parking along drop-off island and 2 service delivery bays) 3. Permitted and Conditional Uses The following uses for the project will be permitted, unless identified as conditional uses (variations from 24 0 E underlying zone requirements noted) a. Hotel (conditional use, variation allowed for hotel protruding into C zone) b. Retail commercial C. Ski accessory retail to include ski shops, repair, rental and storage d. Open use recreation e. Restaurant f. Additional retail commercial as specified under permitted uses in the CC zone Section 24-3.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code g. Ski area administrative offices h. Shipping and receiving for hotel and mountain food service i. Storage of materials accessory to the above j . Cabaret and night club k. Activities associated with emergency medical service for treatment of injured skiers 1. Ski lifts and lift buildings (conditional use) M. Ski mazes and milling areas n. Hotel accessory retail As noted above, the variations which the Planning Commission recommends you grant are: 1. FAR from 1.5:1 to 1.93:1; 2. Utility/trash service area from 83 feet in length to 36 feet in length; and 3. Hotel protruding into the C zone district. The reason for continuing to identify the hotel and ski lifts as a conditional use is that a public hearing is required for substantial modification of a conditional use, but not for an SPA amendment, and so in this manner the City will retains its greatest review powers over the two most sensitive, and potentially impactive uses at the base area. 25 • The construction schedule originally proposed by the applicant has been altered by the decision to construct the gondola and the new Lift #4A this season. Generally, following is the intended schedule: Summer/Fall 1986 - Excavation and structural work for the ski administration area (hotel, west wing) . Utility relocations, regrading of Little Nell slope. Construction of gondola and Lift #4A with the former to be operational by Christmas and the latter by Thanks- giving. Interim skier services plan to be implemented. Spring/Summer/Fall 1987 - Demolish Little Nell complex, complete work at western wing of new complex to provide skier services for the 1987-1988 season, initiate hotel and commercial construction. Winter 1987-Winter 1988 - Complete interior and exterior of hotel, complete landscaping, sidewalks and plaz as. Since the construction site is intended to continue in use for initial skier access and commercial support services throughout the construction period, we feel it is important for us to fully understand how circulation will occur and what the base area will look like during construction. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the base area as it will function in the 86/87 season which includes the following features: o The new ticket kiosks will be in place in Dean and Hunter Streets, and the ski corral will be recon- structed in its current location. o Regrading will take place in the mall areas, temporary steps will be constructed to allow access to the lifts, and planters will be installed with temporary plantings accomplished. The surface treatment on the site will be asphalt. The pumphouse will remain in place until the hotel is built. o The ASC office and ski school buildings will remain in operation. The maintenance building will remain for receiving of goods, but most maintenance functions will occur on the mountain in the new building. Since these plans are quite schematic at this time, we recommend that the applicant should be required to provide the Planning Office and the City Engineer with the following materials prior to the issuance of a building or excavation permit during each construction season: 26 0 0 1. Specific design and location of pedestrian barricades and walkway structures. 2. Traffic and pedestrian circulation routes during construction. 3. An agreement on the part of the applicants to properly maintain the barricade and walkway system throughout the course of construction, including repairs and removal. 4. Provision of a plan addressing site access and material and equipment storage areas during construction. 5. Scheduling and design detail regarding utility reloca- tions, replacements and undergrounding. 6. Further detail regarding the limits of excavation, construction easements and shoring needs. 7. Proposed landscaping of areas where demolition is contemplated without immediate reconstruction. A final issue for Council's information has to do with the construction of the ski area administrative offices this year. The Planning Office and City Attorney have determined that this office space requires receipt of a growth allot- ment in the "CL and Other Zone district" commercial competi- tion. The date for submission of applications for such projects is August 1, yet the applicant will need to have a building permit for this space this spring if the new gondola is to be built. We recommend that Council allow this space to be constructed in the form of a hotel or ski area accessory "shell" (which doesn't need an allotment) and that its occupancy as commercial space only be permitted if growth allotments are obtained. Adequate assurances to protect the City in this regard should be written into the SPA agreement . D. Lodge Development Allotment: As you recall, the issue of a multi -year lodge development allotment was discussed extensively at the conceptual plan stage, at which time Council indicated "its willingness to consider granting a multi -year allocation to the project upon approval of the applicant's precise plan . . . " Since so much time was spent on the policy aspects of this issue at the earlier review stage, we will merely provide you with a brief numerical analysis of the implications of awarding the 92 units requested by this project. Before we address the numerical analysis, Council should be 27 aware that at a public hearing on January 21, the P&Z scored the Little Nell project at 55.2 points, just above the 54 point minimum threshold. P&Z Resolution No. 2, Series of 1986, is attached, providing you with documentation of the scores awarded by P&Z to the project. Further, Council should note that during its review of the development allotment issue, the P&Z declined to make a recommendation either in favor of or opposed to the multi -year allocation request. In the nine years since the adoption of the lodge GMP, following is a history of what has taken place in the L-1/L- 2/CC/CL zone districts: QUOTA AVAILABLE 1977/ 81 (5 yrs ) QUOTA AWARDED @ 18 units/yr. = 90 units 1977 (Aspen Inn - 36 units) 1982-85 (4 yrs) @ 35 units/yr. = 140 units 1981 (Lodge at Aspen - 31 units) TOTAL 230 units 1982 (Carriage House - 26 units) 1983 (Aspen Mtn. Lodge - 172 units) TOTAL 265 units The above summary demonstrates that we have awarded all of the units available through 1985, plus the 35 units available in 1986. It is also obvious, given the four projects involved, that no units have been built under this quota system in nearly a decade. Beyond the above units, two lodge projects have received GMP exemptions as historic structures in this development category, including the 20 units at the Sardy House and the 67 units to be added at the Hotel Jerome. If we also account for these units in the quota, as required by the Code, then the quota has been allocated for 1987, 1988 and 17 of the 35 units in 1978. The 92 units requested by the Little Nell project therefore takes the 1 E units in 1989, 35 in 1990, 35 in 1991 and 4 in 1992. Obviously, these numbers presume that (i) the anticipated amendment to the Hotel Jerome will not increase the number of rooms in the addi- tion, which is not likely to be the case, as an increase of 10-20 rooms is expected; and (ii) the four projects which are approved but unbuilt will be constructed, rather than forfeit their units, which may also be unlikely. There is one important mitigating factor to this quota analysis. There are four L-3 lodges which are to be converted to employee housing as part of the lodge development activities, as follows: Copper Horse 14 units (part of Aspen Mtn. Lodge project) Alpina Haus 40 units (part of Aspen Mtn. Lodge project) Cortina Lodge 1.1 units (Hotel Jerome Addition, Aspen Club Lodge) Holiday House 17 units (Little Nell and AMSAMP) Total 82 units There are also 6 units remaining at the Cortina Lodge and 6 units at the Holiday House which are being held for future projects but are also expected to be converted. The total of 94 units at these four small lodges completely offsets the increase in lodge units from the Little Nell project and indicates that if the four approved lodge projects and the Little Nell project were built, and the conversions took place, we would still be right on track for our overall projected lodge growth rate in the community. Given the fact that it will take 2-3 years at a minimum for these projects to be occupied, it can be seen that even including the Hotel Jerome G MP exemption, if no other projects are approved over the next few years, we will be back on our lodge quota target by 1990, at which time the hotels will be in operation. We, therefore, recommend that Council direct the Planning Office to credit the L-1/L-2/CC/CL and Other zone category with the units from the change in use of the above four L-3 lodges, in order that the quota effects of the approved lodge development can be addressed. The newly converted employee units will have to be deducted from the residential quota in the year of their conversion to address the growth impacts of this additional housing which is created by each of the lodge pro- jects. E. Ordinance 53, SPA Rezoning Ordinance 53, Series of 1985, extends the SPA Overlay designation across the lower portion of the site (approxi- mately 1 acre) which is zoned C - Conservation. The Ordinance was approved on first reading on September 17, 1985 and then tabled until the Precise Plan could be submitted and reviewed. The applicant's zoning boundary change differs significantly from that which was considered and eventually denied by City Council in 1983. The extent of the area requested for SPA designation is considerably less than that previously 29 identified and corresponds directly to that area in which the hotel, commercial and ski support facilities are to be located at the toe of the slope. In fact, by extending the boundary, we insure that the location of the lifts is considered at the same time as the remainder of the base area development. We find that the increase in the SPA boundary meets the test of being unique and providing public benefit in that it permits integrated planning of the lift locations in conjunction with the remainder of the base area development. Without the SPA Overlay, our review of the ski lifts would be limited to the conditional use review process. The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adjust- ment with the following qualifications: a. The area designated C-SPA is not used in the calcula- tion of the FAR for the project, since the hotel is not an allowed use in this zone. b. In the event that final approval of the project expires, the boundary of the SPA should revert to its prior configuration until a new conceptual and precise plan is submitted. F. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On March 18, 1986, by a motion of 5 in favor, 2 opposed, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the attached Resolution 86-3, recommending that you approve the Little Nell Base Redevelopment SPA. We also attach for your consideration a minority position statement submitted by four members of the Commission, either opposing or com- menting upon the majority action. We anticipate that members of the Commission will be present at your meeting to express their concerns with respect to particular aspects of the proposal. G. SUMMARY The above analysis provides you with material for your upcoming meetings on the Little Nell Precise Plan. Staff is working with the applicant to develop a draft SPA Agreement, which will be the device used to tie together all of the applicant's commitments into a coherent document. This document will be presented for your review at the conclusion of your deliberations. AR.115 30 0 C7 RESOL[TTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING PRECISE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE LITTLE NELL BASE REDEVELOPMENT SPA Resolution No. 86-3 WHEREAS, on November 5, 1985, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "Council") did adopt Resolution No. 35, Series of 1985) granting conceptual approval to the Little Nell Base Redevelopment SPA (hereinafter the "project"); and WHEREAS, on December 2, 1985, the Aspen Skiing Company (herein after "Applicant") did submit an application for SPA Precise Plan review, 96 (later revised to 92) lodge growth management allotments, conditional use reviews, mountain view - plane review, 8040 greenline review, and change in use for the project; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (herein- after "Commission") did hold a public hearing on January 21, 1986, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the project according to the lodge development quota system regula- tions; and WHEREAS, the project did meet the lodge development minimum threshold of 54 points by having scored 55.2 points, which score was forwarded to the Council by the Commission's Resolution No. 2 (Series of 1986); and WHEREAS, the Commission did hold public hearings to consider the remainder of the applicant's requests on February 4, 18 and 25 and March 4 and 11, 1986, at which time evidence and testimony with respect to said requests was presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 86-3 Page 2 Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado: That it does hereby recommend that Council grant precise plan approval to the Little Nell Base Redevelopment SPA and approve the change in use of the Holiday House from lodge to employee dwelling units. Section That it does hereby grant conditional use permits to the applicant for the 92 unit hotel, and for the ski lifts and accessory ski area facilities; and does grant mountain viewplane and 8040 greenline approval to the project. Section 3 That it does hereby recommend that Council place the following conditions upon its approval of the precise plan and change in use: 1. The skier drop-off area shall be constructed according to the plan on file with the Planning Office, provided that the City Engineer must review and approve of the plan before it is finally built. Key features of the plan which are the responsibility of the applicant include 9 - 10 drop-off spaces with a drive by lane in a loop configuration on the applicant's property, four parallel parking spaces on the street side of a landscape island which project no further into the traffic lanes than the existing angle parking on adjacent sites, a neckdown of the Hunter Street intersection which is set back two feet from the edge of the existing traffic lane, a separate entrance for the hotel drop-off from the skier drop-off, a pedes- trian walkway through the island from Hunter to Spring Streets, and the use of paving and planting similar to that in the Hunter Street mall to continue the theme into this area. 2 Resolution No. 86-3 Page 3 2. The applicant shall construct the improvements shown in the Hunter Street intersection, including the paving pattern which designates this corner as the principal entrance to Aspen Mountain. 3. The applicant shall provide 118 parking spaces in the subgrade parking structure on the site. The 46 spaces required to be provided through the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP) shall be in addition to the 118 spaces required on -site. 4. The applicant shall construct a cul-de-sac at the end of Spring Street to enhance the circulation of service vehicles and cars in the area. The design of the cul- de-sac shall be coordinated with the City Engineer, whose final approval of all construction plans shall be required. A landscape plan to screen the Aspen Alps from the cul-de-sac shall be prepared and implemented by the applicant, and signage shall be provided according to the plan on file with the Planning Office. 5. The applicant shall take full responsibility for the construction and maintenance of all improvements presented for the Hunter Street mall, and Zone I of the Dean Street mall. The applicant shall participate with its neighbors in the Special Improvement District for that section of the Dean Street mall labeled as Zone II, provided that if the District is not underway by the time the rest of the malls are finally built, the applicant will at least pave Zone II with materials consistent with that in Zone I and restrict the entrance to the street to authorized vehicle access only. The applicant shall coordinate all mall and mall -type improvements with the work of the District to insure compatibility of materials and design style. 6. The applicant shall provide a trail connection from the Ute Avenue Trail to the Dean Street Trail through the paved area behind the base area lifts, and provide signage to designate said trail. The applicant shall also provide a defined, unpaved trail from the base area to Aspen Mountain Road for summer hiking purposes. Finally, the applicant shall provide a year-round trail easement to the City of Aspen for the cross country skiing trail proposed to cross the Little Nell Run, and will accommodate the needs of said trail in the regrading program, provided that the trail design and maintenance will not interfere with the needs of the alpine skiing area. Resolution No. 86-3 Page 4 7. The applicant shall provide to the City Council detailed drawings of the proposed gondola terminal building and a landscape plan for the trench for review at the precise plan stage. The drawings should fit within the functional design parameters presented to the Commission and be sufficiently detailed to provide Council with the ability to determine the building's compatibility with the base area and to evaluate the effect of the building on views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter Street at both the Durant and Cooper Avenue corners. The design of the hotel itself shall be as represented to the Planning Commission, including the commitment that no roof -top equipment will be visible over the parapet, and all snow shedding mitigation techniques proposed will be utilized. Substantial changes to either the hotel or the terminal building shall require a repetition of conditional use proce- dures by the Planning Commission. 8. The preliminary landscape plan which has been prepared for the site shall be revised such that it conforms to the requirements of Section 24-8.16 and presented to City Council. The plan shall show landscaping for the entire site and shall also include a mall lighting plan, designs for the basic street improvements such as the ticket kiosks, and a program for plantings at the rear of the hotel and for revegetation of disturbed areas. Revegetation of the ski area itself shall meet applicable U.S. Forest Service standards. 9. The applicant shall enter into a vendor's agreement or encroachment license with the City for the improvements proposed to be placed in Dean Street. 10. The applicant shall provide adequate guarantees that the 30 space parking lot used by skiers on Aspen Street will continue to be available for skier parking or transit related uses. If the site is developed for other purposes, the 30 parking spaces or such transit related uses, as may be determined appropriate by the City of Aspen, shall be replaced on the site or on a proximate site within a 300 foot radius of the existing parking facility. The applicant shall also institute a taxi -limo -auto drop-off facility at Lift IA by the beginning of the 1986-87 ski season. 11. The applicant shall complete the additional soils hydrology studies recommended by Chen in their two 0 • Resolution No. 86-3 Page 5 already completed studies, and provide these studies to the City Engineer, whose recommendations as to con- struction practices shall be followed by the applicant. The final structural design and grading plan shall be certified by the geotechnical engineer as not impacting slope stability and surface hydrology to the detriment of this project or its neighbors. 12. The applicant shall commit to participation in the ongoing geologic hazard and mud flow risk study for the upslope areas of Aspen Mountain, and to engineering design and mitigation construction in those areas of the mountain under their control via direct ownership, leasehold or other usage agreement. 13. The applicant shall submit an application to Pitkin County for an encroachment permit for the regrading work which will affect Aspen Mountain Road. Affected portions of the Road shall be reconstructed at the applicant's expense at a grade not to exceed 14 percent, and to include any drainage facilities consistent wit the Rea Cassens Report which the County Engineer may require. 14. The applicant shall, in connection with the SPA agreement, file a deed -restriction converting 17 units at the Holiday House from lodge to employee housing use. This conversion is intended to meet the housing requirements of this project, and AMSAMP, and shall be filed in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and Housing Director. There shall be provided a minimum of thirteen (13) parking spaces at the rear of the Holiday House for resident parking only. 15. The applicant shall provide the City Attorney with an up-to-date title commitment to all lands within the property boundary, and a legal description of the land zoned C requested for rezoning with an SPA overlay, which description shall be included in Ordinance 53, Series of 1985. 16. The applicant's commitments as to the pumphouse relocation and well modification, water system upgrades in the Spring Street and Nell Slope lines, sewer system upgrade from Spring Street-Ute Avenue to Galena Street, on -site stormwater detention facilities and fire hydrant provision at the south end of Spring Street and on Dean Street behind the North of Nell Building shall all be requirements of this approval whose cost shall 5 • 0 Resolution No. 86-3 Page 6 be fully borne by the applicant. 17. All electrical lines on the project site to Galena Street shall be placed underground at the applicant's expense. 18. Easements shall be provided to the City of Aspen for all relocated water mains and new extensions, in exchange for any easements which the City will abandon for lines taken out of service. 19. The applicant shall be required to comply with all requirements set by the Environmental Health Department in their memo dated December 14, 1985. In particular, only gas log type fireplaces shall be allowed in hotel rooms, and only one wood burning fireplace shall be placed in the main hotel lobby. Further, adequate air handling facilities shall be designed in the under- ground parking structure to eliminate buildup of air contaminants. 20. The UBC life, health and safety problems identified by the Chief Building Official in his memo dated January 6, 1986 shall be corrected in the final building plans. 21. The applicant shall provide the Planning Office and the City Engineer with the requested construction phasing information prior to the issuance of building or excavation permits during each construction season. 22. The applicant shall provide the City with the necessary guarantees that the building to be constructed beneath the gondola terminal (hotel west wing) and all other commercial or office areas will not be occupied as administrative offices, retail spaces or any other commercial use until necessary commercial development allotments are received. 23. In the event the growth allocations for the project in the C zone shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall revert to its prior configuration. 24. In the event that the Tippler boundary dispute shall be resolved in the applicant's favor and the applicant shall determine that the land be retained in their ownership, the applicant shall process a minor amend- ment to the precise plan to include said land in the project boundary. N. 0 • Resolution No. 86-3 Page 7 25. The above conditions, along with all representations otherwise made by the applicant, shall be required to be accomplished prior to the first occupancy of the hotel, unless a more or less restrictive time deadline has been indicated herein. That it does hereby recommend that Council adopt the zone district regulations of the underlying CC and C zones, as modified below, as the standards which apply to the parcel: 1. Area and Bulk Requirements (with variations from underlying zone noted) a. Minimum lot area 3,000 s.f. b. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit No requirement C. Minimum lot width No requirement d. Minimum front yard 26 feet e. Minimum side yard No requirement f. Minimum rear yard No requirement g. Maximum height 40 feet h. Minimum distance between primary No requirement and accessory buildings i. Percent of open space required 25 percent for building site (minimum) j. External floor area ratio 1.93:1 (maximum) (83,265 s. f. ) (variation) k. Internal floor area ratio No requirement 1. Utility/trash service area 36 feet in length (variation) 2. Off -Street Parking Spaces a. Internal to the project building 118 b. External to the project building 15 (9 in drop-off lane, 4 in parallel parking along drop-off island and 2 service delivery bays) 3. Permitted and Conditional Uses The following uses for the project will be permitted, unless identified as conditional uses (variations from 7 • 0 Resolution No. 86-3 Page 8 underlying zone requirements noted) a. Hotel (conditional use, variation allowed for hotel protruding into C zone) b. Retail commercial C. Ski accessory retail to include ski shops, repair, rental and storage d. Open use recreation e. Restaurant f. Additional retail commercial as specified under permitted uses in the CC zone Section 24-3.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code g. Ski area administrative offices h. Shipping and receiving for hotel and mountain food service i. Storage of materials accessory to the above j . Cabaret and night club k. Activities associated with emergency medical service for treatment of injured skiers 1. Ski lifts and lift buildings (conditional use) M. Ski mazes and milling areas n. Hotel accessory retail That it does hereby recommend that Council direct the Planning Office to credit the L-1/L-2/CC/CL and Other zone district category, rather than the L-3 zone district category with the lodge units which are removed from the inventory when the Holiday House, Cortina Lodge, Alpina Haus and Copper Horse are converted to employee housing. Further, the Planning Office 8 0 . Resolution No. 86-3 Page 9 shall deduct the employee units which result from each conversion from the residential quota in the year the conversion takes place, as is already required by the Code. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March 18, 1986. ATT EST : Rim Wilh oit, Deputy City Clerk AR.116 Z ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION B� Y C. Welton A aerson Chairperso 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council i THRU : Hal Schilling, City Managgk FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and `Development Director AQ-,, RE: Little Nell Executive Summary DATE: March 14, 1986 Attached for your information is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Little Nell Precise Plan prepared by the applicants. Please bring this document to each meeting we have scheduled on this topic. The Planning Office memo analyzing this project will be distributed to you under separate cover. It will be available early next week, and will then be put in your boxes or handed to you directly at our first meeting on the project, scheduled for March 19 at 5: 00 P.M. cc: Paul Taddune Jay Hammond AR. nec.314 9 4� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Mana FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director r�\ RE: Council Review Schedule for Little Nell Precise Plan DATE: March 4, 1986 The mayor requested that I provide each of you with a copy of the Little Nell review schedule which was accepted by the Council at the beginning of last night's work session. The schedule is as follows: Wednesday, March 19 5:00 - 7:00 PM Monday, March 24 Wednesday, March 26 5:00 - 7:00 PM Monday, March 31 4:00 - 6:00 PM Monday, March 31 6:00 - 7:30 PM Wednesday, April 2 5:00 - 7:00 PM Informational update by Aspen Skiing Company Regular Council Meeting - Initiate Public Hearing Public Hearing Continued Public Hearing Continued Electrical Under - grounding Work Session Public Hearing Completed (?) Please let me know if you have any questions with regard to this schedule. cc: Kathryn Koch Paul Taddune Jay Hammond Media J • n� MEMORANDUM IiU TO: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering DATE: March 3, 1,986 RE: Nell Precise Plan This is to inform you of progress on several of the technical items discussed in my memo of January 20 on the Little Nell S.P.A. precise plan. This memo is intended to update my previous memo on those items for which I have received new information from the applicants through meetings with Dave Ellis of Design Workshop and A.J. Zabbia of Rea, Cassens and Associates. Any items not discussed herein have not changed from my comments of January 20. UTILITIES All of the concerns related to utilities are responded to via A.J. Zabbia's memo of February 20 (attached). Subject to approval by Jim Markalunas, I would recommend that the representatives in A.J. ' s memo be included in the S.P. A. agreement. Detailed plans and specifications for all City utility relocations will need to be submitted to the City for approval prior to construction. GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS We have received a second preliminary report from Chen dated November 27, 1985 regarding foundation conditions and proposed grading for the project. The phase II report raises concerns regarding proposed fill areas on the conceptual grading plan as well as groundwater conditions in the area of proposed structures. The phase II report recommends: a. Monitoring of groundwater conditions through the Spring runoff period. b. Additional, design level, foundation study. C. Additional slope stability analysis for fill placement areas. d. Further surface water hydrology study, which is dependent on aerial topographical information which must be flown in the Spring. Page Two Nell Precise Plan March 3, 1986 The applicants have demonstrated that they are in the process of revising some of the slope grading plans to minimize the potential problems identified by Chen. The evidence would seem to suggest that there are not any unsolvable geological problems for the site. At this point, I would be willing to support a conditional approval subject to: 1. Completion of the additional studies recommended by Chen. 2. Certification of the final structural design and grading plan by the geotechnical engineer as not impacting groundwater, slope stability and surface hydrology to the detriment of this project or its neighbors. STORM DRAINAGE Storm drainage concerns raised in my prior memorandum are also addressed in Mr. Zabbia's memo of February 20. Once again, appropriate representations in that memo could be included in the S.P. A. agreement. PARKING AND CIRCULATION Service Access - The information presented by the applicant to the City Planning and Zoning Commission and to this office appear to have addressed the service access concerns. Committment by the applicant to participate in the construction of a reduced "cul de sac" may be appropriate. Skier drop-off - Concerns of this office have not been fully addressed by the current solution to the skier drop-off design. Further demonstration by the applicants and their consultants that a three curb cut design is less impactive to Durant Street than a two cut design would be helpful in this area. Parking - This remains a concern and we would continue to recommend that the applicant be required to present a solution to the skier capacity increases agreed to in the ski area master plan process. This concern becomes all the more strident in view of the plan to construct the new capacity improvements this year. Please feel free to contact me if any of the above items raises questions. I will be available at the City P & Z meeting of March 4 and will be back at work on March 10. JII/co/Nell Pre cisePlan Enclosure cc: Dave Ellis • • MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Hammond, City Engineer FROM: A.J. Zabbia, Jr., Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc. DATE: February 20, 1986 RE: Memo from Jay Hammond to Alan Richman dated January 20, 1986. Little Nell S.P.A. Precise Plan UTILITIES Pumphouse Relocation: The pumphouse relocation and well modification will occur in essentially two phases. In 1986 the facilities providing pumping capability to serve the Little Nell 0.5 MG steel tank; control and telemetry equipment to serve the tank; and controls for the motorized butterfly valve at the well will be relocated inside a new proposed pumping station thus eliminating the 12" steel line up the Little Nell slope. In conjunction with Hotel construction and final improvements in Hunter Street, the Little Nell well will be modified by pulling the existing turbine pump, cutting the casing below grade, and installing a submersible pump and controls. The existing wellhouse will be removed and a subsurface vault with a removable access lid constructed in its place. The chlorinator and necessary control equipment will be relocated in a room provided in the commercial structure with an outside door. The water produced by the Little Nell well will be pumped directly into the system through the existing motorized butterfly valve. Spring Street Line: The Aspen Skiing Company DIP waterline in Spring Street no cost to the City of Aspen. Nell Slope Line: currently proposes installation of the 12" as an upgrade and system improvement at The current plans for Little Nell regarding utility improvements and relocations incorporates the installation of the City furnished 6" DIP parallel to the 12" DIP proposed to serve the Aspen Alps project. Items in the water extension/relocation proposal have been added for transporting the 6" DIP from the Water Department yard to the construction site, steam cleaning the inside of the pipe, providing rubber gaskets and cad welds, additional trench excavation, additional bedding, additional compacted backfill, and any additional fittings for the construction to incorporate the 6" DIP with the 12" DIP installation. After the contract proposal is finalized the cost of the aforementioned items will be forwarded to the City for review and if acceptable, will be incorporated into the work. The City will be billed accordingly based on the total cost of installation of the 6" DIP through an agreement between the City of Aspen and the Aspen Skiing Company. Easements: The Aspen Skiing Company agrees to provide new easements for the relocated water mains and the new extensions in accordance with the forms provided by the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen in turn is requested to formally abandon any existing easements previously provided by the Aspen Skiing Company, other individuals, or entities for water facilities no longer needed or relocated as result of the construction. Electric: The Aspen Skiing Company agrees to relocate at their expense all Aspen electric lines and facilities directly affected by the project in accordance with specifications and approval of the City Electric Department. Holy Cross has been retained to design the system modifications and oversee the contract construction. STORM DRAINAGE The Storm Water Drainage Study prepared for the project submittal was based on existing topographical information and the proposed development site plan at the tine of submittal. The applicant is currently revising the grading plan for the Little Nell Ski Slope and the site plan will be modified in accordance with the results and recommendations of the approval process. Additional topographical information will be ascertained this spring for the area at ar►d around the base of Lift Terminal No. 5. The Drainage Study and recommendations for detention volumes and location, as well as calculations for developed run-off will be revised in accordance with the new gradi►►g plan, finalized site plan and new topographical information. The applicant requests that approval be given to the project contingent on a revised and City approved Drainage Study if one is not finalized by the end of the approval process. One noted comment is that basin A-3 and its subsequent discharge mentioned in Mr. Hammond's memo is historic in nature and depicts the existing condition. The new grading plan for the Ski Slope and subsequent developed drainage may or may not reduce this discharge toward the Aspen Alps, but in no case will -it, aggravate the situation. The applicant feels it is unfair and unreasonable to expect it to resolve or mitigate conditions that are existing and considered historical, and do not directly affect the project. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Proposed Review Schedule - Little Nell Precise Plan DATE: February 27, 1986 Staff met today with representatives of the Aspen Skiing Company to develop a proposed schedule for the City Council review of the Little Nell Precise Plan. Following is our proposal., which we request you discuss as the first item on your work session on Monday, March 3. In terms of background, the Planning Commission has been meeting to review this project since January 21. Meetings have been held on that date, February 4, 18 and 25. Meetings will be held on March 4 and March 11, with a resolution containing their recommend- ation to you to be adopted on March 18. The Municipal Code (Section 24-7.5(d)) requires that if the applicant is requesting any variations in the uses allowed in the underlying zone district, the Council review of the Precise Plan shall be at a meeting which has been noticed 15 days prior to the hearing date. Since the hotel protrudes into the conservation zone, we will place a notice in the paper on March 6 for the start of the public hearing at Council's regular meeting on March 24. However, the applicant requests that you schedule a work session on either Monday March 17 (St. Patrick's Day) or, prefer- ably, Wednesday, March 19, to hear an introduction from the applicant to project changes since the conceptual review. No comments would be expected from Council, since the public hearing would not yet be convened, and no staff memo would be available. Following the opening of the public hearing on March 24, the applicant requests that you continue it to Wednesday March 26 and/or March 27 and then to Monday, March 31st. It may also be necessary for the meeting to be continued to April 1st and/or 2nd to provide for the possibility that Council deliberations be concluded in time for the new lifts to be ordered and construction contracts signed, if Council approves the project. At this point in time, the staff believes that it can complete the work necessary to provide you with the information you require to make proper decisions. If, at any point, we feel that in the interests of completing the review on time, we are not adequately evaluating issues or reaching well informed decisions, we will not hesitate to let you know, and request additional review time accordingly. • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1986 MOTIONS Motion: Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #86-2 forwarding the Little Nell Project GMP scoring to City Council; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Tygre moved to accept that condition #1 had been met by the applicant with amendments that the pedestrian "neckdown" at Hunter St. be pulled back slightly to ameliorate pedestrian/ vehicular interaction, that pavers consistent with those proposed for the mall area be carried in to the drop off area, and elimin- ation of the sidewalk at the edge of Durant; Hunt seconded. Blomquist opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. Motion: Tygre moved to define that condition #4 has been met by the applicant; Hunt seconded. Peyton opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to accept the shadow study as presented as satisfying condition #15; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to accept the submittal of the computer drawing as a reference base as satisfying condition #19. Hunt withdrew his motion. Peyton moved to table the decision on condition #19 until after it is determined exactly what the building will be; Hunt seconded. Peyton and Hunt in favor, all other opposed; motion NOT carried. Colombo moved to approve condition #19 as represented on the record presented at this meeting; Blomquist seconded. Discussion: Tygre suggested that a finding be made that the applicant will be moving back the building and by sloping back the roof on the rest of the side of the building has represented the entrance as being perceived to be more spacious and open. Colombo agreed to amend his motion to include Tygre's suggestion, Blomquist agreed to amend his second. Peyton opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. 1 Motion: Hunt moved to accept the applicants submission for snow shedding management as satisfying Condition #16; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Blomquist moved Peyton seconded. Anderson Colombo no Tygre no Hunt no Peyton aye Blomquist aye Anderson no Two in favor, four opposed; that the FAR of 1.5 not be exceeded; asked for a roll call vote: motion NOT carried. Motion: Tygre moved that the applicants precise plan submission based on the Planning Office's recommended method of FAR calcula- tion, as was used for the Aspen Mountain project, applied would cause it to exceed the allowed FAR and would require the applicant to request a variation. The feeling of the Commission is that the building, as submitted with modifications, does work and the Commission would be willing to entertain the request for this variation; Hunt seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to accept the applicant's explanation for condition #20 under subsidence that they will pass on legal descriptions and other legal matters to the Planning Department as necessary; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to accept the applicant's representation as satisfying condition #17; Colombo seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to approve the requirements of condition #21; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Jay Hammond, Director of Public Services DATE: February 25, 1986 RE: Little Nell Pursuant to my meeting yesterday with Dave Ellis of Design Workshop, a couple of questions arose related to actions being requested by the Little Nell hotel project. I. Encroachment - The developer proposes to construct a ticket kiosk and mall in a portion of Dean Street adjacent to their property. Given the extensive improvements they are proposing and in view of the fact that the right-of-way is not currently in use for vehicular traffic, I was wondering whether a closure similar to the arrangement with the Aspen Alps (attached agreement and resolution) might be more appropriate. Dave was concerned that a "closure" might raise greater concern for the neighbors. I'm not leaning strongly in one direction or the other so the question I would pose is, does an encroachment license provide adequate protection to the City and would you see any distant differences between encroachment and closure. 2. Does the existing Ski Company easement (also attached) provide them the latitude to construct the ticket kiosk and mall improvements in vacated Hunter Street. The language in the easement agreement grants "the right to install and maintain ski corrals and related facilities utilized in connection with grantee's skiing operations . I have researched the deed at book 192 page 296 and Ordinance #53 series of 1947. The deed is an easement for a water pipeline and Ordinance #53 is the vacation ordinance. Both documents reserve the right to install and maintain utilities and, subject to the applicant's willingness to relocate and provide revised easements for such facilities, I have no problem with the construction of the mall under the current easement. JH/co/LittleNell cc: Alan Richman • PLANNING AND ZONING C014 ION MEETING EEBRUARX 18, 1986 NkTI Motion: Hunt moved to reconsider the prev.ious motion from the February 4, 1986 meeting regarding parking; White seconded. Tygre asked for a roll call vote: Blomquist M Colombo no White aye Peyton aye Hunt ave Markalunas no Tygre . r1a Three in favor,, four opposed; motion NOT carried. Motion: Hunt moved to accept the drawings presented for the service area on Spring St. as part of the official submission, including encourager2,ent to proceed with the cul-de-sac for automobiles, and that the applicant come forward with a landscape plan for the vacinity; Markalunas seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion Blomquist moved to not consider the encroachment on Dean St. unless it encompasses the entire street block; White seconded. Blomquist withdrew his previous motion, White agreed. Blomquist moved that the Ski Company agree to participate with its neighbors in the Special Improvement District for that section of the Dean St. Mall labled as "Zone 2" with the provision if a special improvement district does not come forward by,"the time the rest of the Dean St. and Hunter St. malls are"'built that the Ski Company will at least pave what is presently the west portion of Dean St. with pavers that are consistent with the rest of Dean Stand est ict the entrance to the street such that it is limited td' , e vehicle'AAac`6ess only; White seconded. All in favor; motion carried. 0 0 FIVUe"'Ums in TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Planning Office City Engineer FROM: Roger H. Hunt, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Little Nell SPA Development Plan; Minority View DATE: March 19, 1986 I am generally in favor of the Little Nell Redevelopment as proposed. However, the skier drop-off area and the impacts on Durant Avenue caused me to vote against the conditional use of the hotel (included in P&Z Resolution 86-3) . The problems I see with the proposed drop-off area are specifically: 1. It does not comply with the City Council's condition regarding that area, neither is it an improvement to that condition. 2. Assuming the concept of full frontal drop-off is an acceptable alternative, the intrusion into Durant Avenue with curb extensions and placing the parallel parking in line with present angle parking on either side of the project is unacceptable for street maintenance and will probably have an adverse effect on street circulation especially when the increased impacts of the gondola and the hotel come on line. 3. The skier drop-off exit and the hotel entrance design has placed too much (all) automobile movement conflict in the circulation lane(s) of Durant Avenue. 4. Though the above "technical" problems can be solved by the City Engineer (who shares my concerns), the end result would have major differences which the City Council may not like and may well not have approved of if seen before hand. 5. Finally, all intrusions into Durant Avenue, including extensions of the Hunter Street Mall, should not be allowed without the consideration of future circulation and transit needs. For example, it may be necessary to convert to parallel parking on each side of the project in the near future. Allowing the project now to put in protrusions beyond the parallel parking line creates an unnecessary future expense. The majority of my fellow commissioners chose not to identify the above problems. I bring them to your attention only because I think you can make better decisions if you know as much as possible up front. Thank you for your consideration. Res v e 1 y, Ro er H. Hunt I A G R E E M E N T THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ,7? day of 1972) by and between the CITY OF /ASPEN, a Colorav Municipal corporation, (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "City"), and the ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Colorado corporation, (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Association"); WHEREAS, the Association has requested the City to close a portion of Ute Avenue to vehicular traffic in order that the Association may construct a pedestrian mall within the closed portion of Ute Avenue as hereinafter described. AND WHEREAS, the City of Aspen reviewed the plans for the mailed area. and finds that the closing: of that portion of Ute Avenue hereinafter described and the construction of a malled area within said street for the benefit of the public. WITN; SSET11: NOW, TIIEREFORI:, for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The association hereby aF.rees to construct, land-. scape and maintain the malted area in accordance with the plans attached hereto, which malled area shall be open to the public and shall provide for access by emergency vehicles as well as a pedestrian path, all at the expense of the Association. 2. The City agrees that it shall close that portion of Ute Avenue to vehicular traffic as described on attached Exhibit "B", providing that at all times said closed street shall be available t9 the public. 3. It is further understood and agreed that in the event that Lot No. 21. is conveyed to the City by;the Association, the City shall pay and be. responsible for the construction of the cul-de-sac west of the closed portion of Ute Avenue; provided however, that the Association shall be responsible for the main- tenance of the landscaped area within the dul-de-sac. 4. It 'is further understood and af;reed that the Association shall save the City harmless from any and all claims for personal injury and property damage occurring; within the malted area. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto EXHIBIT "B" DESCRIPTION O1 U7'E AVENUE CLOSED FOR PEDESTRIAN MALL ` Beginning at the Southeasterly corner of Lou 34, Ute Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; thence Southwesterly along a line being the projection of the Westerly right of way line of Original Street a distance of 21.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along a line parallel to the Northerly right of way line of Ute Avenue a distance of 52.50 feet; thence Southwesterly a distance of 40.00 feet more or less to a point on the SouL-herly right of way line of Ute Avenue; thence Northwesterly 129.00 fee' along said Souther]_y right of way Co a point; thence Northeasterly a distance of 70.50 feet more or less to a -point on the Northerly right of way line of Ute Avenue; thence Easterly along said Northerly right of way line'a distance of 223.00 ;feet or less to the point of beginning. ' R n 1 set their hands and' seals 'the clay and year first above written j CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado ATTEST; municij-,al' Corporation BY C i 1: y C, I y 0 ATTEST: h S e c r e tar y z 0 ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Colorado Corporation BY: President -0 I a i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves .I FORM w C. F. MOECKEE S. B. a 1. CO. _ _ -- RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 197 ) WHEREAS, the City of Aspen in its continuing efforts to beautify the City and to provide for convenient and safe pedestrian travel has agreed with the Aspen Alps Condominium Association for the construction of a malled area on a certain portion of Ute Avenue her.ej_n=.`.tear described. AND WHEREAS, the City of Aspen desires to close a certain portion of Ute Avenue from vehicular traffic and to permit it to be landscaped in accordance with a mall area plan submitted by the Aspen Alsp Condominium Association. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that that portion of Ute Avenue described on the attached Exhibit "A" be and is hereby closed from vehicular traffic from this day forward. Dated this /`L day of 1972. I, LORRAINE GRAVES, duly appointed City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the Aspen City Council at the regular meeting held on 1972. CITY CLERK s EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF UTE AVENUE CLOSED FOR PEDESTRIAN TALL Beginning at the Southeasterly corner of Lot 34, Ute Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; thence Southwesterly along a line being the.projection of the Westerly right of way line of Original Street a distance of 21.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along a line parallel to the Northerly right of way line of Ute Avenue a distance of 52.50 feet; thence Southwesterly a distance of 40.00 feet more or less to a point on the Southerly right of way Line of Ute Avenue; thence Northwesterly 129.00 feet along said Southerly right of way to a point; thence Northeasterly a distance of 70.50 feet more or less to a point on the Northerly right of way line of Ute Avenue; thence Easterly along said Northerly right of way line a distance of 223.00 feet or less to the point of beginning. U 1j.,his agreement- mak."ie, anc1 entered into t.'iii. dav of by and betvyeen CIT.,OF 'rISPP'l, Pit k, in (7 () un t v C61 (,io e r cEt - r rckerrc:u L.c as "As-)cn" - and he r c-i naf ter reic,rrC (*! to as " L., cc, nsee - " following Ciescribe6 !,icensee, is. the of t--e prope�rty iocttecl' in the City of7 Aspen, Pitkin C-ounty, Colorado: Cit%, 0,- ,7 q r, T., r tfje: 11,cscribr'd ,u*, lic r i g h t- of - way to encroae--. L,.i-..orl :-,ai r S Asix-M acrees to tl;e grant o-,:' a irivate license of encroachment as built subject to cort.air, conditions. .4 (]e - -reiria-fter '.'T F T' , . 1:: t 4 -E.20PE, in Lon of the mutual arircement 11),. L C0:111--ained, tlzpen Licensee covenant z,nci aqrce as i7ollows: 1. A ,,rivLate revocablc liCE!.111se is hcreb,,,, qranteC, to Licensee to occ-u-v)y, maintain .-ind utilize the abovf-, c7,escribe..-1 Y.,,ortion of T,)Ublic r .1 ight-of'-13ay for tjl(' Z,701C! T)urposc c1cocribed. 2. This 1 cc, nse is C,i r a, ri C: f o r E.'.`)r e )(2 t U 1711 e r m Li b-* e ct t 0 terminateci aL aw, 7 Zinc: -cL:c)r z:nv at the ,,Ole t'w',r! City Council of: t,-.e C-",, 3. Thi::; to r`qiit of Aspen to L: s e saki :area. L.: or i r, i)ubl i C. !�)U r',-J0SQ -S, T and repair of toqtet-h(:r constructed I l 's cr�tion, shallAs lie to tlhc� r;L- il. a safe and cloan i • con(;i ti on. . Licensee shall at all times :luring the terI:i hereof, carry r)ualic liability insurance for the benefit of the City with 1_I11ts of not less tiian those specified by Section 414-10-114,C.P..S., �.;.: may be C'..leI1C tl f rorir tira? to tii:;e, nay. _n�j tliti City as co-insured. Licensee ;siiall maintain :said coverts c!c- In i:ull i orce and effect dvrinC; the term of t'i:is Licen_' anCl sties 11 _"urI:ish the City With a cop of such co-ioracJia or certificate evi.icncinr, such coverage. ill]. insurance ;clicks m iritaineci pursuali . to this agreement shall contain the ollo•.,Tirig cnclor:;clnent: It is 'lereby under-:ood CanC; at;rec6 t_:;:at thi.: insurance uolicy y not bc. c_.Iicellc�-; �y tilc _;urc: t unt it ti;irty (30) days after recei,,?t t)y the City, by re;istcrecu nail, of written notice ci SUch intention to anc•ol or not to renew.' G. Licensle!2 Sl':i,.Ll S Wtv -, dei::nd an,,! hold _-iarmless against any anCi all C1 F.j] dS for Costs to persons or tironarty that may arise out G=, or be- occa Toned by the use, occuX)anc%- ar'1(i r.,,a1r:Lonanc:c� of :,=c_C: nror) rt_,' b'.' ..,iCt?nsee, or i ron ally act or ol'A.C.i:_Aoii of aI .., r;"Jre�,entati% C:, ac'.L2I1. , customc.,r and/or Cif?�lol-cue oI: Co nsee. 7. This license iaa,k:err.iii:atcd by .Licensee at any ti^ie and for any reason or: L;:i rty (30) da�� s �.,I i tter: notice o: Licensee's intent to cancel. i'hl :i :i icerisc, may be terifiir:ated Al„Len ?t any time and' nor any reason 1;y resolution July !PFisseci ay tide City Council of t11� City of L:;aen. Upon . err.,, ination :.licensee shall, at Liconsee' c ::,,x! lse, removc an:; 1r11r%rOvC?Men-s or nncroac.c.ments trOi:i said nronort.y. Tie nroT.-urtv .3 ,all. i,e rc-^tor�:c.' to a conciition S,: tisfactory to "',anon. 8. '_"pis _rlse i:: . u;:r';:ct to all state tl:e nrovisions of the C;iarter of ;.r.le City- c)Z Aspon a::, it ,low o;:i.sts or inay :iereai:ter b -ila:>nc�ed, all(_: the orc:inancos o: tin:: City o� ��s_r.�en r.o�a in efl-:ect or thoL t.ri:lc:": be ador:�tt�.). �. Nothinq !.rerein :iiall h,, corictrueu co 71:: to ,�rev�_,nt E;;nen from, granting :,uch additional licensers or .>roper -y interest:; in or a-Efecting s ;ic, property as it uee.ns Ic-Cassary. �.,, -: ,T' license of 10. ...lc concii:ionN acrcoL ir.ii:x�_,cd on the c:r•..1t- encroaciii.ient :_,:itlll constii:ute covenants runnirg with the land, and binding upon Licensee, L:-E(Ar heirs, swcce:,sors anc'•. assigns. 11. Ir'1 anylegal i:ction to F_�ni`orce gilt' t`rovislons of this 1.nreei^lent, tiie r�revailinn warty : ilal]. be entitled to its reasoric a attorne-'s fees. 12. If the structure for i'.icil ti:is license was issued is remove(? _.-or any reisor., Licensee :lay not: rc�i�uilc': in the cane location Wit'hOUt obtziriinq anotilrr onc:roachiient license. 0 0 IN WITNESS 777AIMP, Me 7arties enecuted Wis agreement at Aspon the day and v"nr first written. CITY UP WPM, COLOR; DO By BILL STIRLIDG, Kayor ATTEST: EATHRYN S. XOC7, City Clerl,. Licensee STATE OF COLORADO County of Fitkin The foregoing instrumant was acknowln6ged before me this 6ay of b Licensee. WITNESS NY MEn AND OFFICIAL MAL. vy conDisaion uzpirns: Notary MIN AdOreso Recorded 3:35 Ni A_n 26, 1979 Reception t Loretta Banner RE der EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this o.t_rrvk)da of Y 1979, between THE CITY OF AP N, COLORADO, (57 a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to !as "Grantor"), and THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). R E C I T A L S 1. Grantors are the owners of the following described real estate in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: A tract of land, comprising 0.14 acres, r,ore or less, more particularly described as follows: ','he Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacated Hunter Street, westerly of and adjacent to Block 102, Cite and Townsite of Aspen, '_)etween the southerly line of Durant Avenue and the northerly line of Lot 22, Lte Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street vacated by Cite of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 2941 recordc-d in the public records of Pitkin County on March 17, 1959, under Reception No. 107787 in Book 16f17*at Page 101. THE:�EFOKE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived hereby, and other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed by the parties as follo�-s: A G R E E M E N T 1. Grantors do hereby grant and convey to Grantee a perpetual non-exclusive easement for purposes of ingress and egress over and across Grantor's property to and from Durant Avenue and Aspen Mountain, the right to park vehicles upon the parking area _. ::o r I-r-.n Cr a:.(! Llll' , b:JL t.C/ IC,bLi111 a,lli lilaill talll ski corrals and related facilities utilized in connection with Grantee ' 8 skiing operations; PROVIDED, that Grantee's right to utilization and enjo�-Tnent of the above-.:escribed easement, shall be restricted so as not to interfere with Grantor's right of utilization and enjoyment contained in that deed recorded in Book 192, ,age 296, in the records of the Pitkin County, Colorado, and reserved in Ordinance ;53, Series of 1947, of the City of Aspen, Colorado. m365 P,,,A53 here is reserved to Grantor the right to utilization and enjoyment of the above -described easement provided the same shall not interfere or be inconsistent with the rights herein granted. 3. !:xcept as otherwise specifically provided herein, all of the provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, 7)ersonal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Grantee. Dated "r, ��%J� By ATTEST: ,.athryn $ Koch Citt Clc : THE CM SPEh, S .ORADO Stacy S ndley III Mayor THE ASPEN SKIING COr PORAT ION Dated: Larch 22, 1979 By Its Vice -President -General 1�anazer c-,ATTEST. kSst...$eeretary-Treasurer -2- "X5 P�:354 STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss.: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of / �. 1979 by Stacy Standley III, as Mayor of THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, and by Kathryn S. Koch, as City Clerk of THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: !' Notary lic STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss.: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21st day of !arch 1979 by Tom Richardson Assistant as Vice President and Luetta Whitson as Secretary/ -of THE ASPN SKIING CORPORATIO?;. Treasurer G 1,,itness my hand and official seal. Y: �� MY commission expires: October 27, 1979 Notary Public EXHIBIT v � LI17 ONE CMD0:411IG'•f i►SSC►CI1'i:U\, 3f:C,, �1^•@�!1i�ftLt i eferreci to as "Lift One" is desir o,.)s of u! i? izi.►cc t3, hereinaft. r referred to as "subject ?:-ope►ty" rlv:,+ o::n:•ci an3 �, ,� •�, Skiing /,"�L� utilized by Aspen >NW1- Corporation., he: ei ne tcfr re* a red to bs -I,- "Ski Corp." and V.,-iEREAS, the parties hefet-o an`_ic_prte a j71:?t use of s`_j)-_^` propazty with the Si:i Corp. using the p:op:: t—Y c.»_ my t*.e vinte ski irwonths for the parking of err-ployee :•e1iicles and Lift Cne using the property for a tennis facility du--ing Che balance of the year. The period available for tennis use is antic_p=:ed to be from approximately May 1 to Nove-mber 1 of caul year. -%OW THEREFORE, for and in cons iderat ion of the te.-:s and conditions hereinafter set forth the parties agree as follows: 1. Lift One shall apply to the Planning and Zoning Com,-,ission, City of Asp=n for a zoning variance as required fo= the use of the Subject Property as a combined perlir.g and tennis facility. This application will be at the sole risk ant e>:; ease of Lift One. The Ski Corp. agrees to formally_ consent to such e_pnlicetio if required to do so. 2. Lift One da_rees to contract for and co-np] ete t;r�e paving of the Subject Property hereinafter described as follo:-�s: Lots 7-12, Bloc): 11, Fames AcC i .ion UZ2." City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Such paving will provide an acceptable entrance to the pI o��-.--y 0 from the east access. In addition, paving shall cover existing parking area and when necessary, on the sou:., side of the p�ope:ty, c►ihbiT,g will be constructed to enlarge t,e pa.•c•;: p=ri i nc z_ ca t,oll� Property to the south i`.:'s`:�!<n line. This expense :ill i,e the sole r:,�1»n- s;bility of Lift One. 3. Lift Orie agrees to provide s-�0_0 YO:-:J-val for i Ct:%P101,C0 t1'1C3 CustO!112r par):]ng which (.'vUi1e ♦• ..:o.niny rc:�oval prior to the time er..nloyces arrive for wor::. This c-1 w i 11 conti nue cluririg t)ie tern. of thi s Agrn: . ne? •iny c. ;c�rc_d 1)1)'n h=t%.):-&n the ;wji ties. r-18 t' �r Lift One for n z s o: Lt n :•:�T r=; c*�► granted by Ski P• to n • ' ♦r of this J:cr&e;n:r.:. co!7.b c Uze i'rorn the e_ �ect�ve c1Ate _ _ agrecnent &}fall be a covenant running with t:;e land and shell 0, remain an enctir,brance on the p:ooerty bir.aing the S.•:i Corp. its successors or assigns- At the end of the ter. 1•e=: t.:M., the T parties may bgree to an extension of the rrranc:i�me;.ts if t is ;nu'-Ual agreement to (30 so. S. In accordance with the zoning rules a;:d-esulztions of the City of hspen, the -parties hert-to un5e: st&nd and a5= =e that the use of the tennis facility wi13 be lid=t�Z to t:-.e o':%na_s end cuests of Lift One. THIS AG?,EEN:ENT SMALL BE E=FEC^IV , TLay 1, 1978. ASPEN SKIING CCU: PDRAT I ON LIFT ONE CO'NDD''-, N 7—! tiSSOCIATION, I,\`C. STATE OF COLOR ADO ss. CO��;TY OF P•i T KIN ) e�'foreooing instrument was eckno,.4leege3 before me this 'President :3th 63}- of April, 1978, by O. R. C. Ero%,n, of Aspen S): i_nF •Corporation. witness'my hand and official seal. I•:y co7.-Lmi ssion expires: i;y COct T.ota �y FL,b1 i c STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The fo•ecoing instrument %:zs ac::ro::l edce3 cefo_ a r::e :his day of i.pril, 1978, by �``C • 'rJ-—t�=� --- 1;itness ny hand anJ official seal. co -►mission expires: Tottery public ti�rilt3l t 43 1:Ht:RE %n S, LIUT ONE C"DDAIVIV. hSS(ICI 1'i ION, I t:C . , h:•� ei^;,i t _r zeferrecl to as "Lift One'' is clesi:o'Js of ��tiliti.►� cc: :tin p:;,pL:tl.� hereinafter referrc-d to ::s "subjuct' p_-opFrty" n:,'..r o*,-;n:•c; and Ski i ng utilised by Corporation., he_eine�:e: re' e:rec to bs "Ski Corp." and the parties hereto an:ic:pr.te a j7ir.t us. of s�_bj�:ct property with the S):i Corp. using t%:e vrop!rrty Cti: ins the vinte s%i months for the parking of en,pl o_ c e :•e`ii cl es an:Li : t Cie using the property for a tennis facility du-_. y balance of the year. The period available for tennis use is antic_p:ted to be from approximately May 1 to hove-Mbe.r 1 of c&c*n Year. ''NOW THEREFORE, for : nd in consiueralio;► of <?')e te_-s pnd conditions hereinafter s! t forth 'Ehe parties agree as follo,.!s: 1. Lift One shall zipply to the Planning and Zoning Co.-.�_;ssion, City of Aspen for a zoning variaTlce as requi-red for the use of the Subject Property as a combined parI�ir.g and tennis fecility. This application will be at the sole risY an:: c::: ense of Lift one. The Ski Corp. agrees to formally. consent to such applination AW if required to do so. 2. Lift One agrees to contract for and complete t;ie paving of the Subject Property hereinafter described as follows: '-SAO Lots 7-12, Bloc): 11, Fa►,es Addition City of Aspen, Pithin County, Colo -ado LAW Such paving will provide an acczptrble entrance to the p_'no :t-y from the east access. In addition, paving shall cower existi!)g parking area and when neccssary, on the si cle o_` the proper ty, eribbi),g will be constructed to enlarge Urz pz!vec p=r inc e_-ea Property. r to the south J line. This c>.pense vill ue ine sole r o:-,- -�- ui 3 i ty of _i ( t 0'!C" - 3. Lift o'iE aorcCs to pi-o\'1UE F';:L' jUc:e S'1.) Te:::DVal _'0- 11)� CIIII,loy.e .nc) customer par):ing wh;ch rill rcouiie -:o:ninq rc: oval prior to the time e�:.nloyees arriVe for :or::. This o.:;tration will continue cluring the tel n, of this i'nd .any ex::•nsior.s :vcvd »pon the p rlrt-ies. lrum. the effective tic �f tto:s Acrrement. i , co-S:ned tie aq'jreement &hall be a covenant running With the It nc cnd shell remain an enciumbrance on the property bi r.0 i r!S the s%_4 Corp • i t s successors or assigns. At the end of the ter. yea_ :e_;,�, the parties may egree to an exters_on of the erranc:F.ments if t��r c is ;,�tual agreement to do so. S. In accordance with the zoning rules a::d =eS"atio::s C>_ the City of Aspen, the -parties hereto understand and asr ae `.na ` the use of the tennis facility wil? be lin_taZ to tine o-..ne:s pnd cuests of Lift One. THIS AGFLEE:,:ENT SNAIL BE E=FECTIVE J•!aY 1, 1978. ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION By: LIFT ONE CONDO.'•!Iri= i,'.! ASSOCIATION, I\`C By VJ kx'N : STATE OF COLOZADO ) • ; ) ss. CO'JNTY Or PITKIN ) - ':he 'foreooing instrument was eckno:;2 edged before me this : 3th 6iy of April, 1978, by D. R. -C. Broun 'president of Aspen •Corporation- t:itness' my hand and official seal. y,,y'co,�vmission expires: L'y f-;-)CPC I::•�:�s ?rotary Fubl is STATE OF ) ss. ) COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument %:es ack-ro.0 edge -A hero: a r::e this day of April, 3978, by �'�C._'�/ C ��, y.J, witness my hand and official seal. 1-:3• commission expires: 5>/7/72 Notary Pub 1 is a • / CITY OF ASPEN ti MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP Planning and Development Director w v` Q-Q-L A�- �� . k ,ti w `mil — �61,� PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Little Nell Base Redevelopment Precise Plan - Use Variation NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on March 24, 1986 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at the Community Center located at the corner of Lone Pine Road and Red Mountain Road in Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by the Aspen Skiing Company requesting a use variation which will allow a portion of the hotel proposed for the Little Nell Base Area to protrude into land which is zoned Conservation. The property is located at the base of Little Nell along Durant Avenue, and is to be considered for SPA Precise Plan approval. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext . 225. s/William L. Stirling Mayor, City Council of Aspen, Colorado Published in the Aspen Times on March 6, 1986. City of Aspen Account. C2 �o N ti .Z1 ,-mac n C.J r x m cw m > c> z LEASE AGREEMENT d r co vn X THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of the 26th day of November , 1985, by and between JOHN H. ROBERTS, JR., whose address is 114 West Commerce, Third Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205, ("Landlord"), and the ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado gen- eral partnership, whose address is P.O. Box 1248, Aspen, Colorado 81612, ("Tenant"). W I T N E S S E T H: Landlord, in consideration of the rents, covenants and agree- ments hereinafter provided to be paid, kept and performed by Ten- ant, hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby rents from Landlord that certain parcel of land (the "Parking Lot") described as Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Block 11 of the Eames Addition City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin County, Colorado TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Parking Lot for a term of 99 years commencing with the date of this lease. Tenant acknowledges and accepts this lease subject to the rights of the Lift One Condomin- ium Association, Inc. as set forth in that certain Agreement dated May 1, 1978 and attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated here- in by this reference. This lease is made upon the foregoing and the following terms, covenants and conditions and Landlord and Tenant hereby covenant and agree further as follows: 1. Rent. Tenant shall pay to Landlord at 114 West Commerce, Third Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205, or at such other place as Landlord may hereafter designate in writing, rent at the rate of $10.00 per year or a total of $990.00 for the lease term, which total amount shall be due or payable upon the execution hereof. 2. Insurance. Each party shall be responsible for its own general public liability and property damage insurance. 3. Compliance with Law. Landlord will comply with the provi- sions of all statutes, regulations, rules and decisions of govern- mental boards, bodies and authorities ("requirements of law"), even though such requirements may require alterations to the premises. Tenant represents that it knows of no alterations required by this paragraph. 4. Parking Area. Tenant, at its expense and to its satisfac- tion, shall keep the Parking Lot in constant good order, condition and repair, whether the necessity of such repairs may arise from wear, tear, obsolescence, casualty or any other cause. Tenant shall maintain a'parking area on the entire Parking Lot at its expense. The parking area shall remain surfaced with asphalt so as to afford proper drainage of the entire parking area surface. 5. Substitute Parking. At such time as Landlord provides Tenant with (a) an equal amount of parking space in square footage and in the same or similar configuration as the Parking Lot, in a location proximate to the Parking Lot and in the same improved condition as the Parking Lot parking places or (b) thirty (30) underground parking places on a parcel of land in a location proximate to the Parking Lot, either of which shall be subject to the prior written consent and approval of Tenant not unreasonably withheld, Tenant and Landlord hereby agree to modify this Lease to substitute such parcel of land for that set forth herein. In all other respects, this lease and its terms and conditions, shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect. 6. Condemnation. If the entire Parking Lot shall be taken for any public or quasi -public use, under any statute, by right of eminent domain, or by purchase by public authority in lieu thereof, or if part of the Parking Lot is so taken and the part remaining is less than one-half of the original area, at the election of Tenant, this lease and the term hereby granted shall terminate and expire. Such election shall be exercised by written notice served upon Landlord by Tenant and shall be effective on a date thirty days after the date of such notice. All condemnation awards shall be paid over to Tenant. Landlord agrees never to approach or discuss condemnation of the Parking Lot with a public authority and further agrees to pay an amount equal to the damage suffered by Tenant as a result of any such action, provided that no damage shall be incurred if the appropriate substitute parking is provided pursuant to Paragraph 5 hereof. Tenant agrees never to approach or discuss condemnation of the Parking Lot with a public authority and further agrees to pay an amount equal to the damage suffered by Landlord as a result of any such action. 7. Landlord Covenants and Warranties. (a) Based upon Tenant's warranty that there are no existing breaches of the warranties provided herein, Landlord covenants that, if and so long as Tenant pays the rent and performs all the obligations of Tenant hereunder, Tenant shall quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises for the lease term. (b) Landlord covenants and warrants, (i) that it has as good and marketable title in fee simple to the Parking Lot as that which -2- • 1 Ck"; 7 has been conveyed to it by Tenant; (ii) that no other person has any right of possession (however Landlord shall have the right to convey its interest) or any other rights adverse to those of Tenant hereunder; and (iii) that Landlord will, upon request, deliver such instruments of further assurance as may be necessary to confirm Tenant's rights and leasehold interests hereunder. Landlord makes these warranties based upon Tenant's warranty that Tenant knows of no breach. 8. Default of Landlord or Tenant. The following shall con- stitute defaults of Landlord or Tenant hereunder: Failure to perform any affirmative obligation hereunder for a period of ten days after written notice, except that if such obli- gation cannot reasonably be performed within such period, the failing party shall not be in default if it shall commence such performance within such period and shall thereafter prosecute the same to completion with reasonable diligence and without unneces- sary delays. 9. Remedies of Landlord. In case of any default by Tenant, Landlord shall have the following rights and remedies: Landlord shall have the right to terminate this lease by notice in writing, and upon the giving of such notice, if such default shall not be cured as provided herein, this lease and the term hereof, as well as all the right, title and interest of Tenant hereunder, shall wholly cease and expire in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the date fixed by such notice were the expiration of the term herein originally granted. Upon any termination, Tenant shall immediately quit and surrender to Landlord the entire Parking Lot. 10. Remedies of Tenant. In case of any default by Landlord, Tenant shall have the following rights and remedies: (a) Tenant shall have the right to terminate this lease by notice in writing, and upon the giving of such notice, if such default shall not be cured within thirty days after receipt of such notice this lease and the term hereof shall wholly cease and expire in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the date fixed by such notice were the expiration of the term herein originally granted; or (b) Tenant may, at its own cost and expense, perform the obligation which was the subject of Landlord's default and bill Landlord the cost of performing such obligation, in addition to such other available and appropriate remedies it may have to col- lect such sums due. -3- 11. Taxes. Tenant shall pay all real estate taxes and assessments, charges, fees and payments imposed, assessed or levied by any governmental or public authority upon or in connection with the use, occupancy or possession of the Parking Lot or any part thereof during the term, provided that Landlord provides Tenant with the applicable notice of taxes or other payments due. 12. Surrender of Parking Lot. Upon termination of this lease, Tenant shall peaceably and quietly leave, surrender and deliver up to Landlord the Parking Lot. 13. Indemnification. Tenant shall indemnify, defend and save harmless Landlord from any and all liabilities, damages, penalties, costs, expenses, claims, suits or actions due or arising out of any breach, violation or non-performance of any covenant, condition or agreement in this lease contained on the part of Tenant to be ful- filled, kept, observed and performed and against any damage to property or injury to person or persons (including death resulting at any time therefrom) which arises out of the privileges granted to Tenant by this lease. 14. Notices. All notices hereunder to the respective parties or any of them shall be in writing and shall be served by prepaid registered or certified mail, or by personal delivery, addressed to the respective parties at the following addresses or at such other addresses as may be supplied in writing to all parties. If to ASC : If to Roberts: With copies to: Mr. Jerry Blann President Aspen Skiing Company P. 0. Box 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 John H. Roberts, Jr. 114 West Commerce Third Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr., Esq. Holland & Hart 600 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Any such notice shall be deemed to be given and effective when such notice has been deposited in the United States mail addressed as aforesaid, or when personally delivered to and received by the specified parties. Notice of an assignment or change of address shall be given in the manner provided herein. ZC 0 �1r'1 •� ^ t r... 15. Assignment. Any party may assign its rights or obliga- tions under this agreement. 16. Captions. All headings and captions are solely for iden- tification purposes and have no effect on the interpretation or meaning of the pFovisions contained in each paragraph. 17. Law Governing. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the validity, performance and enforcement of this agreement. 18. No Implied Assumption of Liability. The parties do not and shall not, under this agreement, assume any liability or obli- gation of any other party to any person except as may be specifi- cally provided herein. 19. Severability. If any provision of this agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of this agreement itself or of any other provision hereof, and there shall be substituted for the affected provision, a valid and enforceable provision as similar as possible to the affected provision. 20. Binding Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 21. Covenants to Run. The terms, covenants and conditions of this agreement shall be construed as covenants running with the land, and shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have duly executed this lease the day and year first above written. LANDLORD: Jo H. Roberts, Jr. TENANT: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership BY• er -MLILann, President -5- STATE OFxy S ) ss. COUNTY OF p rL ) i,The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2(L day of 1985, by John H. Roberts, Jr. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Z-& -C- i c Z �v E �\' l C �► Nota y ubl is _ `.. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of r • '' ;I I , 1985, by Jerry Blann, President of the Aspen Skiing Company, a Colorado general partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: M-25-88 Notary Public a • APPLICATION TO THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USE OF THE PREMISES KNOWN AS THE HOLIDAY HOUSE FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING Application is hereby made to the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission for a determination under Section 24-3.3 of the Aspen Muncipal Code permitting the use of premises known as the Holiday House for employee housing. The Aspen Skiing Company (hereinafter referred to as "ASC") proposes the deed restriction of the Holiday House to employee housing in connection with the development of the Little Nell project. The Holiday House is located at 127 West Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado, and is zoned Lodge-2 (L-2). Permitted uses in that zone are: Lodge units, boarding houses, hotel; dining room, laundry and reception facility for guests only, single-family and duplex residences. The change in use proposed for the Holiday House Lodge from free-market tourist lodge to deed restricted employee housing will have negligible, if not reduced, growth impacts on the neighborhood and community. The Holiday House has operated as a free-market lodge in the past in that nightly, weekly, and monthly rentals have been offered. Dick Wilhelm, former manager of the lodge, has stated that historically the rooms were rented on a nightly basis during the Winter high season, and on a monthly basis, primarily to music students, - 1 - during the Summer season. As deed restricted employee housing, the Holiday House is proposed to house fifty-six (56) employees in twenty-eight (28) private lodge rooms at two (2) employees per room. Neither the sleeping capacity nor the physical characteristics of the Holiday House will be expanded by this proposal. Therefore, during the Winter season it is reasonable to assume the Holiday House will experience less "user" turnover and less neighborhood impact. The employee use will be permanent for the Winter season, whereas the tourist use has been transitory. In the Summer, the Holiday House will operate much the same as it has in the past. The Holiday House will be a permanent residence for ASC personnel, as needed, and a residence for music students on a monthly or as needed basis at a reduced deed restricted rental rate. Again, the impact on the --neighborhood should be the same or less for the proposed Holiday House summer operation. Since no physical expansion, additional lodge rooms, or increase in tourist/employee sleeping capacity is proposed for the Holiday House, there should be negligible, if not reduced, impact on the community by this proposal. The employee use will be more permanent and less transitory than the historic tourist use. The proposed change in use will help to meet the need for employee housing. The proposal creates no change in available parking spaces, no change in traffic demand, and no change in water and sewer - 2 - • demand since the Holiday House is within walking distance of the skiing areas and the town's commerical areas. Moreover, the proposal has no impact on fire and police protection, offsite drainage or road demands. The continuation of the use of the Holiday House by Summer music students is consistent with the express intention of the L-2 Zone to house tourists. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and uses in the area in that there will be a continuation of on -site guest facilities. Dated this' / day of February, 1986. cond use app/ASC Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation C By Gide n Kaufman - 3 - 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Little Nell Precise Plan/Conditional Use Public Hearing Continued Little Nell Resolution Forwarding GMP Score to City Council DATE: February 18, 1986 Rather than duplicate materials which have already been distri- buted at prior meetings and in order to save the cost of photo- copying, we would appreciate it if you would bring your February 4 packet containing the captioned items to the February 18, 1986 meeting. • PROPOSED AGENDA FOR P&Z REVIEW OF LITTLE NELL PRECISE PLAN A. Compliance with Conditions of Council Resolution 85-33 1. Conditions concerning access, circulation and parking (# 7, 3,9,8, 18 and 23) - February 4. 2. Conditions concerning building design (#1,4,15,19,16,2 & 12) - February 4 and/or 18. 3. Conditions concerning miscellaneous technical issues (#10,5, 22,20,13,6,11,14,17,21,24 & 25) - February 18 or 25. B. Review of Precise Plan and Conditional Use Evaluation Criteria - February 25 and or March 4 1. Conformance with standards for review of Precise Plan. 2. Conformance with conditional use criteria. C. Specification of zoning district regulations, variations permitted, and construction schedule impact analysis - March 4. D. Review of draft Planning Commission Resolution - March 18. • • A G E N D A ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 25, 1986 - Tuesday 4:30 P.M. City Council Chambers City Hall CONTINUED REGULAR MEETING I. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS II. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED A. Little Nell Precise Plan Please bring your prior packet materials with you. We will be discussing building design issues which begin on Page 6 of the prior memo. III. ADJOURN MEETING 0 APPLICATION TO THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USE OF THE PREMISES KNOWN AS THE HOLIDAY HOUSE FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING Application is hereby made to the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission for a determination under Section 24-3.3 of the Aspen Muncipal Code permitting the use of premises known as the Holiday House for employee housing. The Aspen Skiing Company (hereinafter referred to as "ASC") proposes the deed restriction of the Holiday House to employee housing in connection with the development of the Little Nell project. The Holiday House is located at 127 West Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado, and is zoned Lodge-2 (L-2). Permitted uses in that zone are: Lodge units, boarding houses, hotel; dining room, laundry and reception facility for guests only, single-family and duplex residences. The change in use proposed for the Holiday House Lodge from free-market tourist lodge to deed restricted employee housing will have negligible, if not reduced, growth impacts on the neighborhood and community. The Holiday House has operated as a free-market lodge in the past in that nightly, weekly, and monthly rentals have been offered. Dick Wilhelm, former manager of the lodge, has stated that historically the rooms were rented on a nightly basis during the Winter high season, and on a monthly basis, primarily to music students, - 1 - 0 • during the Summer season. As deed restricted employee housing, the Holiday House is proposed to house fifty-six (56) employees in twenty-eight (28) private lodge rooms at two (2) employees per room. Neither the sleeping capacity nor the physical characteristics of the Holiday House will be expanded by this proposal. Therefore, during the Winter season it is reasonable to assume the Holiday House will experience less "user" turnover and less neighborhood impact. The employee use will be permanent for the Winter season, whereas the tourist use has been transitory. In the Summer, the Holiday House will operate much the same as it has in the past. The Holiday House will be a permanent residence for ASC personnel, as needed, and a residence for music students on a monthly or as needed basis at a reduced deed restricted rental rate. Again, the impact on the neighborhood should be the same or less for the proposed Holiday House summer operation. Since no physical expansion, additional lodge rooms, or increase in tourist/employee sleeping capacity is proposed for the Holiday House, there should be negligible, if not reduced, impact on the community by this proposal. The employee use will be more permanent and less transitory than the historic tourist use. The proposed change in use will help to meet the need for employee housing. The proposal creates no change in available parking spaces, no change in traffic demand, and no change in water and sewer - 2 - demand since the Holiday House is within walking distance of the skiing areas and the town's commerical areas. Moreover, the proposal has no impact on fire and police protection, offsite drainage or road demands. The continuation of the use of the Holiday House by Summer music students is consistent with the express intention of the L-2 Zone to house tourists. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and uses in the area in that there will be a continuation of on -site guest facilities. Dated this � day of February, 1986. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By cond use app/ASC MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Little Nell Base Redevelopment Continued Public Hearing DATE: February 27, 1986 Please bring your February 4, 1986 Little Nell memo with you to the meeting. The issues to be discussed will include drainage, grading, geologic hazards and lifts. . a • • CITY 130 asp DATE: February 10, 1986 TO: City Council City Manager Planning Director Media FROM: City Attorney ASPE gaIe, a'astreet o'r a"d o 81611 25 -2020 MEMORANDUM RE: Johnson v. Ski Company, City of Aspen, et al. The Johnson lawsuit, and the prospect of a City condemnation of the subject parcel, appear to have been resolved by the Skiing Company's agreement to purchase Johnson's interest for an undis- closed amount. These negotiations occurred last Sunday between Johnson and Skiing Company. At our request, Gideon Kaufman has provided the attached letter confirming the agreement. PJT/mc Attachment 2D GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN HAND -DELIVERED LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 February 6, 1986 Paul J. Taddune, Esquire 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Condemnation of the Stan Johnson property Dear Paul: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925.8166 Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I write this letter to advise you that the Aspen Skiing Company and Stan Johnson have entered into a tentative agreement for the purchase of the Johnson parcel at the base of Little Nell. Because of this development, it is not appropriate at this time for the City to act on a condemnation action at the February 10, 1986 meeting. If this situation changes, I will let you know. I appreciate both your and the City Council's attention to this matter. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation Byki�- --GidJ-e-fiKaufman GK/bw PRESENTATION AGE14DA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2/4/86 A. INTRODUCTION - Peter Forsch B. ACCESS, CIRCULATION, PARKING 1. Skier Drop-off (#7) - Bill Kane a. review background of drop-off study b. present alternatives C. introduce new alternative (with new 10' set back) - plan cures three main criticisms of the project 1) open space/landscaped facade 2) function of drop-off 3) shading of Durant Street d. P&Z discussion 2. Parking Needs (#3) - Bill Eager a. lodge room ratios - summer vs. winter b. commercial ratios - retail, restaurant, conference C. employee parking - ok as submitted d. 46 AMSAMP spaces commitment e. Aspen St. lot - 30 space covenant - Peter Forsch f. P&Z discussion 3. Street Capacity (#9) - Bill Eager F'! a. additional 300 trips per h-&ur - street iropact b. mitigation measures C. P&Z discussion 4. Analysis of Service Yards (#8) - Bill Kane a. turning movements in service yard - Dave Ellis b. service delivery to Tippler, North of Nell C. request variance from service yard requirements 5. Trail Connection (#18) - Bill Kane a. presentation of trail plan and design of Dean St. connection 6. Dean St. encroachment license (#23) - Gideon Kaufman Presentation Agenda P&Z Commission, 2/4/86 Page 2 Illustrations A. drop-off alternatives B. new site plan with 10' setback C. service yard turning diagrams D. illustrative site plan E. technical SPA precise plan C. BUILDING DESIGN 1. Open space on Durant (#1) - Bill Kane, John Cottle a. new set back site plan b. discussion by P&Z 2. Visual impact (#4) - John Cottle a. presentation of principal design elements b. explain materials C. discussion 3. Shadow study (#15) - Bill Kane a. present shadow drawings b. explain impact of further set back C. icing d. pedestrian crossing, design and cost e. discussion 4. More "grand" entrance (#19) - Bill Kane, John Cottle 5. Snow shedding design (#16) - John Cottle 6. FAE variance request (#2) - Gideon Kaufman 7. Lift building design (#12) - Mark Henthorn, John Cottle a. Floor plan/operations b. elevations C. discussion Illustrations A. New Site Plan B. Shadow Studies C. Building Elevations (Hotel) D. Lift Building Elevations) MEMORANDUIrI TO: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director FROM: Tom Newland, Planning Engineer RE: Little Nell Base Development SPA DATE: January 24, 1986 I have reviewed the applicant's submission and wish to forward to you the following comments: Relocation of County Road: In the applicant's submittion the grading plan shows the Aspen Mt. Road (County Road #14) relocated approximately 25 feet above it's present alignment on the ski slope known as "Little Nell". This county road is a Class V or primative roadway that traverses the face of the Aspen Mountain ski area. Since the Aspen Skiing Company is completely responsible for the maintenence of this road, it is not necessary to require any culverting or other upgrading to compensate for effects the proposed grading plan might have on this realigned road. However, an escavation permit should be secured through the county for this work. This permit is obtainable through the County Road and Bridge Department. • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Little Nell Precise Plan/Conditional Use Public Hearing DATE: January 23, 1,986 APPLICANT: Aspen Skiing Company ZONING/LOT SIZE: The base area of Little Nell is presently zoned CC/SPA and C. Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1985, will place an SPA Overlay on that portion of the property zoned C. This Ordinance has received first reading approval from Council and will be heard at second reading when the Precise Plan is before Council. The area zoned CC/SPA comprises 43,124 s.f., while the area zoned C requested for inclusion within the SPA Overlay comprises 45,738 s.f., for a total lot size of 88,862 s.f. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The following requests are before the Planning Commission at this time: 1. Recommendation to City Council for Precise Plan Review. 2. Grant of Conditional Use Permit for hotel in CC zone. 3. Grant of Mountain Viewplane Review. 4. Recommendation to City Council for Change in Use GMP Exemption to convert units at the Holiday House from lodge to employee housing. 5. Grant of 8040 Greenline Review to regrade the Little Nell slope and install new lift towers. 6. Recommendation to City Council for encroachment into the Dean Street right-of-way. Copies of the applicant's entire submission have been provided directly to the Planning Commission, therefore, the Planning Office's memo will concentrate on the comments of review agencies rather than summarizing the applicant's proposals. Comments are not provided herein on any growth management issues. We have already provided the Commission with our recommended lodge allotment scoring in an earlier memo. The applicant has not yet applied for commercial allotment, although such a request is anticipated on August 1, 1986. Finally, we have not again provided you with comments on the multi -year allotment issue, preferring to await your direction to determine if it is necessary to spend additional time on this issue. PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: Our review of this project is organized in the following sequence: A. Analysis of compliance with conditions of conceptual approval. B. Review of applicable precise plan and conditional use evaluation criteria. C. Specification of zoning district regulations to apply to the parcel, variations permitted, and a schedule for construction. A. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Council Resolution No. 85-33 set 25 conditions of approval of the applicant's conceptual plan. An analysis of the applicant's response to each condition is contained below, organized into the following three broad topical areas: 1. Conditions concerning access, circulation and parking; i 2. Conditions concerning building design; and 3. Conditions concerning miscellaneous technical issues. 1. Conditions Concerning Access, Circulation and Parking: The issues to be discussed in this section include skier drop off (Condition No. 7), parking needs (Condition No. 3), adequacy of streets (Condition No. 9), service areas (Condition No. 8), trails (Condition No. 18) and encroachments (Condition No. 23) . "7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an auto -taxi -limo drop-off facility of adequate size for the needs of the ski area, which is in addition to any drop-off area for hotel guests. As the Council is concerned about maintaining adequate traffic flows on Durant Avenue, it is expected that the applicant will address the proper location for this facility within the project's property boundary." In our review of the project in the GMP scoring process, we indicated that the skier drop-off facility represents one of the principal design flaws in the project. This comment was reinforced by the relatively low scores given to the project by a majority of the Commission in the categories of site design and parking and circulation. The principal problems we see with the present solution include the following: o Potential turning conflicts for cars entering and exiting from the area with cars on Durant Avenue. o The area extends into the public right-of-way, contrary to the intent of the condition. o There is a loss of approximately 12-14 public parking spaces on Durant, which are being replaced by the 12 skier drop-off. spaces. This problem could be mitigated through management of the spaces to allow public usage during other than peak skiing periods. o The area creates a poor image for the entrance to the mountain/front of the hotel. The entrance in this area is neither open space, nor is it a lively street facade, but instead is a parking lot. The area should either truly be an open space area, or should create pedestrian interest through stores fronting directly on the street. The Planning Office recommends that the applicant be required to submit alternative designs to resolve the identified problems with the drop-off area. "3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the parking needs of the facility to meet the demands from the lodge rooms, skiers, administrative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities, and shall increase the number of spaces to be provided at the Precise Plan stage." TDA has accomplished the requested study (Appendix 3) and based on their recommendations, the number of parking spaces has been increased from 77 to 116. (Note: There are 83 spaces, not 85 on Level -22, and 33 on Level -12, for a total of 116 and not 118 spaces, as represented. However, there are also 12 spaces in the skier drop-off which are to replace those lost on Durant.) Following is a category by category calculation of the applicant's proposal as compared to the Code requirements: 2 SPACES TYPICAL CODE CODE CATEGORY STANDARD APPLIED PROPOSED* STANDARD** REQMT Lodge Units (96) Administrative Offices (4883 s.f.) 0.55-0.7 spaces/unit 53/67 1/unit 96 Replace Existing 27/7 3-4/1000 s.f. 17 Retail (20,553 s.f.) 0 . 1-0 . 8 per 1000 s.f. 2/17 4/1000 s.f. 82 Restaurant 1/1000 s.f. 5 4/1000 s.f. 20 (5196 s.f.) Skier (1300 skiers 0.05/skier 46 N/A N/A added) (off -site) * Range reflects summer vs. winter. ** No parking is required in the CC zone for lodge or commercial uses. These standards reflect those of the most similar zone for the proposed mix of uses, the L-1/L-2 zone districts. Based on the standards applied by the consultant, 92-101 spaces will be demanded for the project in the winter versus the summer (92 = 53 + 5 + 27 + 2 + 5; 101 = 67 + 5 + 7 + 17 + 5) . Considering that the project removes 45 on -site existing spaces, and provides 116 new spaces, supply has been calculated to exceed demand in the winter by 11 spaces. Therefore, the applicant requests that 11 spaces be applied to the 46 spaces requirement in the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP) that offset the ski capacity increase of 1300 skiers per day. Staff has numerous comments on the information provided by the consultant, including the following: o The parking standard applied to the Aspen Mountain Lodge of 0.7 spaces per unit is the minimum which we can justify for this facility. The consultant did propose a standard of 0.66 spaces/unit for summer use for the Aspen Mountain Lodge, which was not accepted. The proposed winter standard of 0.55 spaces per unit should be rejected unless adequate reasons are provided for its usage. o It is reasonable to assume that many of the visitors to the shops will already be located on the site. However, the standard of one space per 1000 s.f. of restaurant is exceptionally low. We would expect some guests to the luxury dining facilities to arrive at the port cochere and expect valet parking to be available. Further, no space has been provided for visitors who may attend a conference on the site, whether they be in -town residents or guests from other lodges. Invariably, some limited parking will be needed for such facilities. o Parking for ski area employees, based on 40 percent of employees driving, is reasonable, given the Ski Company's excellent bus service for employees. o The 46 space requirement from AMSAMP represents a very low standard allied only to the capacity increase for the mountain. No provision was made for the increased attractiveness of the Little Nell Base Area due to the high speed lift to be installed. No provision was made for any parking with respect to existing skiers on the mountain. While we do not suggest a reassessment of the on -mountain parking commitment which emerged from the Master Plan, we are very discouraged at this effort to meet some of this K requirement by proposing unreasonably low parking standards for base area uses. We recommend that the Planning Commission request the use of more realistic parking standards and continue to require that 46 skier spaces be provided on site, or as part of City initiated parking plan off -site (see attached condition approving AMSAMP). o P&Z should be aware that a condition of AMSAMP was that "ASC shall agree to maintain the existing parking lot (of at least 30 automobile parking spaces) located on Aspen Street within the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit related uses. The Agreement shall be in the form of a recorded covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin County and the City of Aspen." We were very disturbed to review the 601 Aspen Residential GMP project and find that ASC placed this property under option to that project's developer, without covenanting the property as required. The developer of the 601 Aspen Project intended to place the spaces underground, contrary to the intent of that condition. We recommend that the P&Z carry forward the AMSAMP condition as part of this review and set a specific date for the implementation of this condition. 9. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle traffic volumes associated with skiers, hotel guests, employees, service vehicles, and visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic problems which will result from the project. The applicant shall also take into account the access needs of emergency vehicles, including, but not limited to ambulances and fire trucks. The TDA study of streets shows a daily net traffic increase of about 250 trip ends per day in winter (60 trips at the peak hour) and about 375 trip ends per day in summer (42 trips at the peak hour) . However, no accounting is made of the approximately 300 vehicle trip ends per day due to the mountain capacity increase. The implementation of this increase, through constructing the new high-speed lift, is clearly a part of this project, and was not accounted for in AMSAMP. The applicant should be required to address these impacts, and propose appropriate mitigation techniques. Further, the applicant should be required to remove the skier drop-off area from the Durant Avenue right-of-way, as this proposal is viewed as adding to the circulation problems on Durant Avenue, which is a major through street in the downtown area due to the existing mall closures on Cooper and Hyman Avenues. Finally, the applicant should provide comments on the emergency vehicle situation, which does not appear to have been addressed in the submission. 8. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the proposed service yards on Spring Street and Dean Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been provided for truck stacking and that proper turning movements can be accomplished within these streets. The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental Health Department as to any air and water quality devices which may need to be installed in these areas (and in the parking facility for cars). The applicant shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler manage- ment entities and shall try to accommodate the service delivery needs of these buildings in a single location off Dean Street. Finally, the applicant shall demonstrate that the service delivery area on Dean Street will not cause safety problems for pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents of the North of Nell, and that the needs of the facility could not practically otherwise be met by a Gl • 0 single facility on Spring Street." The applicant is proposing a single, covered shipping and receiving area off Spring Street to handle the needs of the hotel and on -mountain restaurants. While we prefer the single access point to the prior dual service area concept, we have the following comments to make: o The schematic drawing contained in the submission does not constitute a "detailed analysis". Conclusive drawings and calculations should be provided to the City Engineer, demonstrating the adequacy of the turning radius. o The applicant's drawing of the Dean Street area does not respond to the request that cooperative planning be accomplished for service delivery to the North of Nell and Tippler/Tipple Inn properties. While we understand that the drawing has been abandoned, and responsibility given to the improvement district, we feel that a conceptual proposal by all three entities is needed at this time. Without a service access plan suitable to the entry to Dean Street, we believe that the entire concept of the Dean Street mall will be flawed. Therefore, a design of this area is an integral part of this SPA plan, although responsibility for accomplishing the improvements should fall on the improvement district. o There is a minimum rear yard requirement for the utility/trash service area in the area and bulk requirements chart for the CC zone, referenced to Section 24-3.7 (h) (4) , stating that the area be on an alley and setting standards for its dimensions. It appears that an area for this building would require a minimum length of 20 feet for the first 6,000 s. f . of building area and 5 feet for each addition 6,000 s.f., resulting in a length of about 135 feet for the service area. We recommend that the applicant quest P&Z's variation of this requirements since the area shown on the plans is about 35 feet in length and does not abut an alley. The request should provide adequate justification for the area as proposed. "18. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through the property connecting the trail near the Aspen Alps with the Dean Street trail and will include any required ramps for bicycles or other year-round trail facilities in their site plan at the precise plan stage. The applicant will also examine the potential for creating a pedestrian trail connecting to the Aspen Mountain Road within the context of the base area regrading and provide an alignment for said trail if it is found to be feasible." The illustrative site plan shows a trail connection from Spring Street to Dean Street across the base area. There do not appear to be any ramps or other facilities required to implement the trail. The applicant further commits to "an informal pedestrian trail" to the Aspen Mountain Road. "23. The applicant shall disclose at the Precise Plan stage all plans related to the Dean Street right-of-way, including any requests for encroachments as may be necessary." The applicant has disclosed the plans for Dean Street and made an encroachment request of the City Engineering Department for paving, landscaping, street furniture, ski ticket sales booths and skier drop-off parking. Jay Hammond's comments with respect to this application are that the required submittal materials and fees have not been received. The applicant should get together with Jay to provide him the necessary materials. 5 2. Conditions Concerning Building Design: The issues to be discussed in this section are open space (Condition No. 1), visual impact (Condition No. 4), shadows (Condition No. 15), pedestrian gateway (Condition No. 19), snow shedding (Condition No. 16) , FAR (Condition No. 2) and lift building design (Condition No. 12). 111. The applicant shall amend the site plan to provide open space along the length of the Durant Street frontage of the hotel, so as to create a courtyard of at least 10 feet in depth. The open space requirement shall be considered in coordination with rather than in addition to the area to be set aside for the on -site drop-off facility required in condition #7 below." During the conceptual review, we raised a concern that the open space on the site, being at the rear of the building, did not meet the requirement of Section 24-37.(d) that open space be open to the street. By the conclusion of that stage of the review we suggested that the open space along Spring Street could be justified as technically meeting this requirement. Therefore, when the condition was rewritten, reference to the technical requirement was dropped in favor of a simple statement that open space be provided along Durant to create a courtyard effect. When Condition No. 1 was written, we had in mind that the skier drop-off area could be set in the midst of open space, and that the two areas need not result in a total requirement for 20 or more feet of set back. however, we did not anticipate that the drop-off area would be designed to occupy the entire frontage, and would essentially be used instead of providing open space. It is not reasonable to consider the drop-off area as an open space courtyard, and we do not approve of the street image which is created by this proposed solution. In our opinion, there are two distinctly different ways of looking at the open space requirement. If, on the one hand, the building were truly set back from Durant by open space, its impact on the street would be softened, the pedestrian entrance be made more grand, the shadows on Durant might be reduced and a more positive image created for the hotel. On the other hand, the historic character of our victorian town is that commercial buildings front directly on the street, creating active people places on the adjacent sidewalks. Therefore, if we are given a choice between a parking lot and no setback at all, the street frontage might be preferable. Our preference is that the applicant should be made to provide true open space on the front of the site, moving towards (although not necessarily duplicating) the open base area concept advocated by Hans Gramiger, and creating the several complimentary benefits noted above. However, we recognize that this redesign should fall within the parameters of the conceptual approval upon which the applicant has relied in preparing the Precise Plan, and suggest that a reasonable compromise be proposed by the applicant. "4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter Street, and propose any design changes which will reduce obstructions of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations shall be provided at the Precise Plan stage." The applicant has provided a computer simulated view of the building as it will appear from Hunter Street at the Durant and Cooper corners. These simulations are evidence that the critical viewplane from the town to the Little Nell run and Bell Mountain will be preserved. On the other hand, the views shown looking 2 east and west on Durant demonstrate that the building will fill in the one remaining open area along this street, and complete the "walled in" feeling from the Aspen Club Lodge and North of: Nell Buildings. The applicant has provided renderings and elevations of the building on its four sides which I consider to be relatively schematic for this final stage of the review process, although nearly identical in detail to that provided by the Aspen Mountain PUD at the preliminary review stage. It would be helpful if the applicant identified the materials to be used in each location in the building during your review so as to give a better picture of the way the building will truly look. "15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the effects of the building along Durant Avenue and Spring Street, and mitigate the problems caused by the building's shadows for pedestrians crossing the street." The applicant's shadow study states that "Durant Avenue will be in shade for most of the winter. In December, shadows from the Little Nell Hotel will shade the street north of the Hotel all day. By the end of February, most of the driving surface of Durant Avenue will be in the sun from 10:30 - 1:30. The south side of Durant, adjacent to the Hotel, will remain in shade all winter." The applicant's response to this problem is that "a major pedestrian crossing be constructed at the intersection of Durant and Hunter Street." Included in this plan is a neck down of the street to two travel lanes at the intersection. We feel that with Durant acting as a major thoroughfare for downtown, this neck down is ill advised, and will create turning conflicts into the drop-off area. It is also unclear from the applicant's presentation whether the ASC will take responsibility for placing the proposed sidewalk paving materials across the street to indicate pedestrian zones. Finally, it should be noted that the icing problem which now exists from the Aspen Club Lodge and North of Nell Buildings is likely to be repeated on this block as well, causing additional problems for vehicular traffic. The only real solution to this problem would appear to be a major design change in the hotel by either (a) stepping the building back from one story to the next or (b) setting it back much further from the street than has been proposed. "19. The applicant shall make every effort, including working with the City of Aspen, to increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway to the mountain so as to make it a more "grand" entrance in the winter and summer." We do not see any improvements in the plan for either Hunter or Dean Streets which are any more "grand" than the proposal made at the conceptual level. Clearly, the improvements to both streets will make a vast difference in terms of better skier circulation, visual image and functional support of recreation at the base area. These elements of the plan were present at the conceptual level, and are now committed to be paid for fully by ASC, with the exception of the area in "Zone II" on the landscape plan, whose cost is to be shared with other owners having property along Dean Street. "16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techniques to be employed on the roof of the hotel to manage snow shedding to insure that it does not interfere with or endanger pedestrians below." The applicant has provided us with a schematic drawing of the features designed into the building to manage the snow on the roof. The techniques employed include a flat slope on the roof top to retain snow, avalanche guards at the edge of the sloped portions of the roof, use of dormers to protect entryways and use 7 of a flat roof on the arcade to protect pedestrians. In our review of the elevations and perspectives for the building, we see large sloped areas on the roof which appears to be capable of allowing snow to slide beyond the arcade area. We feel that this design problem should be reviewed visually by the P&Z with the project architect. 2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan submission, request a variation of the project's FAR if it is above 1.5:1, since the land zoned Conservation does not count toward the overall project FAR. The applicant may also request special review approval to increase the allowable commercial FAR of the property to 1.7:1 by providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on or off site." The applicant has indicated that the project's FAR is 1.96:1, using the land area zoned CC, and 1.05:1, using the land zoned CC as well as that zoned C. Since the Conservation zone does not allow the hotel or retail uses, we continue to recommend that the same method of FAR calculation as was used for the Aspen Mountain PUD be applied to this project. This rule states that we do not calculate the FAR using land in a zone in which the use is not allowed. P&Z should also note that Ordinance No.2, Series of 1986, eliminates the ability to obtain bonus FAR when off -site housing is provided. Therefore, the applicant should be viewed as requesting an FAR variation from 1.5:1 to 1.96:1, a substantial increase of over 30 percent of the allowable FAR. This variance should, however, be permitted, if P&Z finds the design of the building to be suitable for this site as presented. "12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the new base lifts, demonstrating that these buildings are visually compatible with the base area and that the principal storage area for either chairs or gondolas will not be above grade at the base area." The elevations provided in Appendix 7 include a drawing from the Hunter Plaza, showing the proposed lift building. The lift building should meet the representation made in the Master Plan that it will be a minimal structure, as generally represented by several conceptual drawings provided at that time. Instead, the building has been scaled at 25 feet in height, which seems quite substantial. Further, the sketch provides little detail as to the building design, including no indication of building materials. The applicant has indicated, however, that storage of gondola cabins will be at the top terminal, but that limited "work rail" storage will be at the bottom. This representation should be clarified as we do not know what "work rail" storage means. 3. Conditions Concerning Miscellaneous Technical Issues: The issues to be discussed in this section include geologic hazard (Condition No. 10), grading (Condition No. 5), drainage (Condition No. 22), rights -of -way ownership (Condition No. 20), lift service (Condition No. 3) 8040 Greenline and Mountain View plane (Condition No. 6), pumphouse relocation (Condition No. 11) , employee housing (Condition No. 14) , potential park zone encroachment (Condition No. 17), fireplaces (Condition No. 21), and SPA Boundary Change (Condition Nos. 24 and 25). "10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and shall demonstrate that any hazard posed to the property can and will be fully mitigated. The applicant shall also investigate the soils hydrology in the area to demonstrate the suitability of the site for development purposes." Chen and Associates has prepared a study, contained in Appendix 1, which reviews the geologic hazards to the site. On -site impacts include potentially shallow groundwater, steep slopes and mine subsidence. In this regard, the consultant recommends: o A program of test holes should be drilled and observation wells installed to provide information on groundwater. o A subsurface investigation program should be conducted to provide information on subsurface soil conditions and to analyze slope stability. In this regard, Jay Hammond notes that the regrading and subsurface work on the site will likely require the use of a pile retaining system, adjacent to South Spring Street, which is a difficult construction technique, involving noise and disruption to the neighborhood. Jay would like to see more detailed investigation of the design of this system prior to any construction on the site. More comments on construction impacts are provided in a later section of thismemo. o No action is recommended relative to mine induced subsidence due to the low risk posed to the site. The potential off -site impacts to the proposed development include the potential for flood or debris flow from Copper/Spar Gulch, and Vallejo Gulch. According to Jay Hammond: "Additional information is also required regarding the flood and debris flow risk from the Vallejo Gulch area onto the project site and adjacent sites. Adequate mitigation should be provided to protect the project and any adjacent properties impacted by new grading. Related to the work undertaken by Chen to evaluate the geological hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell redevelopment site is the ongoing effort to evaluate the hazards and mitigation across the entire base of the mountain. To the extent that the Aspen Skiing Company is the major land holder within the upslope source areas and since a failure to mitigate the problems in the upslope area could affect Little Nell and other downslope sites, we would recommend that ASC be required to commit to ongoing hazard study, engineering and mitigation construction in those areas under their control via direct ownership, leasehold, or other usage agreement as a condition of the Little Nell approval." "5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for the earth work which is proposed to occur at the base area, including any activity associated with the base of the new lifts which may fall outside of the SPA boundary, and shall identify the locations for any material deposition which is to occur." The grading plan for the site calls for the creation of a 160 foot flat area between Dean Street and the uphill end of the acceleration wheels on the detachable lift system. The plan indicates that approximately 66,600 cubic yards (c.y.) of dirt will be cut, in the lower potions of the slope and 51,350 c.y. will be filled, in the upper portion of the slope. This leaves approximately 15,250 c.y. of dirt which is not addressed by the plan, with our assumption being that this dirt will be removed from the site. If other plans for the dirt are proposed, these should be disclosed by the applicant. We would also note at this time that the regrading involves a proposed relocation of Aspen Mountain Road, a County Road which is maintained by ASC by agreement with Pitkin County. The applicant should be required to obtain an encroachment permit for road work from Pitkin County prior to initiating any regrading activities. E 22. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan at the Precise Plan stage which meets the standards of the Engineering Department concerning the 100 year storm and which addresses drainage from Aspen Mountain as it affects the site and drainage from the development site itself." Appendix 5 contains the drainage study prepared by Rea Cassens and Associates. The scope of the study was to determine drainage requirements for the site, including those due to runoff from Vallejo Gulch, which appears to flow down the Little Nell, slope and to handle runoff from the development site itself. The City Engineer's comments on this plan are that: "Rea Cassens and Associates has provided a thorough analysis of the various basin impacts from the 5 year and 100 year storms. Conceptually, they appear to be both conservative and in keeping with City policy of detaining major flows and releasing them off -site at historic rates. The site plan, however, does not address the specific location of proposed detention facilities and channels. Precise plan approval should include adequate location and capacity for storm routing and detention. In addition, Basin A-3 on the drainage plan indicates a discharge onto the Alps property. To the extent that this discharge has been increased due to grading or other site activity it should be detained by the Nell developer and released at historic rates." 20. The applicant shall demonstrate in the Precise Plan submission that all questions as to the ownership of the Hunter Street right-of-way are in the process of being resolved, to insure that permanent guarantees of the availability of Hunter and Dean Streets for pedestrian access will be provided. The Precise Plan shall not be approved until the pedestrian access issue has been resolved to the City's satisfaction. The applicant will also demonstrate that the boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted ac- cordingly." We received a letter from Gideon Kaufman indicating that ASC would provide the City with funds to purchase or condemn the west half of vacated Hunter Street and would defend the City's right to acquire this land through condemnation. This matter was taken up by City Council on their regular agenda on January 27, at which time it was decided that the City Attorney should research this matter, and provide the Council with a recommended course of action at their meeting on February 10. When a decision is reached, we will provide you updated information on this matter. As to the Tippler issue, we are informed by the applicant that resolution of the boundary location is proceeding and does not affect the site plan due to relocation of the service yard. However, in a conversation with the representative of the Tippler we were informed that no contact has been made with them by ASC since the conceptual approval. This issue should be resolved by the applicant. 13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment as to how lift service will be provided on Little Nell for special events, ski instructions and for secondary access to Lift 5. The applicant will show the location of all lifts proposed for the base area and will provide a commitment that their installation will be initiated in 1987. The applicant shall be required to specify to the City which lift system is intended to be installed prior to review of the Precise Plan by the City Council, also giving the Planning office approx- 10 imately two (2) weeks to review the proposal and obtain referral comments from other agencies prior to the initial presentation of the Precise Plan to Council." The Master Plan provides two options for the new high speed lifts on Aspen Mountain, as follows: 1. Detachable grip, quad chair, capacity of 1800-2000 skiers per hour, terminating at the top of Tourtelotte Park. Access to Little Nell and Lift #5 is committed to via a midway unload station or separate lift system similar to the present Lift #4. 2. Gondola system, capacity of 1800 to 2000 skiers per hour, terminating near the Sundeck. Access to Little Nell and Lift #5 is committed to via a separate lift system similar to the present Lift #4. We would expect a choice between these two systems to be made and presented to the Planning Office following the completion of P&Z's review. 6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the City's 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane review procedures to the proposed development. Should it be found that either review procedure applies, the applicant will submit the necessary materials at the Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the review criteria of the Code." The applicant has determined that both review procedures apply to the project and included appropriate review materials in Appendix 4. The 8040 greenline review applies to the placement of two lift towers and regrading of the Little Nell slope, and not to the base area construction. We tend to agree with the applicant that this type of development is not the kind which resulted in 8040 review being implemented by the City. Nonetheless, the regrading will substantially change the view of the mountain, will affect the drainage on the site and is affected by the site geology. In general, the benefit to the community of installing the new high speed lift justifies, in our opinion, the regrading which must be accomplished to allow the detachable chair/gondola to gain speed out of the base area. Drainage and site stability concerns are addressed elsewhere. Therefore, we concur with Jay Hammond that there appears to be no problem with the proposed regrading or lift tower construction, subject to appropriate utility relocations, accomplishment of necessary drainage/slope stability investigations and reseeding of disturbed slopes. The Mountain Viewplane issue also does not bring particular concerns. Although the site does fall within the Wagner Park, Cooper Avenue, Courthouse #1 and #2, Wheeler Opera House and Main Street Viewplanes, only the Wheeler Viewplane presents any limitations to the height of the development. Further, due to the existing buildings on the Hyman and Cooper malls, there is no further degradation of the view of Aspen Mountain from the Wheeler due to this project. Although, as Jay notes, if the foreground obstructions were redeveloped and brought into compliance with the Viewplane, there would be an intrusion by the hotel into the viewplane, given its minor nature and its position in the backdrop and not the foreground, this effect is minimal. The Planning Office and Engineering Department recommend approval of the 8040 Greenline and Mountain Viewplane reviews. "11. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to implement said solution at the applicant's cost." The applicant's solution to relocating the pumphouse in Hunter 11 St reet is to install a submersible pump with a remote chlorination station. The City Water Department supports this solution, provided that all plans, equipment and access easements are viewed in advance of any construction. 14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of the project in a manner acceptable to the Housing Authority and Planning Commission. The number of employees to be housed will be determined at the Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commit- ments as part of the growth management plan applica- tion." The applicant's proposal is to house 30 employees, representing 36 percent of the net new employees generated by the project. The Housing Authority concurs with the generation figures submitted by the applicant, and the method by which the employees are to be housed. We would note that the applicant has not. applied for a Change in Use approval for the Holiday House Lodge conversion to residential status. The applicant should submit a letter of application, site plan and drawings of internal configuration so that the adequacy of this facility can be determined. "17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed buildings do not encroach into the land within the Park zone near the Aspen Alps." The applicant proposes no building activity on the property in question. Emergency skier service is proposed through this site, with ambulance pick up on Spring Street. This use would not appear to affect the status of the land in the Park zone district. "21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental Health Department with detailed information on any fireplaces which will be included in the project, demonstrating their compliance with applicable Code provisions." The Environmental Health Department is quite pleased at the applicant's proposed use of "gas log" type fireplaces, which meet or exceed current woodburning device legislation. "24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary change shall only occur in conjunction with final approval of the Precise Plan for the project." This procedure is being followed by the tabling of Ordinance 53, Series of 1985, at second reading until the Little Nell project completes its Precise Plan review. "25. In the event that the growth allocations for the project shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall revert to its prior configuration." This item should continue forward as a condition of approval. B. REVIEW OF APPLICABLE PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE EVALUATION CRITERIA: As noted above, there are six review procedures which need to be addressed in this process. 6040 Greenline, Mountain Viewplane, Change in Use, and Encroachment were addressed above. The purpose of this section is to address the following: 1. Conformance with standards for review of Precise Plan (Section 27-7.7). 2. Conformance with conditional use review criteria (Section 24- 303) . In our review, the following provision from Section 24-7.7 should be 12 0 0 the governing review criterion: " (b) The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the reasonableness and suitability of the Precise Plan, its conformity to the requirements of this article, that the adverse effects of the proposed development have been minimized to the extent practicable,and that it complies with the City Council's intent in originally designating the site with an SPA overlay, including the reasonable conformance of the Precise Plan with the approval granted to the conceptual plan." 1. Conformance with Precise Plan Review Standards. a. Compatibility with Neighboring Development - The proposal is surrounded by other short-term tourist uses. Its height is 40 feet, in compliance with underlying zoning and lower than the North of Nell or Aspen Square. Its FAR of 1.96:1 is well below that of the North of Nell Building and its mass is offset by use of various architectural techniques. Problems noted elsewhere in this memo concern open space, shadows and skier drop-off as they affect this site and the neighborhood. b. Utilities and Roads - The project will upgrade water, sewer and fire service to the area, and provide for detention of stormwater from the site and the mountain and routing to the City's storm sewer. As noted above, we are most concerned that the road system analysis by the consultant discounts the impact of the mountain capacity increase on the City streets, and feel this issue should be more thoroughly studied. C. Environmental Suitability - The applicant has initiated studies of the identified hazards affecting the site. If the recommendations of the consultant and City Engineer, summarized above, are followed, the site appears to be suitable for development. d. Land Planning Techniques - The techniques employed by the applicant include the use of subgrade space for the support services to the hotel and ski area, removal of the maintenance function from the base area, use of stepped back architectural form to preserve the Hunter Street viewplane, provision of substantial open space at the rear of the parcel, and upgrading of Hunter and Dean Streets into pedestrian malls. e. Conformance with Aspen Area Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates this site as "recreation/accommodations", which is intended "to allow for the recreation and accommodation needs of the visitor to Aspen in an area that is especially suited for this because of its unity with, and identity to, the proposed transportation system, the ski area and the central area." The conformance of the project with the Growth Management Policy Plan has been discussed earlier, and will be reviewed again at the conclusion of the Precise Plan review. f. Expenditure of Public Funds - The project does not appear to directly require the expenditures of additional public funds, although there will be costs to the improvement district to upgrade that portion of Dean Street not addressed by the applicant. The applicant will enhance services to the neighborhood in a variety of categories. Issues not adequately addressed at this time include parking and road impacts and associated costs. 2. Conformance with Condition Use Criteria. 13 a. Compliance with Zoning Code Requirements - The proposed use of the property complies with most of the standards of the underlying CC zone district. The proposal strictly complies with the 40 foot height limitation, substantially exceeds the 25 percent open space requirement and provides a front yard of 16 feet, where no setback requirement exists, and provides 116 subgrade and 12 at grade parking spaces where no Code requirement exists. The only variations requested are in terms of FAR, from a Code allowance of 1.5:1 to a proposed 1.96:1; and in the rear yard trash area, from about 135 feet in width to about 35 feet in width. The applicant also requests a use variance to allow the hotel to occupy land zoned C - Conservation. All other uses appear to be in conformance with the limitations of their underlying zones. b. Consistency with Intents and Purposes of CC Zone - The intent of the CC zone is "to allow the use of land for retail and service commercial, recreation and institutional purposes, with customary accessory uses to enhance the business and service character in this central core of the City. Accommodation and residential uses are limited to an accessory status. " Based on this intent, the project is consistent with the intent of the zone in terms of its retail and recreation uses. The accommodations uses, which are the principal use of the property rather than accessory, are more in keeping with the surrounding properties and nearby CL, L-1, and L-2 zone districts. Nevertheless, since this CC property is not located in the central commercial area, but instead is more closely associated with the base of Aspen Mountain and its tourist accommodations, the hotel use can be viewed as appropriate to the site. C. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses - This review criterion has already been covered under the Precise Plan review standards. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Office finds that: 1. The project meets the conditional use review criteria; and 2. There is a substantial amount of material which must be provided by the applicant before it can be demonstrated that the project complies with Precise Plan standards of review. C. SPECIFICATION OF ZONE DISTRICT RBGULATIONS, VARIATIONS PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Section 24-7.6(c) requires that the application specify the zone district regulations and variations which are to apply to the development, while Section 24-7.6(d) requires the provision of a schedule specifying the timeframe of the development. Based on the preceding review, it is clear that several of the zoning district requirements will need to be set following the review by the Planning Commission, including trash area access and parking, and possibly minimum front yard. The proposed uses listed on Page 13-14 of the SPA Precise Plan portion of the application appear reasonable, with the exception that the hotel should continue as a conditional use for the property, to give greater review power over any alterations or modifications which may be proposed after it is constructed (i.e., public hearing is required for substantial modification of a condition use, but not for an SPA amendment) . We would expect to specify the zoning regulations for the property within the final resolution concerning the project. The applicant has provided a construction schedule on Page 18-19 of the GMP submission. The schedule provides for the following: Summer/Fall 1986 - Excavation and structural work for the commercial structure and lower lift terminal, along with the regrading of the Little Nell slope to permit future lift construction/operation. The regrading would be done in such a way as not to disrupt the footings of the existing lift towers so as to maintain the existing Lift #4 in 14 operation for the time being. Spring/Summer/Fall 1987 - Demolish Little Nell complex, complete work at western wing of new complex to provide skier services for the 1987- 88 season, construct new lifts, initiate hotel and commercial construction. Winter 1987/Winter 1988 - Complete interior and exterior of hotel, complete landscaping, sidewalks and plazas. Since the construction site is intended to continue in use for initial skier access and commercial support services throughout the construction period, we feel it is important for us to fully understand how circulation will occur and what the base area will look like during construction. We feel that the applicant should submit both graphic materials as well as a detailed written description of the proposal for the interim base area. The applicant should also be required to demonstrate that the regrading of the slope can be accomplished without disrupting the lift service or otherwise endangering visitors to the area. Finally, in keeping with our approach to the Aspen Mountain PUD, the applicant should be required to provide the Planning Office and the City Engineer with the following materials: 1. Specific design and location of pedestrian barricades and walkway structures. 2. Traffic and pedestrian circulation routes during construction. 3. An agreement on the part of the applicants to properly maintain the barricade and walkway system throughout the course of construction, including repairs and removal. 4. Provision of a plan addressing site access and material and equipment storage areas during construction. 5. Scheduling and design detail regarding utility relocations, replacements and undergrounding. 6. Further detail regarding the limits of excavation, construction easements and shoring needs. 7. Proposed landscaping of areas where demolition is contemplated without immediate reconstruction. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: As noted earlier in this memo, SPA Precise Plan review puts the burden on the applicant to demonstrate the reasonableness and suitability of the project, including the minimization of its adverse effects to the extent practicable, and its compliance with the Council' s intent in designating the site with an SPA overlay. Given the strategic location of this parcel and its crucial importance to the success of Aspen as a resort, we have been most careful to work within the applicable provisions of the Code to try to obtain the best possible project for the residents of and visitors to Aspen. Based on our review to date, we feel that substantial work must be done to demonstrate to the Planning Commission that the project is reasonable and suitable for the site and has minimized its adverse effects to the extent practicable. We recommend that the following work be accomplished during the course of P&Z's review of this submission. 1. The applicant should be required to submit alternative designs to address the skier drop-off problem. 2. The applicant should review the parking and circulation studies with the Planning Commission. If the consultant's assumptions cannot be justified, additional mitigation in terms of parking and roads should be required. 3. The applicant should provide detailed drawings and calculations as to 15 the service area turning radius. 4. ASC should work with its neighbors to develop a design concept for the entrance to the Dean Street Mall and present this concept to the P&Z. 5. The applicant should investigate and present alternative designs for the hotel which provide true open space along Durant Avenue. 6. The applicant should propose ways to mitigate the shading effects of the building on Durant Avenue. 7. The Planning Commission should review the snow retention plan and detailed architecture (including materials) with the architect. 8. The applicant should agree to the requests by the City Engineer with respect to geologic concerns, grading and drainage, and provide the Commission with the necessary review materials. 9. The applicant shall make appropriate submissions with respect to the change in use of the Holiday House, the request to vary the size of the trash access area, and the encroachment licenses. 10. The applicant shall submit the requested materials with respect to the construction at the base area. 11. Other miscellaneous requests and comments made throughout this memo should be reviewed and addressed by the applicant and the Planning Commission. The Planning Office has no final recommendation on the entire application until these concerns have been addressed. AR.5 16 Page Two Little Nell S.P.A. Precise Plan January 20, 1986 per the Chen report. One important construction related concern involves the potential need for retaining structures adjacent to South Spring Street. Additional information is also required regarding the flood and debris flow risk from the Vallejo gulch area onto the project site and adjacent sites. Adequate mitigation should be provided to protect the project and any adjacent properties impacted by new grading. Related to the work undertaken by Chen to evaluate the geological hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell redevelopment site is the ongoing effort to evaluate the hazards and mitigation across the entire base of the mountain. To the extent that the Aspen Skiing Company is the major land holder within the upslope source areas and since a failure to mitigate the problems in the upslope area could affect Little Nell and other downslope sites, we would recommend that ASC be required to commit to ongoing hazard study, engineering and mitigation construction in those areas under their control via direct ownership, leasehold or other usage agreement as a condition of the Little Nell approval. STORK DRAINAGE Rea Cassens and Associates has provided a thorough analysis of the various basin impacts from the 5 year and 100 year storms. Conceptually, they appear to be both conservative and in keeping with City policy of detaining major flows and releasing them off -site at historic rates. The site plan, however does not address the specific location of proposed detention facilities and channels. Precise plan approval should include adequate location and capacity for storm routing and detention. In addition, basin A-3 on the drainage plan indicates a discharge onto the Alps property. To the extent that this discharge has been increased due to grading or other site activity it should be detained by the Nell developer and released at historic rates. PARKING AND CIRCULATION Service Access - Further detail with respect to appropriate turning radii for truck access and egress are needed. Maintaining public parking on the east side of Spring adjacent to the Aspen Club Lodge is a concern as is the limited right-of-way in Spring Street. Skier Drop -Off - The skier drop-off proposed involves elimination of public on -street parking and an unworkable curb line extension adjacent to the Hunter Street right-of-way. We would recommend exploration of alternative designs that maintain on -street public LJ MEMORANDUM I TO: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director FROM: Jay Iiammond, City Engineering DATE: January 20, 1986 RE: Little Nell S.P.A. Precise Plan Having reviewed the above application for precise plan approval of the Little Nell S.P.A. , the City Engineering Department would offer the following comments; UTILITIES Water - Generally, we are pleased with the system improvements and relocations presented by the applicant. We will need to be informed of: Pumphouse Relocation - Conceptually, this does not appear to create problems though the City will need to approve all plans, equipment and access easements to all relocated facilities. Spring Street Line - We would recommend the upsizing of the proposed Spring Street water line to a 12 inch line with a valve at Durant and a valve, plug and kickblock at Ute Avenue to provide for future extension by the City. Nell Slope Line - The City would like to coordinate with the applicant the placement, by the City, of a parallel 6 inch main crossing the Nell slope adjacent to the new 12 inch proposed by the development. Easements - Relocation of water and other utilities will require new easements from the Ski Company. Also, some existing easements will need to be formally abandoned by all utilities currently utilizing them. Electric - Relocation of City electric facilities in the area shall be at the applicant's expense with relocation and equipment design subject to approval by the City Electric Superi- ntendent. Precise plan approval should be subject to further geotechnical investigation to investigate slope stability and groundwater conditions in the areas of the proposed cut slopes and foundation and groundwater conditions in the areas planned for structures • Page Three Little Nell S. P.A. Precise Plan January 20, 1986 parking and revision of the curb design adjacent to the North -of - Nell. Parking - While the parking provided on -site appears reasonable for the needs of the lodge and skier support facilities, we remain concerned about the adequacy of parking for the new restaurants and for the increased skiers attracted to Little Nell by the proposed new lift and general area expansion. Expansion approval by the County required 46 additional parking spaces and some indication of where these are to be located may be appropr- iate. SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The applicant should be required to commit to participation in the Lodge Area Special Improvement District #86-1 pursuant to the representations in the application and appendix 10 as a condition of the SPA agreement. ENCROACHMENTS Despite the representations in the application, we have not received appropriate submittal materials or the fee for encroachment application. 8040 GREENLINE Subject to appropriate utility relocations, as represented by the applicant, as well as reseeding of the revised slopes, we have no particular problems with the proposed regro�ding or lift tower construction under the 8040 criteria. VIEW PLANE Again, we are not particularly concerned about the view plane issue. I would suggest that one of the theories of the view plane was that foreground obstructions may eventually be redeveloped and brought into compliance. Given the distance from the Wheeler and the minor nature of the intrusion, however, we are not particularly concerned. JH/co/LittlerTell2 cc: Jim Markalunas Rich Cassens L, I hereby certify that on this -12�-/—day of 198�, a true and correct copy of the attached No ce of ubl is Hearing was deposited in the United States mail firs class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the aforementioned public notice. JapVt Lynn R$czak 0 • Is PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LITTLE NELL LODGE GMP — PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on February 4, 1986, at a meeting to beging at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Peter Forsch on behalf of the Aspen Skiing Company. The pulbic hearing will consider the applicant's request for Precise Plan Review (since the property is located int he CC zone district with an SPA overlay) and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 96 unit hotel and associated skier support, commercial and ski area administration spaces at the base of Little Nell. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, Ext . 225. s/G Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 16, 1986. City of Aspen Account. '' E '' 0 R A 11, D U 17 'HOUSIIIG AUTHORITY BOARD OF THE P ITK I'_1 COUNTY FROM: AMINE BOIL WAN, HOUSP4G OFFICE RE: LITTLE NELL LODGE GiIP/PRECISE PLAN DATE: JAlUA_RY 10, 1986 BACKGROUND: This application consists of a request for a 96 unit Lo(:ge G7IP quota allotment. Precise Plan review (since the property is located in the CC zone district with an SPA overlay), Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline Review and I ountain Viewplane Review. The applicant states and we agree with the Employee Generation and Housing illustrated as Table 1 (attached) . The anpl icant iroposes to ;souse the 30 employees by converting and deed -restricting the existing Holiday House Lodge located at 127 I7. Hopkins Avenue. The Holiday House is currently a free-market lodge except for 5 lower level rooms 01r12, 13, 14, 15 and 17) housing 10 employees which were deed -restricted to low-income rental in 1981 by the prior owner of the lodge. The 5 rooms or 10 e::1ployees have not been "double -counted" under the applicant's proposal. In total, the Holiday House is proposed to house 56 employees in 28 private lodge rooms at 2 employees per room. Each lodge room will have a private bath and small kitchen. The _private lodge rooms vary in individual sizes, but in total the 28 rooms contain 9,65E net living sn_ace or an average of 172 s.f. of gross area including net living space, storage, laundries, hallways, etc. or an average of 237 s.f. of gross space per employee. On -site amenities include a swimming pool, 2 laundry rooms, ample storage closets, and a small common lobby. Jim Curtis and I did an on -site inspection in December and the Housing Office feels that these are exceptional employee housing accommodations. HOUSING OFFICE RECOMNEIIDATION: The applicant proposes to house 30 of the 34 net new employees generated by .the develop:aent, equivalent to 36 percent of net new employees. Employees will be housed at the I3oliday (louse on 1-7. Hopkins Avenue, to be converted from lodge to housing, and will be housed at highly affordable monthly low income rental prices of about $100 per person.. The Housing Office recommends approval of this application with the followifng deed restriction: The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and occupancy to the rental and sale guidelines established and index:ed by the City Council's designee for low income employee housing units at the time or prior to issuance of the building permit . Verification of employment and income of those persons 1 ivinq in the low income employee units shall be completed and filed with the City Council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date of recording hereof, in the Pitkin Countv Real Property records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the 'Land as a burden thereto for the benef-it of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any appropriate legal action including injunc- tion, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the last surviving -;ember of the presently e,:isting City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus t;;,enty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) vears from the date of recordinq hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be treater. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to quali-tied employees of his own selection. Such individual may be ermDloyed by the Owner, or e:anloyed in Asper./Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the require:ents of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any ,.')erson currently resiaing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minirium average of 30 hours ,-)er week, nine months out of any twelve-month TDeriod, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and then applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. No lease agreement executed for occupancy o% the employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of less than six consecutive-:io;iL When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file shall be maintained on each unit. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman o� the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recordation. 0 • CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen; col�o.r"ada .81611 303-925 -2020 MEMORANDUM fRT" Jgry-9� � I� DATE: January 9, 1986 TO: City Council City Manager FROM: City Attorney RE: Purchase or Condemnation of Vacated Hunter Street Forwarded herewith for your consideration is a copy of a December 26, 1985, letter from attorney Gideon Kaufman expressing the Ski- ing Company's interest in providing funds necessary for the City's acquisition of vacated Hunter Street to preserve the scenic view of Aspen Mountain. The Mayor has suggested that this matter be discussed at the January 13 council meeting. PJT/mc Attachment 6G CC: Planning Director City Engineer Gideon I. Kaufman, Esq. 41 • GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN Paul J. Taddune, 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Dear Paul: LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN Box 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 December 26, 1985 Esquire Street 81611 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 The Aspen Skiing Company fully support the City's desire to purchase or condemn the east half of vacated Hunter Street which would put into City ownership all of vacated Hunter Street and would preserve the scenic view of Aspen Mountain. The Aspen Skiing Company, as an interested member of the public, would provide the funds necessary for the City's acquisition of this land, and would defend the City's right to acquire this land through the condemnation process. This acquisition would culminate many years of planning for the area, and would confirm the City's long standing desire for a mountain view corridor at that location. As you know, in redesigning the Little Nell area, the Skiing Company has maintained the Hunter Street view corridor as a design priority. We believe our design complements the City's desire for the area. If I can be of any help, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Prof 9sional Corporation I By Gideon,'aufman GK/bw cc: Peter Forsch cc: Stuart Greenberger, Esquire CC: Bill Stirling MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman Planning Dept. FROM: Bill Ness Parks Dept. RE: Landscape Development Plan Little Nell DATE: January 9,1986 After viewing the landscape conceptual site plan j believe it to be a big improvement and should fit into the citys overall design.All the plants the architect will be using are indigenous with this elevation.My only concern is,Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the trees along Durant St.,and the snow removal on Spring St.sidewalk in front of the hotel? t • • MEMORANDUM Date: January 7, 1986 TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer SUBJECT: Little Nell Precise SPA As mentioned in the previous memo, what is the ownership status of the "Hunter Street R.O.W." About two years ago, Stanford Johnson applied to the Board of Adjustments claiming he owned this property. He withdrew his application, however, I felt he was looking for a lawsuit. In Zone 2, it appears by this plan that access to the Tippler and Tipple Inn will be affected concerning deliveries and fire access. The plan shows a sidewalk in Zone 1 extended into Durant Street. This skier dropoff and extended sidewalk appears to cut down the intersection drastically. cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official BD/ar Transamerica Transamerica i Title Insurance Compan>� Title Services 1800 Lawrence Street r i� Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 291.4936 ✓ tN' Philip G. Burney Assistant Counsel, Colorado Division December 5, 1983 Mr. Stanford H. Johnson Box 406 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Claim No. 54,016 Pitkin No. 7,301,704 (Aspen Skiing Company) Pitkin No. 7,302,234 (Johnson) Aspen Zoning No. 83-12 Dear Mr. Johnson: Our company has issued its Owner Policy under the second Pitkin number referred to above insuring you as the owner of the following described property: THE WESTERLY ONE-HALF OF VACATED HUNTER STREET, wing southerly of the South line of Durant Avenue in a south- erly direction to the City Limits of the City of Aspen, lying East of and adjacent to Lot I, in Block 97 in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen. We have been advised by Aspen Skiing Company that a zoning application had been filed asserting that your title extended along the entire length of vacated Hunter Street which has been underlined in the above description. However, in issuing our policy insuring the above de- scription, Mr. Vince Higens has indicated that the description iLl such policy was limited to that portion of the westerly one-half of vacated Hunter Street lying East of and adjacent of Lot I which would limit the description to the northerly 100 feet thereof (easterly line of Lot I is 100 feet) . Our company has also issued its policy insuring Aspen Skiing Company as the owner of all of the above described portion of the westerly one- half of vacated Hunter. Street, EXCEPT the northerly 100 feet thereof. Alter receiving the notice of claim from Aspen Skiing Company, the de- scription has again been carefully evaluated by three attorneys who are knowledgeable with respectti-eal property descriptions and has been e- valuated by our company land engineer who is also knowledgeable with respect to real estate descriptions. Mr. Stanford H. Johnson December 5, 1983 Page Two We have concluded that even though there might be a slight ambiguity by wording a description which would terminate with the underlined portion as set forth above, that ambiguity is then resolved by the additional wording which limits the description to that portion lying East of and adjacent to Lot I. Consequently, we have informed Aspen Skiing Company that there is not an ambiguity in the description and that title as in— sured to both owners has been properly described and insured. In the event that any attempt is made to assert any interest other than those set forth above in this letter, we are prepared to actively resist such attempt. P GB /mlb Sincerely, Philip G. Burney Assistant Counsel Colorado Division cc: Gideon I. Kaufman, Esq. Aldo G. Notarianni, Esq. "Regional Building Department Vince Higens v September 15, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Board Members, I am here today as a property owner whose permanent residence is right on the west line of the applicant property. I am also representing, as Managing Agent, the North of Nell Condominium Association and the 57 members of that Association. To explain our position and concerns regarding this application, I would like to bring to your attention certain facts related to this property. 1. In the ordinance dated Oct. 6, 1947 vacating South Hunter Street, Section 2 states " reserving to the City of Aspen at all times the right to construct, maintain, and remove sewers, ditches, open canals, water pipes, and appurtenances, and to authorize the construction, maintenance, and removal of the same therein and therefrom, and subject to the continued right of the owners to maintain and operate existing electric light and power lines, telephone lines, gas mains, water mains, and pipelines". 2. A deed from the City of Aspen to Toni and Ilse Woerndle, dated Feb. 23, 1968, describing this piece of property, which states "subject, however to the easements of the City of Aspen for the construction, maintenance, and operation of electric light and power lines, telephone lines, gas mains, water mains, and other similar pipe lines and appurtenances. 3. An easement dated Oct. 6, 1960 to the City of Aspen to con- struct, maintain, and repair a water line. Although this right is provided for in the Oct. 6, 1947 ordinance, the pipeline goes over other property as well, so all of the affected properties are listed. 4. A deed from the Aspen Skiing Corporation to Daly Construct- ion, dated July 3, 1968. This deed is for the West 8 feet of the Westerly one-half of South Hunter Street, and the North 10 feet of the East 15 feet of the Westerly one-half of South Hunter Street. With this transaction, the owners of the prop- erty sold 950 square feet of a 3750 square foot lot, thereby voluntarily creating a non -conforming lot. At the time this lot was zoned C1, with a minimum lot size of 3000 square feet. The same deed also conveyed "a non-exclusive right of way for ingress and egress over and across the Westerly one-half of vacated South Hunter Street. 5. An easement dated July 13, 1971, from Stanford H. Johnson to the Aspen Skiing Corporation, conveying a perpetual ease- ment over and across the land described in exhibit "c", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for pedestrian ingress and egress between Durant Street and the Little Nell Ski Area, owned by the Aspen Skiing Corporation. The minimum width of said easement is 14 feet." All of these easements and encumbrances are filed in the County courthouse and were either in effect prior to or con- veyed by the applicant when he acquired the property. The City of Aspen, the Skiing Corporation, and North of Nell Condominium Association are all using these easements and intend to continue doing so. Sincerely, Charles H. Hopton DAILY CONST. I CITY 235/670 OF I 3 JULY 1968 ASPEN I 1 9 6/525 1 27 N OV. 1961 , N , I I 12, 1 I ' I I � ' I ' N F HNS N 25 50 � 1 3 J 1971 ' m ' 1D A KI CO ' 25 5 6 l 1 2 ►- L8 9GiR J 14' 1�J GR S . E ' Z) SEM T H BU M T IN AS 0 ' N L 0 T I O I C I ' H N L 35 0 29 LY 68 W GH IN ES 3 ' A D, ES V• R D A SS Til WES , RLY NE- F o V CA 1-I � R TR� ►� w r ca) Lu N i-- ' � U O Lmj W _ I tD !� j I w a o a 6� FLEC. F ♦Rnrl� � 8 ' I ' i VA CA TED' ' WATER DEPT � HUNTER ' EASEMENT STREET 'NORTH OF NELL EASEMENT SKIING CO • ' EASEMENT 1 3 7. 51 3 7.51 MEMDRANDU M TO: Jay Hammond, Engineer Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Little Nell Precise SPA DATE: January 6, 1986 Attached for your review is supplemental materials received from the Ski Company with respect to the Little Nell Precise SPA. Please review this material and return your comments as soon as possible. I would like to remind you that the GMP comments deadline is today, January 6th. memo.l3 r • MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning t1'� SUBJECT: Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan GC�C OWFE JAN - 6 06i JL� � Date: January 6, 1986 This is a complicated application. My comments sometimes will be in the form of a question. First of all, I cannot see where the applicant arrives at 69% open space. It would have helped if the submission included a sheet with the "open space" colored in. In interpreting Section 24-3.7(d), Open Space Requirements, I feel the look should be more like other buildings in the CC zone built in the last 6 or 7 years, e.g. Pour La France/Cantina, Tom Thumb, Ajax Mountain Building, City Plaza Building, Aspen Grove. These buildings have their open space visible and accessible to the street, with the building set to the rear of the lot. I was not around during the writing of the code, but it would seem that intent was being followed by the list of buildings just mentioned. I cannot see where 69% of this lot is open to the street. Open space should abut the street; e.g. Section 24-3.7(d)(3), Required open space shall not be more than four (4) feet above nor more than ten (10) feet below the existing grade of the street which abuts the open space. Granted Section 24-3.7(d)(5) does not require open space drawings until permit stage. Also, Section 24-3.7(d)(7) does not allow commercial activity in open space. Would this include skiing, ski lines, or lift terminals. - The applicant has provided a site plan and legal description. A surveyors stamp will be required for a permit. - Renderings show use of land between the westerly border along Durant Street and North of Nell Building. Is this land still in dispute. Who owns this property? A ticket booth is in this area and it is not shown on the legal description. - Should the Engineering Department verify that the Cooper View Plane is not affected? - It appears that the parking along Durant Street will require encroachment licenses as well as the parking island for the skier drop-off. - The Porte Cochere will be counted in F.A.R. 14 • • - Also with referenced to parking - I am not aware of 14 parking spaces at the Holiday House and would like verification on a site plan. - On bevel 22 I count only 83 (not 85) 8-1/2 x 18 parking spaces. - We cannot tell from the submission the accuracy of the F.A.R. calculations. It should be the applicants responsibility to either provide his calculations or live with the figures represented. Thi- Building Department will be glad to verify F.A.R. figures as they are available. Alan, I will be happy to go over these comments prior to your presentation. cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official BD/ar 1. y @ 3 0 Is JAN - i FA MEMORANDUM Date: January 6, 1986 TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director FROM: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official�- SUBJECT: Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan The following fire, life, safety deficiencies are evident at this stage of the design: 1) Fire Department access to all sides of the building has not been provided, therefore the building must be protected throughout with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 2) Class III standpipes shall be provided as required by building code. 3) A stairway (centrally located) shall extend to the roof, while access via roof hatches is permissible at the other stairways. 4) The atrium area must meet the requirements of the 1982 U.B.C., including a smoke removal system. 5) The fire -safety code discourages day care centers in basement levels. A building permit will not be issued for the proposed child care center as it is currently designed. 6) The north end of the corridor at Level -12 exits into the parking garage, a violation of building code. 7) Any wood roofing material must be fire -retardant, Class B rated. In addition, the developer should be aware of the possibility of an effective building code change. In 1986, the Building Department will be submitting the 1985 U.B.C. to City Council for adoption. The building code in effect at the time of building permit application will be applied to this project. cc: Peter Wirth, AVFD JW/ar u MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director FROM: Jay Hammond, Public Services Director DATE: January 6, 1986 RE: Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission Having reviewed the above application for Growth Management Plan scoring of the Little Nell Base Development, the City Engineering Department would offer the following comments: WATER Subject to the commitments expressed by the applicant to: a. Abandon the Little Nell 12 inch steel line. b. Relocate and reinforce the Little Nell 12 inch gravity line (per t1arky's letter of November 27, 1985). C. Relocate pumping facilities to the snowmaking plant. d. Relocate well control and treatment facilities from the Hunter Street pumphouse into the lodge structure And, subject to the applicant's willingness to assist and coordinate with the City in its installation of an additional line to the Aspen Alps, as well as upsizing of the proposed Spring Street line, we would view the proposal as a substantial upgrading of the area water system. We are currently analyzing some of the additional items above and will be more specific in our recommendation as soon as possible. Recommended Scoring 2 SEWER Based on the development plan, and pursuant to the comments in Heiko Kuhn's letter of November 20, 1985, the plan represents an improvement to the Aspen Sanitation District's system in the area. Recommended Scoring 2 STORM DRAINAGE The proposal. responds to current requirements with regard to on -site detention of storm flows. In addition, it responds, at least conceptually, to the need for upsizing of detention to accommodate potential mud flows and is beneficial to the area in general in that regard. Subsequent information Page Two Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission January 6, 1986 regarding the specific location of detention facilities should be required. Recommended Scoring 2 FIRE PROTECTION The application provides for two new fire hydrants and is responsive to Peter Wirth's letter of November 21. The hydrants are recommended to serve the project and represent a standard solution to the needs of the new development. Recommended Scoring 1 ROAD SYSTEM! TDA's analysis would appear to indicate that the existing network is adequate. We are concerned that traffic generation figures for the winter months may be low anticipating the increased use of Little Nell as a skier access following completion of the Gondola. Generally, however, the road system should be adequate to provide some flexibility in the trip generation figures. Greater concerns resolve around parking and will be discussed later. Recommended Scoring I SITE DESIGN The site plan calls for extensive utility relocation and proposes to place all "propose utilities" underground. We would request some further detail regarding any existing utilities slated for undergrounding. Recommended Scoring 2 PARKING AND CIRCULATION Generally, parking provided for the lodge and base facilities, taken in consideration of a firm commitment to proposed van service, valet parking, employee shuttles, etc., would appear to be adequate. Problems include: a. Elimination of public parking on Durant to accommodate controlled skier drop-off and parking on the site. b. Parking, circulation and service access problems created for the Tipple Inn and the associated bar and restaurant. • Page Three Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission January 6, 1986 We would recommend further work in these areas to maximize public and require private parking. Recommended Scoring 1 JF3/co/LittleNellGMPSub I _!(t ' T�111Si pF cozo 'k- ). RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVE' DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURC 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN DENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-26 January 6, 1986 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Richman: RE: LITTLE NELL LODGE, GMP PI-86-0013 JOHN W.ROLD DIRECTOR We have reviewed the pertinent portions of this application and the general and engineering geology of the area. We concur with the findings and recom- mendations found in the Chen & Associates, and Rea-Cassens & Associates re- ports (Appendix 1 & 5 respectively). The potential problems associated with high watertable and slope instability are resolvable based upon detailed, site -specific design studies as recom- mended by Chen. These studies should be accomplished prior to actual con- struction or grading activities commence. The recommendations found in the Storm Water Drainage Report appear adequate for the water/mud floods anticipated. The observation for the need to update and revise the entire city plan is well taken. In summary, we see no adverse conditions of a geologic nature which should affect GMP approval. The detailed studies regarding slope stability and water table problems should be conducted prior to final approval. Yours truly, Jeffrey L. nes Senior Engineering Geologist bcr:JLH-86-049 G E O L O G Y STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: LITTLE NELL LODGE GMP/PRECISE PLAN DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1985 0 uNA 5- This is to advise you that we have reviewed the Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan, and at this time, we do not have any additional comments. We do wish to reference our letter of Nov. 27, 1985, and note that we have been in close contact with the developer and engineers regarding this project. It has been suggested that the 6" fire main in Spring St. be increased to a 12" for future connection to Ute Ave. We have no further comments to make at this time, except that the Water Department wishes to be advised of any changes in the overall plan and the scheduling of construction work, so we can properly schedule the necessary changes to our operations and construction activities. JM:ab PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Little Nell Lodge GIIP/Precise Plan/Conditional Use NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on January 21, 1986 at a reeting to begin before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at 5:00 P.M. in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Peter Forsch on behalf of the Aspen Skiing Company. The public hearing will consider the applicant's request for a Lodge GHP quota allotment for a 96 unit hotel. Other aspects of the project to be considered include new retail spare, skier support services, and a new lift or gondola, all to be located at the Little Nell Property located at the base of Aspen Eountain. Precise Plan review (since the property is located in the CC zone district with an SPA overlay), and a conditional use permit will also be the subject of the public hearing. 8040 Greenline Review and Mountain Viewplane Review will also occur during the public review process. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, Ext. 225. . C. We-Itol—A lderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December.19, 1985. City of Aspen Account. LS�LSowls D OEM TM ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE • AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925-1220 December 18, 1985 Mr. Alan Richmond 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan, I have had some concern expressed to me by a couple of Tippler Inn condominium owners regarding parking and access off of Dean Street. Their concern stems from the illustrative site plan which shows landscaping in front(north) of their building. It is not our intention to landscape that area or to eliminate the parking. In fact, I think it appears as such due to a some what overenthusiastic artist and was not caught by us until after we submitted our applications. While, I hope we can preserve a pedestrian use of Dean Street, I am not suggesting any public or Aspen Skiing Company use of private property. u s truly, 4e z - Peter Forsch Project Manager PF/dm cc Gary Plumely J.D. Mueller Bill Kane Gideon Kaufman ASPEN MOUNTAIN 0 BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN 0 SNOWMASS 0 BRECKENRIDGE ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM CAAB REVIFW TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 3.D Environmental Health Department DATE: December 14, 1985 RE: Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan The above -referenced submittal has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns. AIR POLLUTION Solid Fuel Burning Devices: The applicant has committed to install only "gas log" type fireplaces in hotel suites and one wood -burning fireplace in the main hotel lobby. This approach is in conformance with policies of this department. The applicant should be commended in this novel design feature to address the fireplace issue. As the result of many air pollution studies which have been performed in the Aspen Metro area, it is well documented that every development, large or small, has the potential to negatively inipact ai t quality. The Aspen Skiing Company's progressive approach to this very sensitive issue should be considered as a model for other future developments to follow. The appl icant has met and/or exceeded thei r requi red compl i ance with current woodburning device legislation. Construction Air Pollution Prior to any demolition of existing buildings, the applicant shall certify through a qualified source that there is no asbestos present in those buildings. Inspection, sampling and analysis of any suspected asbestos materials will be required. If asbestos is present in the buildings, the applicant shall retain qualified asbestos removal personnel to remove the material. It shall be handled as a hazardous waste and disposed of in a designated landfill after the removal plan has been 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 Page Two Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan December 14, 1985 approved by this department and the Colorado health Departm- ent. Colorado Air Pollution Control laws, Regulation 8 Section II.3.4 dictates the nPP(I fnr t-hi c nr-f-inn Further, during demolition and construction the applicant will be required to remove any mud and dirt carry -out onto City streets by vehicle traffic from the site. This soil shall be removed by means of a mechanical street sweeper which will use a water/brush method. The soil contained within the machine shall be re -deposited on the applicants property. Daily cleaning of the impacted streets will be the applicants responsibility. DEMOLITION During actual razing of buildings, the applicant will be required to prevent windblown (fugitive) dust from leaving the property. This control may take the form of spraying the immediate demolition site with water. Other examples of acceptable control techniques include dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site, shrouding the work area, etc. Contact by the project sponsor shall be made with the Colorado Health Department to determine if an emission permit and/or a fugitive dust control plan is required for both the demolition and construction phase of the project. That determination is relative to the estimated emissions which will be generated (tons per year) . Contact Mr. Scott Miller, Colorado Health Department, 222 S. 6th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, or phone him at 248-7150 to inquire about Regulation 1, Section III, D,2,h titled "Demolition Activities" of the "Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards," Revised March 1983. UNDERGROUND PARKING It will be a requirement of this office that adequate air handling facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate any buildup of air contaminants inside the underground parking structures. NOISE ABATEMENT The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen Ordinance 2 series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All demolition and construction noise related activities shall be covered under the maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance. A project of this magnitude can be expected to generate persistent Page Three Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan December 14, 1985 sound levels that may be annoying to the neighborhood. The applicant must be aware of this and be conscious of methods and approach to minimize generation of complaints to this office. Time of day, duration of specific activities and using the most technically quiet equipment are a few mitigating measures that may be involved. If complaints are received, the referenced ordinance will be the governing document used in enforcement. The submittal details plans for a night club to be included in the project. Construction techniques shall be employeed which will not allow sound generated from this facility to exceed the noise abatement ordinance maximum allowable decibel levels. Such sound levels would be measured at the property line. As a point of information, the applicant should also be considerate of guests at the lodge and design the night club to not interfere with their comfort. CONTAMINATED SOIL No evidence of mine dumps or mine tailings being present on the project site are indicated in the Chen and Associates report. However, during demolition, excavation and construction if such soil types are discovered the following shall apply. All suspected mine waste materials shall be sampled and evaluated for Lead, Zinc, Arsenic, Cadmium and other metals commonly found in mine dumps or mine tailings. The sample analysis shall be provided to this office from a qualified laboratory for evaluation. If elevated levels of heavy metals are identified, mitigating measures will be required. Professionally competent people in the field of geology will be required to develop the mitigation plan. SEWAGE DISPOSAL Service to this project of a public sewage collection system as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District is in conformance with policies of this office. This will include installation and maintenance of grease traps as required by the District. WATER SUPPLY Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with policies Page Four Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan December 14, 1985 of this office. FOOD SERVICE All food service establishments shall comply with Colorado Rules and Regulations governing such facilities. This will include not only restaurants, bars and lounges, but also mountain restaurant food storage areas. Proper licensing of these facilities through this department will be required prior to service of food to the public. Compliance with Section 11-2.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled "Restaurant Grills" will also be required. This section addresses the type of cooking devices which can be installed and operated in new or remodeled food service establishments. SWIMMING POOLS/SPAS Swimming pools and spas must comply with the Rules and Regulations governing such facilities as required by Colorado standards. Throughout this review reference has been made to various rules, regulations, ordinances and laws. Copies of all of them may be found in this office. It is recommended that architects under contract to this project become familiar with them during the design phases. TSD/co/LittleNell ME [►DRANDU M TO: City Attorney City Engineer -Y ,Housing Director Aspen Water Dept. Environmental Health Dept. ✓Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Chief Chief Building Official x Zoning Enforcement Officer FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan DATE: December 11, 1985 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Peter Forsch of the Aspen Skiing Company. This application consists of a request for a 96 unit Lodge GMP quota allotment, Precise Plan review (since the property is located in the CC zone district with an SPA overlay), Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline Review and Mountain Viewplane Review. We are referring this application at this point in time although there are additional materials expected from the applicant (e.g., addi- tional drawings to be submitted around 1st of year), which we will provide to appropriate referral agencies at the time they are submit- ted. -Also, please note that we are referring full scale plan sets to a select group of the referral agencies. If other agencies are interested in seeing full scale plan sets, they are available here in the Planning Office. We would appreciate if you would please limit your comments to your own particular area of expertise. If you have any questions as to why this application was referred to you and what comments we may be looking for from you, please contact me. This application is unusu- ally complex and has a great deal of political importance. We, therefore, need your comments on time, and in any case, no later than January 6, 1986. We cannot accept delays in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. ME MORANDU M DEC 2 61985 TO: City Attorney ill City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Hater Dept. Environmental Health Dept. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Chief Chief Buildinq Official Zoning Enforcement. Officer FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan DATE: December 11, 1985 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Peter Forsch of the Aspen Skiing Corpany. This application consists of a request for a 96 unit Lodge G!IP quota allotment, Precise Plan review (since the property is located in the CC zone district with an SPA overlay) , Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline Review and Mountain Viewplane Review. We are referring this application at this point in time although there are additional materials expected from the applicant (e.g., addi- tional drawings to be submitted around 1st of year) , which v e will provide to appropriate referral agencies at the time they are submit- ted. Also, please note that we are referring full scale plan sets to a select group of the referral agencies. If other agencies are interested in seeing full scale plan sets, they are available here in the Planning Office. We would appreciate if you would please limit your comments to your own particular area of expertise. If you have any questions as to why this application was referred to you and what comments we may be looking for from you, please contact me. This application is unusu- ally complex and has a great deal_ of political importance. We, therefore, need your cor:y;1ent.s on time, and in any case, no later than January 6, 1986. We cannot accept delays in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Tifi 5 p. S TMe /-4Srr C0•—SO4-,►,,4TP►- .SfJs 41 ,+r,'3— i " p,coae��NOS- -s�alL i r -/, - /, g. _)--0 , 7) -7 i hi i= (3 './ I , 7, — L- W ! �. S 1 T J ✓ r •� 7` •v L ✓ T C' December 10, 1985 Mr. Peter Forsch Aspen Skiing Company Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Peter: I have completed my preliminary review of the completeness of the Little Nell GMP/SPA Precise Plan submission. I have determined that it is appropriate to send the application to referral agencies for their review. However, I also need additional materials to allow for proper Planning Office review of the proposal. I therefore request that the following be submitted to my office no later than January 3, 1986: 1. A preliminary landscape plan, pursuant to the requirements of Section 24-8.16 of the Code and as discussed by us over the phone. Please specify existing and proposed tree species and sizes, and proposed materials (i.e. types of paving, street furniture etc.) . Your plan should establish the level of commitment you are making, which will eventually be used by the Lodge Improvement District planners to finalize your planting and materials program. 2. A perspective of Dean Street as it is to be improved, indicating grade changes looking toward the lift, what the pedestrian will see looking toward the administration building and the hotel, and how the Tippler patio fits into the circulation in the area. 3. Elevations of the hotel on its south face, indicating the skiers perspective of the building from the base area. 4. A perspective of how the regrading of the hill will look as one emerged from Hunter Plaza up onto the base area from the new steps. 5. A better definition of the building housing the lift machin- ery. As I indicated to Bill Kane this morning, this drawing should be prepared only after a decision has been reached regarding the quad lift versus the gondola, but should be available prior to Council review of the application. 6. Written documentation that the Holiday House Lodge has been and currently is functioning as a short term facility, is regularly rented to tourists and is not used by employees (with the exception of the already deed -restricted rooms) . 7. Floor by floor calculations of floor area for all proposed uses within the project. Please specify areas you believe are exempt versus those which are to be included, and break the hotel count itself into rooms, non unit space and accessory space. 8. Stamped, addressed envelopes for each owner within 300 feet of the site, and a typed list of all addresses, to be kept in the file . Should you have any questions about this requirement, please obtain a copy of Ordinance 52 of 1985 from the City Clerk's Office. Please let me know if we need to meet to discuss any of the above requirements. Sincerely, Alan Richman Planning and Development Director AR/ ne c cc: Bill Kane Gideon Kaufman Jay Hammond Paul Taddune i 1 ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 1E C. F. HOECKFI A. A. A F. LO. ORDINANCE NO. 20 (Series of 1985) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING IJ4D REENACTIPIG ARTICLE VII, CHAPTER 24 OF THE 14UNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SPECIALLY PLAWIED AREAS; AMENDING SECTION 24--2.1 BY IDENTIFYING PUD AND SPA AS ZONE DISTRICT 9,7ER- LAYS; AMETIDING SECTION 24-3.4 TO PR107IDE THAT THE AREA AIR) BULK REQUIREAE14TS OF '. flE PARR Z014E DISTRICT SMALL BE SET BY THE ADOPTION OF AN SPA PLAN; ADDIt�G A NEW SECTION 24-11.3(j) TO PROVIDE FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS SUBMISSION AND PROCESSING OF GMP, SPA, PUD AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS; AND REPEALING A1ID REENACTING SECTION 24-11.1 (b) TO CLARIFY THAT APPLICANTS IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS MAY APPLY FOR LODGE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS WHEREAS, during 1983, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "Council") did direct the Planning Office to evaluate Article VII of the Municipal r Code, Specially Planned Area (SPA); and YJHEREHS, following an extensive review of the regulations as well as the status of properties currently identified on the zoning district map as "SPA", the Council did refer the matter to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission"); and WHEREAS, the Commission did hold a public hearing on July 17, 1984, which hearing was continued to August 7, August 21 and September 4, 1984, to consider Code amendments to Section 24-7 and to identify on a preliminary basis the intent behind having an SPA designation remain on various key sites in Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Commission did adopt Resolution 84-9, recommending that the Council adopt various amendments with respect to the Specially Planned Area provisions of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Council, having considered the Commission's resolution, did adopt Ordinance 29, Series of 1984, empowering the Planning Director to authorize minor changes to sites which have adopted precise plans; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney, in a memorandum to the Planning Director dated January 24„ 1985, did recommend that the Ordinance be returned to the Commission for its review; and 0 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FWX e4 C. V. MOFCKFL !. 0.. L. CO. WHEREAS, the Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing -on the proposed Ordinance at its regular meeting on February 19, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Commission did adopt Resolution No. 85-2, a resolution recommending various additions and deletions to the Ordinance regarding Specially Planned Areas; and WHEREAS, having considered the recommendations of the Commission, the Council desires to repeal. and reenact Article VII, Chapter. 24 of the Municipal Code as set forth hereinbelow. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITSt COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Article VII, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, be and the same is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: "ARTICLE VII. SPECIALLY PLANKED AREAS Sec. 24-7.1 Statement of Intent; Development (a) Specially Planned Area (SPA) refers to those parcels designated on the zoning district map by the overlay "SPA" upon which uses may be permitted and development shall proceed only upon compliance with the requirements of this article. (b) The purpose of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) designation is to: (1) Provide design flexibility for parcels which require innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address their historic significance, there is a potential for community benefit from the parcel's development and the parcel has unique attributes. (2) Allow the integration of mixed use projects on a single parcel of land through the encouragement of innovative design practices and by permitting variations from standard use limitations. (3) Establish a precise plan which provides a detailed land use plan for the entire parcel in question. (4) Establish a mechanism by which parcels upon which there has historically been a variety of uses or parcels which are considered appropriate for multiple uses can be planned and developed in a manner which provides the greatest public benefit. 4 FORM 10 C. F. MOECKEL R. S.. E. C1. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (c) For the purposes of this Article, 'development' shall be defined as any activity which materially changes the use of the land in question, including but not limited to the construction or substantial modification of residential or lodge units, commercial square footage, or other accessory buildings and structures located on the property, the construction or substantial modification of roads, any significant site grading or other earthwork or the installation or substantial modification of utilities. Sec. 24-7.2 Procedure for Designation of Sites as SPA (a) Parcels of land shall be designated with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay or the boundaries of parcels already designated with an SPA shall be adjusted only following the procedures and requirements for amendments to the zoning map described in Article XII of this chapter, and by submitting a conceptual plan for development of the parcel, as described below. (b) Parcels which are designated with an SPA overlay shall also be designated on the zoning map with an appropriate underlying zone (s) , based on the currently available information as to the intended use of the parcel. The underlying zone designa- tion shall be used by the Planning Commission and City Council in their review of any precise plan submission for the parcel as a guide, but not as an absolute limitation, to the uses and development permitted on the parcel. (c) In designating parcels with an SPA overlay, the Planning Commission and City Council shall. make findings as to the unique characteristics of the parcel which justify its designation with an SPA overlay, including how the parcel complies with the intents and purposes of this Article. (d) The removal of an SPA designation from a parcel shall occur in accordance with the same procedures used in designating the parcel with the SPA overlay, but shall leave an underlying zone (s) on the property. 24-7.3 Conceptual Plan (a) An applicant for any site designated, or proposed to be designated with an SPA overlay shall submit a conceptual plan, for the purpose of establishing the objectives which the SPA designation is to achieve. The conceptual submission shall include a statement of the intent and a conceptual description of the type of development which is proposed to take place on the parcel, including but not limited to use categories, overall project density, and design concepts to be employed. The applicant shall consult with the Planning Director as to the submission requirements prior to the submission of the conceptual plan; however as a general guide, it is not intended that the submission go into the technical detail required of conceptual subdivision or conceptual PUD. (b) If a parcel is owned by more than one individual, consent to the application from all owners shall be required before the .application may be processed. 3 0 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves (c) The conceptual plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Following the conclusion of its review, the Planning Commission shall recommend the approval or denial of the conceptual plan to the City Council, including any applicable conditions thereto. The City Council shall review the conceptual plan following the receipt of the recommendation from the Planning Commission and shall grant conceptual approval (including such revisions or conditions as may be appropriate) or deny the plan. The City Council's conceptual plan review shall occur at a public hearing which shall be noticed according to the procedures in Section 24-7.5 below. Sec. 24-7.4 Variations Permitted Within SPA Overlay (a) Applicants shall only be permitted to obtain variations from the zoning requirements of the underlying district or otherwise develop a parcel designated as SPA, by first obtaining approval of a precise plan for the entire parcel in question by following the procedures in this Article. (b) Variations from the following requirements of the underlying zone district may be allowed based on the standards of Section 24-7.6: open space, minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, external and internal floor area ratios, number of off-street parking spaces, use and minimum lot area per dwelling unit. (c) Except to the extent variations may be permitted pursuant to this Article, the application shall demonstrate compliance with applicable zoning requirements of this chapter and subdivision requirements of Chapter 20, if a subdivision is proposed. (d) Applications for development in the public, park, academic or any other zone district listed in Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code for which the area and bulk requirements are to be set by adoption of a plan for a Specially Planned Area shall follow the procedures set forth in this Article. However, no variations shall be permitted from the u.ae requirements of the underlying zone district unless the site shall also be designated with .an SPA overlay. Sec. 24-7.5 Procedure for Review of Precise Development Plan (a) Applicants shall meet with the Planning Director in a pre - application conference at which the Planning Director shall identify the review procedures, submission requirements and evaluation criteria for the processing of the Precise Plan. (b) Following the submission of the application and its certifica- tion as complete by the Planning Director, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the precise plan. Notice of the hearing shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date. Written notice shall be 4 • FORM M C. F. HOECKFI, R. O. a L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves sent by first-class mail to all property owners within the area of the proposed development plan and within 300 feet of the property at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date. Owners of residential multi -family condominium units may be served by mailing sufficient copies of any such required notice (one for each owner) to the record address of their homeowners' association. The applicant shall post a sign meeting the specifications of Section 2-22(c)(3) on the property noticing the public hearing at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date. (c) Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission shall recommend the approval or denial of the precise plan to the City Council, including any applicable conditions thereto. (d) The City Council shall grant final approval (including such revisions or conditions as may be appropriate) or deny the plan after a public meeting; provided, however., that if the applicant is requesting any variations in the use of the property from that permitted in the underlying zone, then the meeting shall be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date. (e) In the case of an application in which a subdivision approval is requested, the review and adoption of the precise plan shall occur at the preliminary and final subdivision stages. (f) Following the approval of a precise plan, the plan (including all conditions of approval and representations of the applicant) shall constitute the development regulations for the parcel until such time as the plan is amended or the SPA designation is removed from the parcel. The precise plan shall be recorded in the Office of. the Pitkin County Clerk and Record and shall be binding upon the applicant and the applicant's successor or assigns, and shall limit and control the issuance and validity of all building permits and certificates of occupancy for improvements thereon. Sec. 24-7.6 Submission Requirements for Review of Precise Plan (a) The application shall reflect the proposed development for the entire ownership and shall indicate all adjacent lands owned or under option by the applicant. (b) The application shall include ten (10) copies of all maps, tabular data and narrative materials described under Section 24-8.9 of the Code as they may apply to the type of development being proposed. The applicant shall consult with the Planning Director as to the applicability of each of these requirements to the project proposal. (c) The application shall specify the zone district regulations which are to apply to the parcel by designating the appropriate underlying zone(s) for the development and specifying any variation requested from the standards of that district(s). 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM A C. V. NOECN EL B. B.. L. C,1. (d) The application shall. provide a schedule specifying the time frame of the development which is to occur on the parcel. (e) Development on parcels which contain lands having slopes in excess of 20% shall comply with the slope reduction require- ments of Section 24-8.18 of this Code and underlying density shall be calculated according to the provisions of that section. (f) The precise plan shall be submitted no later than two (2) years subsequent to the date of the City Council approval of the conceptual plan. The conceptual plan approval for the site shall automatically expire at such time unless application for an extension is made and granted by the City Council. Sec. 24-7.7 Standards for Review of Precise Plan (a) In their review of the precise plan, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the following standards: (1) Whether the proposal is compatible with neighboring developments in terms of use, density, height, bulk, open space, landscaping and other site and architectural design features. (2) Whether sufficient utilities and roads exist to service the intended development (3) Whether the parcel is suitable for the intended develop- ment, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. (4) Whether the applicant has creatively employed land planning techniques such as setbacks, clustering, screening, buffering and architectural design to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environ- mental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. (5) Whether the proposal is in compliance with the Aspen Area General Plan. (6) Whether the development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide services and facilities for the site or surrounding neighborhood. (b) The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the reasonableness and suitability of the precise plan, its conformity to the requirements of this article, that the adverse effects of the proposed development have been minimized to the extent practicable, and that it complies with the Citv Council's intent in originally designating the site with an SPA overlay, including the reasonable conformance of the precise plan with the approval granted to the conceptual plan. (c) The City Council shall only grant final approval to those portions of the precise plan for which growth management allotments, if otherwise required, have been obtained. 2 • 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM to C. F. MOCCKCL B. B. A L. CJ. Sec. 24-7.8 SPA Agreement Upon final approval, the applicant and the City Council shall enter into an agreement (which agreement may be the same as a subdivision agreement) binding the real property to the conditions upon which the precise plan was approved by the City Council and defining such variations from the underlying zone district and regulations and limitations thereto as are set forth in- the precise plan. Sec. 24-7.9 Amendment of Adopted Precise Plan Substantial amendments to the precise plan shall constitute a new application subject to the review procedures outlined in this article and shall only be approved if consistent with the intents and purposes of this article, including the criteria for the review of the precise plan. Minor changes in the adopted precise plan may be authorized by the Planning Director without additional public review, if required by engineering standards or other technical design needs not anticipated during the review of the project. The Planning Director shall follow the standards of Section 24-8.26 in determining whether or not a change is deemed minor. In the absence of an adopted precise plan, an accurate improvements survey of existing conditions may be substituted to permit the evaluation of whether the proposed activity is a minor or substantial change to the site. Section 2 That Section 24-2.1 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen be and the same is hereby amended such -that subsections (21) and (22) read as follows: "(21) SPA Specially Planned Area (Overlay). (22) PUD Planned Unit Development (Overlay)." Section 3 That Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen be and the same is hereby amended such that the area and bulk requirements for the P - Park zone district are set by an adopted plan for a Specially Planned Area. Section 4 That a new Section 24-11.3(j) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen be and the same hereby is enacted to read as follows: "(j) For projects requiring subdivision, PUD, precise SPA plan, zoning, special review or other approval from the City of Aspen, complete applications shall be submitted addressing the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code simultaneously with the submission of applications for a development 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 4 C. F. MOFCNFL B. B. R L. CO. allotment. Zoning applications submitted in conjunction { with development allotment applications shall not be subject to the limitations upon the date of submission and review established in Section 24-12.5 of this Code. All required associated reviews shall be initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission in conjunction with the review of an application for a development allotment. Section 5 That Section 24-11.1 (b) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen be and the same hereby is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: + "(b) Within all zone districts except the L-3, thirty-five (35) lodge or hotel units." Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance 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. Section 7 A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held on the L3t_J day of 1985, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once within a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED published as provided by law of the i City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, on the day of 1985. William L. Stirli g, Mayor ATTEST: ,e Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM %E C. P. MOUKEI R. R. 0 L. fA. FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of /—c�u2� _► 1985. A'PTEST: City Kathryn S Koch, Clerk William L. Stirling, Mayor �' 9 • 0 s RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 9 C. F. NOCCK EI e. e. a 1. CO. STATE OF COLORADO CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF PITKIN I, Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was introduced, i read in full, and passed on first reading at a regular meeting of i the City Council of the City of Aspen on 1985, and published in the As -pen Times, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Aspen,Colorado, in its issue of �� T 1985, and was finally i adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on 1985, and ordered published as v Ordinance No. Series of 1985, of said City as provided by law. IN WITNESS WEEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado this _ ____ day of QZ1985. S E A L Kathryn S.&6ch, City Clerk Deputy City Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1985) A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO THE LITTLE NELL BASE REDEVELOPME11T SPA WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 20, Series of 1985, the Aspen Skiing Company (hereinafter, the "Applicant") did submit a proposal for the redevelopment of the Little Nell base area; and WHEREAS, aspects of the development proposal include a 96 unit hotel, replacement of the existing commercial space, new pedes- trian gateways to the mountain from Hunter and Dean Streets, new base lifts and an expansion of the area designated with an SPA overlay; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission") did hold a public hearing on August 20, 1985 to consider the applicant's SPA boundary change proposal, and did alno hold meetings to consider the base area redevelopment plan on August 6 and August 27, 1985, and did adopt Resolution 85-18 recommending that the conceptual SPA be approved; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "Council") did hold public hearings to consider the Little Nell Ease Redevelopment Conceptual SPA or. September 23, October 15, November 4 and November 5, 1985, and a work session on October 7; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its deliberations the Council did make the following findings: 1. The proposed mix of uses for this site is an appropriate one and meets the intent of its original designation with an SPA overlay. 2. The requested extension of. the boundary of the SPA overlay into the Conservation zone provides public benef it by integrating the planning for the lifts with the remainder of the base area redevelopment plan. The redesignation meets the test of Section 24-7.2 (C) of the Code due to the unique location of the parcel as the summer and winter gateway to Aspen Mountain and the potential year-round recreational benefits. to- the community which can be provided on this site. 3. The Council supports the policy stated in Section 24-11.3 (b) of the "unicipal Code that "City Council may (but need not ) grant a development allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a period of years . . . " and, there- fore, expresses its willingness to consider granting a multi -year allocation to the project upon approval of the applicant ' s precise plan, if submitted. The formal con- sideration of this issue will occur following the scorinri of the applicant's growth management application at the preci_e plan review stage.. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That Council does hereby grant conceptual SPA approval to the Little Nell Base Redevelopment Plan, subject to the following condi- tions: 1. The applicant shall amend the site plan to provide open space along the length of the Durant Street frontage of the hotel, so as to create a courtyard of at least 10 feet in depth. The open space requirement shall be considered in coordination with rather than in addition to the area to be set aside for the on -site drop-off facility required in condition #7 below. 2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan submission, request a variation of the project's FAR if it is above 1.5:1, since the land zoned Conservation does not count toward the overall project FAR. The applicant may also request special review approval to increase the allowable commercial FAR of the property to 1.7:1 by providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on or off site. 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the parking needs of the facility to meet the demands from the lodge rooms, skiers, administrative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities, and shall increase the number of spaces to be provided at the Precise Plan stage. 4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter Street, and propose any design changes which will reduce obstructions of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations shall be provided at the Precise Plan stage. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for the earth work which is proposed to occur at the base area, including any activity associated with the base of the new lifts which may fall outside of the SPA boundary, and shall identify the locations for any material deposition which is to occur. 6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the City's 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane review procedures to • the proposed development. Should it be found that either review procedure applies, the applicant will submit the necessary materials at the Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the review criteria of the Code. 7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an auto -taxi -limo drop-off facility of adequate size for the needs of the ski area, which is in addition to any drop off area for hotel guests. As the Council is concerned about maintaining adequate traffic flows on Durant Avenue, it is expected that the applicant will address the proper location for this facility within the project's property boundary. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 8. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the proposed service yards or. Spring Street and Dean Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been provided for truck stacking and that proper turning movements can be accomplished within these streets. The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental Health Department as to any air and water quality devices which may need to be installed in these areas (and in the parking facility for cars) . The applicant shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler management entities and shall try to accommodate the service delivery reeds of these buildings in a single location off Dean Street. Finally, the applicant shall demonstrate that the service delivery area on Dean Street will not cause safety problems for pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents of the North of Nell, and that the needs of the facility could not practically otherwise be met by a single facility on Spring Street. 9. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle traffic volumes associated with skiers, hotel guests, employees, service vehicles, and visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic problems which will result from the project. The applicant shall also take into account the access needs of emergency vehicles, including, but not limited to ambulances and fire trucks. 10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and shall demonstrate that any hazard posed to the property can and will be fully mitigated. The applicant shall also investigate the soils hydrology in the area to demonstrate the suitability of the site for development purposes. 11. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to implement said solution at the applicant's cost. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the new base lifts, demonstrating that these buildings are visually compatible with the base area and that the principal storage area for either chairs or gondolas will not be above grade at the base area. 13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment as to how lift service will be provided on Little Nell for special everts, ski instructions and for secondary access to Lift 5. The applicant will show the location of all lifts proposed for the base area and will provide a commitment that their installation will be initiated in 1987. The applicant shall be required to specify to the City which lift system is intended to be installed prior to review of the Precise Plan by the City Council, also giving the Planning Office approx- imately two (2). weeks to review the proposal and obtain referral comments from other agencies prior to the initial presentation of the Precise, Plan to Council. 14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of the project in a manner acceptable to the Housing Author- ity and Planning Commission. The number of employees to be housed will be determined at the Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commitments as part of the growth manage- ment plan application. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINIGS 100 Leaves 15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the effects of the building along Durant Avenue and Spring Street, and mitigate the problems caused by the building's shadows for pedestrians crossing the street. 16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techniques to be employed on the roof of the hotel to manage snow shedding to insure that it does not interfere with or endanger pedes- trians below. 17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed buildings do not encroach into the land within the Park zone near the Aspen Alps. 18. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through the property connecting the trail near the Aspen Alps with the Dean Street trail and will include any required ramps for bicycles or other year-round trail facilities in their site plan at th•e precise plan .stage. The applicant will also examine the potential for creating a pedestrian trail connecting 'Co the Aspen Mountain Road within the context of the base area regrading and provide an alignment for said trail if it is found to be feasible. 19. The applicant shall make every effort, including working with the City of Aspen, to increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway to the mountain so as to make it a more"grand" entrance in the winter and summer. 20. The applicant shall demonstrate in the Precise Plan submis- sion that all questions as to the ownership of the Hunter Street right-of-way are in the process of being resolved, to insure that permanent guarantees of the availability of Hunter and Dean Streets for pedestrian access will be provided. The Precise Plan shall not be approved until the pedestrian access issue has been resolved to the City's satisfaction. The applicant will also demonstrate that the boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted accordingly. 21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental Health Department with detailed information on any fireplaces which will be included in the project, demonstrating their compliance with applicable Code provisions. 22. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan at the Precise Plan stage which meets the standards of the Engineering Department concerning the 100 year storm and which addresses drainage fro:: Aspen rountain as it affects the site and drainage from the developmnent site itself. 23. The applicant shall disclose at the Precise Plan stage all plans related to the Dean Street right-of-way, including any requests for encroachments as may be necessary. 24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary change shall only occur ir conjunction with final approval of the Precise Plan for the project. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 25. In the event that the growth allocations for the project shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall revert to its prior configuration. Dated: 2`'�`�n -��'y/ 7 1985. 0 v400� . 0? e-*1 I William L'. Stirling, Mayo I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City. of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held l� �� 1985. Kathryn S . _ ch, City Clerk AR.81 5 II I IIII I I III III Ioil z (IIII I (IIII � I I I I I I � Iltll I (IIII I II -ll IIIII IIIII f f III 11��1 I� II fl I Illfl � I II � II �� I, IIIII I IIIII I I II � II -- v � U z v y ~ w U] C4 G] 44j N A Q O w U O U) C� C D H G E. N U > U) .O w GJ •.U•i H C u Q .+ w �' � & i ca zd c w a row 2 '° aN,v u 0,x vo >o w to.•Ui a a, rn.y�a x r-, 1 15In U 44 (yam •� C U N •p O Gl G! •�•� ro O R� p [a�[yrn u4 0 �• U N CJ 1-i w O ww �••� C!� Ul W O N Gl O+ to a rn sJ �.+ v •'� r� V w N E m r: •.) cp.., ro -4 -4 u v E 4 yq7 Gam. 4j 3 0 w ro U N N Lo W C U yo Q4 Qi ` ro . , ." 0 » u •.-4 c (a -4 ri w U G) (a•H a)W O E p C'+ c� �CWU)a.x ¢mww> Ec..cax a wu z z M a a z 8 a O N a ., N 4 c �f1 Plant List GoMM01.1 I.J6M� Gj 2E Go�lr�, QjoTQ.N I c0i.� >,JaM E G♦alloP-I' T�� a�PEN 2"ca,. 3+,PJ �bPUL•Llc� TAM U r.a I DES GuJMP rfzd�CINJG� t�I.IN�`fly�/b1.11G4 r 1.dtiIGEDL-4Td' GaL. pItE4 PUI.IGEIJ� LOI76E�C7L�i pI �E IxtJC�L6o� FI Iz• 8' ✓aT• � � � �Eutzrr�Uba Ni�IJ�ZII �rol,.,pJGG' a] LM LM L LK FT- ,• OiZIJbNIEr.JTL�L. •?R'F�'i�/ GMU�- rle to gar 46,61Q- (J1+1Na.L� .d-UNIP ewe;-•li.!e Uo-Aa, 2 �`✓ Ma�uti C1 cdr,• pC�U1JuGi �/II�•61+�11(yt.11� �HUt31cWT GC.L• E261� For Goy-�u� �rd�d�IF�R,a ' Go�orzaa.N�l�� po-r ?=emu �u� M �1,aN O cbp-pd 36a- For 4L-P1 -I JM 1 I111i=11 ; 6t- !�T ti"�MPI�OIzI Gdr�poti dLt3U� � u �-I I P 606, yj 66L Far JUNIPet+-o�ti cr+�Nl�Ntilti 20"u-� M71.1 GjpP-Edv IJ b J IJ I.! P6 R- h bG rXY� JIJIJIPEIZOUh GoMMJNIh I-�OVz•IZaNTa�ly MIJw pIIJE 5&A- FtI7 �INU� MUbo MIJ cJ�i �IJI�ecvU�� GRE�pING �iJTIU..p, J (�I„ ,�T �'oTEIJ'TII.Ld ��Iz�a IJ4+.J0 U�oI,•IEGIzop Durant Avenue t K'•iciT;iiT(> Notes la 6u- xI�TI�I� Pl.a�lT M6TEr•ZIaJl�i IN ZoNa ol.g or THE �huNT�rt- aN+� r7P.6� W-• o. W, 4 WILD p•E��vEv al�•� �-�p�a��. 2,zoQF-�7 01-JE WI I.I. 13E bEVe.L cOpev IJl� Tt a 4e4PoN OW11Q(z CUMPpdJ>' dT ?rj Ov/.J eKPEUC4E WITH• I QFUT Pj�o M 1•}-I>; LSriiP L J l�©C7 � riiTREET M+�P�-,�V;IMGNJT dIF?T -IG'f �41 bl�?f •IGT IUi IN �.4G� a-r THE TM� o� r7Erillbl.l. ZoIJE 2 W1�1, �� 17PVEI�pFF,ID lU.lD FUNIrj'I D THE �019b� J�/rTI�-�T M?O/�M1�CI.1T fDI�T-IGT WITH pQ12TIGIPaT0�1 %7-� "I-Ii; �vjPlpla..l r/J�IhJ6 coMP,�N1Y. I►�li?oT�D• (10•PIUI.uJr M4.,MR-16JO WILL, �✓ .E�-�r� r-rzoM T�-IE 4GGoMi31N�INl6 �'-3.dI.1T t,I�T. Stair 40 '14wr OC "f+-Is HUJTt, - G7f'i-E✓T p1.a7d �iTall� WILL. eos CUIIsT TO P T/IDr." />SGG ��'j To T+-I>✓ ��'i OF pG�P�ti! MINI . Pedestrian Trail 4 Tf�ll, F�rirEME.JT WILL. P!?O/It7�J7 47, Tf-IG I�Q� D� 4tiPE�1 I`�T�r To G.LL�nJ pED�IdN ✓�� IG-I'c = �'-cE��• �Go Ta-I>e GIIT� Planters pl./GI.CiEt�-lii dN� l�l.dI.ITINbo! WIU. C!�O�'rEN! 1. or Pat- ?'fP I Gar, MbTgiZl 6.L � Gi . Lighting • �dE�r�-a�, �cal,e �16H-r, l�� (Iz'• 15'� wH1c�+ 1<a GaMPpTa�.� WITH "�E riiuP-�-aJNi>I hIG GDMMLJQ 1,r� WIC, Wf$o hi:.aulary. -F+ �-- Ticket Kiosks ��., • 'I G��cT hG�jl�Cq 1M'f lGl-+ 411�J0 �/l riP-'�/Pi �GJ l'�IJ�jI.IG (n I.1 PDWVI4TI Owl �t-IOC/ l�Gj JJ LL. ?�E �tjl,J LT. W cz— Plant Material MU1e�-1aL. ii12Eti �� 'I't-t� 4�cOMPXat.J`1'�IJb I��T I�I�>T. �'�.� NU•r LOGGTFiD 1jJ pla•IJTF.� Of=- �I (jNTI+J� Paving GoI.J G R-�T� GDN GP-2TG GOI C411-jT OP p,�1;-h OPC6M FII.II�H 4N�D P'��/1 N 6 4ytz•IG 4 OV rp' /�, Seating nNc�e� ol= W I La. I3 I�OGaTI1::2N44. REVISIONS Project 701 Drawn By Checked By Scale 1'=30' NORTHIIIIIIIIIIJ I� 0 15' 30' 45' 755 Date Issued for 12-18-85 - GMP/SPA Landscape Development Pla 4