HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20171107
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
November 07, 2017
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. October 24, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Aspen Skiing Company, Pump Booster Station; 8040 Greenline Review
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 15, Series 2017
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
1
Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the October 24, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Mr.
Keith Goode, Mr. Spencer McKnight, Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury and Mr. Skippy
Mesirow.
Mr. Ryan Walterscheid and Mr. Rally Dupps were not present.
Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jessica Garrow, Director of
Planning and Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. Mesirow wanted to thank Mr. Jesse Morris, who decided to resign, for his positive, wonderful work
on the commission.
Ms. Tygre feels it is a good time for the City to address the slush pits that form on every corner during
the winter. Ms. Garrow will touch base with engineering and let them know for the yearly detailed
plans.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Garrow stated the P&Z Commissioners from the Town of Breckenridge will be in town the next
week and wanted to see if Aspen’s P&Z would be interested in a meeting with them. She suggested
options for the meeting and it was decided a breakfast meeting on Friday, November 3rd would work
best. Mr. McKnight and Ms. Tygre agreed they could attend.
Ms. Garrow then introduced Mr. Garrett Larimer as the City’s new planner tech for the department.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were none.
MINUTES
Mr. McKnight motioned to approve the October 3rd minutes and Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the
motion. All in favor, the motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – 488 Castle Creek Rd – Major Public Project Review
Mesirow opened the hearing and noted for the record and audience that he observed parking had been
a recurring concern with recent applications before P&Z so he researched parking alternatives. He found
some interesting material and will provide information as part of the discussion for the hearing. He
added this effort in no way indicates he has an opinion on the application.
Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to staff.
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
2
Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, stated this is the final of three projects the City is working on as part of a
public\private partnership to create affordable housing within Aspen. She stated significant outreach
has been conducted over a six-month period for each of the projects and as part of the refinement,
Council indicated the density at the other sites should be reduced and this site should be considered for
additional density. Each project was further refined based on the outreach.
She noted this project is located on Castle Creek Rd near Aspen Valley Hospital, Castle Ridge affordable
housing, Marolt Ranch employee housing, Health and Human Services, hospital housing, and Whitcomb
Terrace. The project is also adjacent to the Marolt Open Space and within walking distance of a We-
Cycle station and the Castle Creek bus station.
She then provided the following details of the project.
· 2 lot subdivision
· 35,895 sf for both lots
· Currently vacant
· Zoned R-15A with a Planned Development (PD) overlay
· The PD limits the subdivision to three single family residences
The applicant is proposing the following.
· Rezone the subdivision to Affordable Housing (AH) with a PD overlay
· 28 units: 18 1-bedroom units and 10 2-bedroom units
· 29 parking spaces including one per unit and one guest parking space
· 3-story building with a consolidated 4-story element along the side facing the Marolt housing
· 2-story building along the Castle Creek Rd side of building
· Bike parking and maintenance areas
· On-site storage
Ms. Seminick stated the application is part of a Major Public Project Review which is a consolidated
review process. She explained the project review dealing with the massing, floor area, height and site
programming reviews is combined with a detailed review dealing with landscaping, architectural details
and the refined elements of the project. The project also falls in the 8040 Greenline area. Additional
reviews include rezoning, growth management, design standards and subdivision. She noted Council has
the final decision on the project. She added the 60-day statutory-required review process does not apply
to the City’s application.
Rezoning
Ms. Seminick then discussed the rezoning review. She stated staff finds the application meets the
applicable review criteria and supports this request noting the compatibility with surrounding zone
districts. She displayed a map showing neighboring properties and their zoning noting extensive AH
projects close to the project including Castle Ridge, Water Place, Twin Ridge, Aspen Valley Hospital
(AVH) AH and Marolt Ranch employee housing. She pointed out the project is on a transit line and
within easy biking distance of the City’s core. She added the AH zoning is scattered throughout town to
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
3
reinforce diverse housing and provide protected areas for affordable housing. She provided another
picture of affordable housing locations with the City and the urban growth boundary (UGB).
Planned Development Review
Ms. Seminick stated this review considers the dimensional requirements of the parcel. She displayed a
matrix showing dimensions as proposed, existing and a similar zoning of the Residential Multi-Family
zoning (RMF) as shown on p. 16 and 17 of the agenda packet. With regard to this project, the maximum
allowable floor area is approximately 22,500 sf. The suggested floor area for a parcel of this size is
approximately 28,000 sf. It is also well below the maximum allowable floor area of the RMF zone
district. The project is proposing allowable deck area of about 7,000 sf to allow each of the units to have
some degree of outdoor space. This amount is also well below the allowable threshold amount
allowable. In regards to the maximum height which as measured along the Marolt Employee Housing
facing side would 45 ft 8.75 in as measured from a finished elevation. The height along Castle Creek Rd
will be 32 ft. The proposed 29 parking spaces is below the 38 spaces required by the RMF zoning. Staff
does have concerns with the parking as well as the mass and height of the structure.
She noted the applicant has requested 10% flexibility in the floor area, deck area and open space design
which is well below the allowable thresholds.
Parking Review
She stated parking can be set through the PD process, which is a Council decision. Recent code changes
to combine and coordinate transportation and parking impacts have been considered by Council. The
City has transformed the process to focus on the promotion and expansion of mobility options taking a
more comprehensive look at transportation solutions instead of just parking solutions.
She stated while the number of spaces may be appropriate for the site, there are still some unmitigated
transportation impacts of which staff is concerned. Staff is proposing three options to ensure full
mitigation of the transportation impacts.
1. Explore shared parking options with the urban growth boundary or nearby facilities such as the
nearby Health and Human Services lot.
2. Provide additional transportation impact improvements such as better pedestrian and bike
connectivity facilities.
3. Cash-in-lieu for the required parking
Mass and Height Review
She stated Staff has concerns regarding the proposed height of the structure on the side facing the
Marolt housing. Staff supports measuring from finished grade noting this is a triangular shaped parcel
that has not been manipulated since the 1950’s. A lot of fill has been placed on the site likely associated
with the construction of Castle Creek Rd so this site has been in its existing condition for almost 70
years. The code typically measures the height from the more restrictive of the finished or natural grade
helps prevent over-manipulation of the existing site. The finished grade is used on sites with similar
issues including AVH, the Aspen Club, and Lift One Lodge.
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
4
She stated staff’s concern is limited to the fourth floor, noting again the site programming is in direct
response to the public comment. The applicant has pushed back the four-story element to reduce the
appearance of massing from the Castle Creek façade. The project considers a balance of how all three
housing projects balance the needs of the community and respond to neighborhood context and
feedback received. As units were removed from the other two projects, they were captured in this
project. The applicant has taken steps to minimize the fourth-floor impacts, but staff continues to have
concerns for this element. If P&Z shares these concerns, there are four options for P&Z to consider as
included on p 26 of the agenda packet under staff’s recommendation.
Trails and Landscape Review
Ms. Seminick noted some of the issues identified in staff’s memo have since been resolved. At this point,
the project proposes the following.
1. A multi-modal connection to the Marolt bike path includes a semi-improved path
connecting the walk-out units down to the Marolt bike path
2. Methods have been identified to preserve a cottonwood tree staff previously had concerns
regarding its preservation and the elimination of a new sidewalk along Castle Creek Rd.
8040 Greenline Review
Ms. Seminick stated a very small portion of the property is located above the 8040 Greenline as she
pointed to on a site map. Staff finds the application meets the applicable review criteria.
Growth Management Review
Ms. Seminick noted with affordable housing, there is no annual limit. The unit sizes averaged 7.6%
below the minimum net livable area. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) reviewed the
project on October 18th and approved the reduction in net livable for the project.
She stated the categories have yet to be identified so the applicant can respond to community need.
Because this is a community project, there are no restrictions on what the units be designated. This
project is seeking assistance from a tax credit program which would require the units to be rental for the
first 15 years and then there is a potential for ownership.
Residential Design Standards (RDS) Review
Ms. Seminick stated this project is subject to the RDS to ensure street presence and a public-private
relationship between the development and the street. She stated the project met all but one of the
design standards. It needs a variation for the principal window standard for five of the ground floor
units. This is a flexible standard which allows for a variation when the intent is met. She added there are
plenty of windows on the street facing façade and the taller and narrower windows are responding to
the interior programming which includes mud rooms or kitchens exist. Staff supports the variation to
the standard.
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
5
Subdivision Review
Ms. Seminick stated the applicant would like to merge the existing two lots into one. The new lot
conforms with the underlying zoning and dimensions and meets all the criteria for a major subdivision.
In closing, she reviewed the main discussion points staff would like for P&Z to address. She stated staff
recommends approval with conditions.
1. Dimensions, specifically the height in the four-story element
2. Parking as presented for the project
Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of staff.
Mr. Goode asked if Council directed the expansion of the project. Ms. Seminick replied it would be best
if the applicant replied to his question. Ms. Garrow stated the applicant team did meet extensively with
Council before the application was submitted and there were comments from the neighbors on all three
projects which led to modifications to the projects such as reduced bedrooms.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the other projects are conditional to this one. Ms. Garrow replied no, but stated
the applicant team can respond to the question more appropriately.
Ms. Tygre asked staff to explain a multi-modal connection. Ms. Seminick replied this type of connection
addresses bikes and pedestrian forms of transportation. As multi-modal path is eight ft in width instead
of a standard sidewalk width which is six ft. This allows for two passing uses at differing speeds and
widths on the same path.
Mr. Mesirow asked if staff’s suggestion to work with AVH is a suggestion or is there something more
there already. Ms. Seminick replied it is just a suggestion at this time. Ms. Garrow stated it is similar to
staff’s recommendation on the 517 Park Cir project where it was suggested the applicant work with
Pitkin County regarding parking. She added Council approved this project last night and noted the
language had been expanded to look for expanded parking within the urban growth boundary. Staff is
suggesting the same for this project.
Mr. Mesirow noted his understanding was the public outreach was well lauded for the other projects
but wanted to know if the public outreach for this project was different in any way. Ms. Garrow replied
it would be appropriate for the applicant to respond.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for additional information regarding measuring from the finished grade and
the disruption previously mentioned. Ms. Seminick replied the code has two ways to measure height. It
is from the finished or natural grade depending on which the way that is most constrictive. In this case,
there is a finished condition of a triangular site built up in the middle. The applicant has provided
information to identify an interpolated grade showing the more natural condition before it was
disturbed based on old aerials or old topo information. The applicant was able to identify the condition
prior to the 1950’s which was prior to the construction of the road. Staff feels measuring from the
finished grade will ultimately be perceived more important than measuring it based on the property
conditions from 1950. Ms. Garrow noted other similar sites that have been disturbed or are greatly
sloped have approvals measuring the height from the finished grade.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
6
Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Jason Bradshaw, Aspen Housing Partners and Mr. Adam Roy, Method 1 Planning and Development,
were present to represent the applicant, which is a partnership between the City and Aspen Housing
Partners.
Mr. Roy then reviewed the history and background of the property noting the location and neighboring
properties. He had a picture of an existing driveway to the property and noted the bench structure of
the property. Additional views of the property were provided showing views of the property from
multiple angles.
He then displayed the improvement survey as it exists today and pointed out the flat bench and the
steep slopes down toward the boundaries of the property. The intent has been to minimize the
disturbance of the bench.
He then provided a picture of the area and described neighboring properties.
Mr. Roy noted the property was acquired by the City in 2007 through the housing fund with the intent of
developing affordable housing. In 2012, a broad strategic analysis identified the need for 657 units with
the urban growth boundary over the next ten-year period. In response, the City conducted more specific
outreach in 2015 including all three properties currently in the process of being developed. The
takeaway from this suggested long-term housing of roughly 24 units, primarily one bedroom, dormitory
style, one-to-one parking and possibly employer participation. In response to this, the City put out an
RFP in 2016 resulting in the selection of Aspen Housing Partners. The property is being developed with
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LITHC) program which reduces the overall capital and operational
requirements the City would have to carry by itself. He noted the LITHC is one of the most successful
affordable housing programs in the country. The City has used LITHC for other projects including Aspen
Country Inn, Truscott and Maroon Creek in part or all.
He then displayed a project plan and described the public outreach and noted the time spent on
outreach. He noted between the open houses, there was quite a bit of time slated for neighborhood and
stakeholder outreach. He wanted to note this because there was not a lot of direct contact with the key
stakeholders in the area. There was a little communication and one face-to-face meeting with a
neighbor. A few comments were received on the website and a few letters or emails directed to the City
that were then forwarded to the project team.
He then reviewed the key takeaways from the commentary and the open houses which included over
500 participants overall.
· Strong support for rezoning and development
· Request to explore potential density increases against the constraints of the site
· Review the architectural style which some felt was too modern and progressive for the area
· He noted there is a parallel trails project and he noted there were suggestions to coordinate
with the group on the consistency with the project and possible trail projects.
· Potential life and safety concerns raised regarding traffic and the location of the property on a
sweeping curve.
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
7
He provided a slide showing the design progression through the five plus month outreach and the
check-ins with Council. He then reviewed the iterations of the stories, units, parking as well as mass,
scale, coloring and style. They ended up with a 28-unit project, 29 parking spaces with a mix of three
and four stories.
He then displayed a current site plan and noted the access comes off Castle Creek Rd on grade. There
are ten parallel parking spaces along the boundary adjacent to Castle Creek Rd and 19 additional head-in
parking next to the building. A key consideration in the design is maintaining the vegetative buffer on
the property boundary adjacent to the road. They are proposing to enhance the buffer beyond how it
exists today. The parking will be four-five ft below the base of the buffer. He pointed to a sculpted green
area for bike parking and some private courtyard patios for the lower level units.
Mr. Roy then displayed the floor plans. First, he showed the main level consisting of five one-bedroom
units and three two-bedroom units. All units have one bathroom per bedroom, 75 sf of non-unit
storage. The second-floor plans have similar dimensions and storage. He displayed typical floor plans
showing an open floor plan, ample lighting, lots of windows and outdoor decks and patios.
Mr. Roy then displayed elevations, architectural renderings from the different aspects for the project.
Mr. Roy then displayed a map showing the use and zoning within the context of the area noting the
applicant feels the rezoning is compatible with the area.
Mr. Roy then displayed a matrix showing density measures of comparable multifamily properties
including the following. He noted the proposed project falls within a reasonable comparison of the
projects.
· Number of units
· Units per acre
· Bedrooms per acre
· Parking per unit
· Parking per bedroom
He noted the nearby affordable housing projects and stated this project is more dense than them but
less dense than other projects located throughout the city. If you look at total unit count or total sf of
the projects, this project is less than them.
1. Marolt seasonal housing
2. Castle Ridge
3. Twin Ridge –located in Pitkin County
4. Water Place
He stated the average density in the area is 12.9 units per acre. The projects density is 24 units per acre.
If they maintained the 28 units on land the same as those with 12.9, the size of the property would be
three times what it is now. In order to make this happen, the project would have to occupy 2.2 acres of
what is predominantly open space as a graphic example. Sometimes a denser project lends itself to
preserving open space.
P7
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
8
Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of the applicant.
Mr. Mesirow feels there are two critical ways to look at density, one is the impact to open space and the
environment or units per acre and two, the impact regarding the living conditions or number of units
per sf. He then asked if they have numbers on his second method. Mr. Roy responded they have not
made this calculation but suspect the unit is smaller and would be more efficient from floor area
construction standpoint. He added the goal was to create a balance between a livable environment for
the tenants and the environment. Mr. Mesirow feels the information requested would be interesting
going forward.
Mr. Mesirow asked for more details on the public outreach. He believes all three projects went through
the same outreach, but there are a lot of folks attending the hearing suggesting the outreach wasn’t as
effective as it was for the other two projects. Mr. Bradshaw stated the same process was pursued for all
three sites. He feels one difference experience with the Park Cir and Main St sites versus the Castle
Creek Rd site was there were more constructive comments on what they would like to see instead of
what was being shown. There were fewer comments on the Castle Creek site and less focused on what
would be acceptable and more about a critique of what was shown.
Mr. Mesirow asked about the makeup of the those responding. Mr. Roy replied it was a much broader
area and comments were received from submitters located all the way up Castle Creek Rd and on to
Little Annie’s Rd. There were more breakout meetings with stakeholders on the other projects resulting
in changes to the them. The same outreach efforts were made for each of the projects. He suggested it
may have been this way because it is a broader area.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there is a recommended standard for guest parking. Ms. Seminick
responded the code does not specify anything.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the applicant has any insight into possible parking at AVH or another location. Mr.
Bradshaw stated the same topic came up with Park Cir and the applicant is open to reaching out to
surrounding locations including hotels or other facilities with excess parking. The applicant is hesitant to
guarantee these options are available at this time or for the length of time necessary.
Mr. Bradshaw wanted to clarify in the prior hearings may have indicated a predetermined number of
units, but this is not the case. They started with an independent view of each of the sites and the
changes at each site was based on the public outreach received.
Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment.
Mr. Dick Butera, Castle Creek Rd, feels P&Z has protected the natural and manmade treasures safe from
the ravages of progress including the Marolt property. He comes before the board with 55 years of
experience in developing subdivisions across America. He explained how came to live in the Castle Creek
Valley. He feels it is a treasured resource with constant threats, most that were repelled by prior P&Z
and County commissioners. He feels threatened by the current proposal and wanted to pose questions
to P&Z. He continued stating the City paid $5.4 million 10 year ago for the site which a little over .5 acre
usable or 24,000 net usable space. This represented a $2 million profit in 10 months for the previous
owner.
P8
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
9
1. Density - He said this is equivalent to a density of 51 apartments per acre which would be a
record in Pitkin County or anywhere to Denver.
2. Parking - He believes when it is snowing there will not be 28 spaces available.
3. Density – The employee housing units across the road average six units per acre with 1.8 parking
spaces per unit.
4. Fill – The applicant has determined there is four to five ft of fil on the site which must be
removed below the buildings. The code states you can’t build on fill.
5. County Boundary – The property shares a boundary with the County. The zoning on the County
side is one house per 10 acres. He then quoted from the Polices Management Growth
Community and Economic Sustainability section of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)
stating ‘Urban density should be located within the commercial core of Aspen and appropriate
increases in density should only occur if they result in the preservation of land in the proximity
of the urban growth boundary through TDRs or other land use tools’. It goes on stating ‘protect
the visual quality of neighborhoods by minimizing site coverage, mass and scale’. The applicant
is requesting relief in site coverage, FAR, height, parking and the fees.
6. Lease – The lease to the developer is $10 per year for 40 years. The lease also states if the
developer is short of capital, the City will put up the difference. He estimates this to $9 million.
The City will lend this to the developer at less than two percent for 40 years.
7. Financial Statement – It states the cost will be $14,922,000 for the project which doesn’t include
the cost of the land. He feels the cost is $20,322,000 or $725,000 per unit which doesn’t include
any cost overruns.
He questions why so many units are being placed on this property at such a high cost.
Ms. Kristi Ferraro, attorney representing members of the Castle Creek Caucus, stated she reviewed the
application on their behalf and has identified several challenges and concerns with the application and
staff’s recommendation. They disagree with staff’s findings the review standards have been met.
1. Standards regarding compatibility with the neighborhood – She does not believe staff has
considered the Marolt open space, urban growth boundary and rural 10 acre zoning just across
the County border.
2. With respect to review standards requiring they support Community Goals – staff mentions the
project meets goal related to transportation and housing but does not consider other
community goals such as those called in Joe Well’s letter such as concentrating density in the
commercial core and maintaining the rural nature of Aspen near the urban growth boundary
and its borders with the County.
3. They believe the project is not sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood.
In closing, they ask P&Z to look very closely at the application to see if it really does meet all the review
standards per the land use code. They ask the board to consider all the surrounding areas, full
neighborhood context and all the stated community goals.
Mr. Mesirow asked if she had any communication from the people she represents as to why they sent
her rather than show up at the public outreach meetings. Mr. Butera claimed he did not receive any
notice because he lives in the County. He added the nature of his neighbors is that they are not here a
lot. Ms. Bryan added her review of the notice for the hearing appears to be proper.
Mr. Joe Wells, Castle Creek resident and coordinator of the Castle Creek Caucus, mentioning his letter
previously submitted which was included in the agenda packet. He noted he has no problem with
P9
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
10
affordable housing on the site. He is concerned with the height, density and the parking solution. He
stated he attended the site visit today.
He does not think it is reasonable to dismiss the fact the building is being built on fill just because it’s
been there for 70 years. It is obvious it will have greater impact if built on the fill instead of the natural
grade.
In regards to density, he tried to compare it to several surround affordable housing projects. He used
the gross acreage of the sites because he did not have slope reduction information on the other sites.
His calculations indicate 34 units per acre. Castle Creek Ridge project is 9.6 units per acre, Twin Ridge
project is 3.83 units per acre and the Water Place project is 6.5 units per acre.
He is concerned in order to get the amount of parking proposed, the site is being developed right up to
the property line with no setbacks. In his letter, he suggested perhaps tenants could be prevented from
having cars since it is a rental project. He hopes they pursue opportunities to get some of the parking
offsite or other methods to allow for a buffer on the site.
Ms. Karen Ryman, Twin Ridge resident for 27 years, wanted to note a couple of items. In regards to
shared parking, she knows the neighboring lots have signs posted stating no parking for anyone other
than their customers. She stated the hospital claims their parking lots are full. She met on an ambulance
program last week which is also sliding in parking. She does not believe the project can rely on parking
at neighboring facilities. She is concerned where the snow will be placed because they have to have it
hauled away from their project at times. She believes all who live in employee housing have side jobs to
be able to live which requires visitors. The project does not allow enough parking for this and many
places will have two cars. She does not feel the entrance has good sight lines both ways and will cause
additional traffic. She stated she attended the site visit today, noting the planners were there, but no
one attended from P&Z. She asked why P&Z members did not attend the site visit, were you working or
interested.
Mr. Mesirow asked that she not impugn the entire commission for not attending the site visit. She
responded the commission is her representatives in her government. Mr. Mesirow responded they take
their roles very seriously.
Mr. John Wallach, Twin Ridge resident, noted Twin Ridge is single family homes and affordable housing
condominiums. He feels the whole project fed to the commission and everyone else has been sugar
coated. He attended the first outreach meeting where amount of parking was way out of line and at the
next meeting, they reported not much was said at the previous meeting. He does not feel the project
allows enough space for snow storage or service vehicle parking or turn around space. He noted one
trash company refused to work for Twin Ridge because of they could not turn their trucks around. They
now use smaller trucks. He stated parking at the neighboring properties is not an option and believes
more people will drive than ride a bus. He also feels the average density is bazaar. The zoning requested
is 25-30 times more dense than the zoning approved in 2004. He does not feel it is worth it.
Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant or the staff to clarify the plan for snow removal. Ms. Garrow stated
plowing on a private development will be a private agreement. She noted Burlingame is another private
location and plowing is dealt with by the HOA. Mr. Roy stated snow storage is an item in the review
criteria. He pointed out areas on a site plan designated for snow storage. He added if there was a large
snowstorm, like most parking lots in town, there could be some hauling of snow.
P10
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
11
Mr. Mesirow asked about for clarification about delivery trucks. Mr. Roy pointed out a designated
hammer-head turnaround spot for delivery trucks.
Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked to look at the broader neighborhood context as it relates to density if easily
available. Mr. Mesirow noted P&Z could mentioned for Council to look at further. Ms. Garrow replied
staff could look for one to display now while deliberations continued.
Mr. Mesirow stated in reviewing this project, it is not inconsistent with the other projects reviewed by
the commission and felt comfortable with the other projects. He wished the public outreach would have
been more effective. He wondered if folks were out of town. He viewed the feedback from the outreach
requesting more density instead of less and now he is hearing for less at this hearing. He would say
those that were not at the outreach meetings missed an opportunity. He feels they need to pass on
recommendations to Council going forward.
Mr. McKnight agreed with him and personally does not have much sympathy for those who are not in
town enough to be part of the discussion. Tonight, he feels the commission needs to make
recommendations to Council so as much information is available as possible for their decision. He loves
the idea of the project and we should do whatever we can to do to find employee housing. He feels
regardless of where employee housing is proposed, people are not going to want it there. He added he
not unsympathetic to the public comment but struggles identifying the real issues. He understands the
parking, but wonders if the density issues are a community or personal issues.
Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Tygre about a City project bordering the County since he has yet to see a project
with this since he joined the commission. Ms. Tygre replied the density of the county is not all that close
because they are not within 300 ft. She is not sure the best method for defining the neighborhood. She
feels Mr. McKnight made a good point. She doesn’t’ recall anyone wanting the Twin Ridge project going
in when it was proposed.
Mr. Mesirow asked the others if they have a concern with the density. Mr. Goode feels the comment
made regarding having the density in the core was a good point but at the same time, doesn’t feel the
proposed buildings will be in anyone’s face or the back yard. He feels it is a good project, but is
concerned with the negative comments this late in the process. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels there are
competing goals for this property and while all valid, how does the City address the 657 unit deficit if we
say no to projects that help reach the goals. For her, she feels there are elements to this project that are
very good and perhaps it is a good candidate for underground parking. She is not sure if this has been
considered for this project. She feels the commission sees these projects a bit late in the game and is not
sure how feasible it is to change the project.
Mr. Mesirow agrees there are competing needs between housing, density, massing and parking that are
fighting with each other. He feels if there are ways to increase the density of parking, it could reclaim
land for open space, allow for additional units. He feels there are parking systems readily available that
allow for automated, two-layer parking. When he looks at this property from a bird’s eye view, he sees
equal land between units and parking spaces which makes the statement the car is as important as the
P11
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
12
worker which he feels is wrong. He suggested passing along alternative parking solutions be considered
and what could be done with the reclaimed space is up to Council.
Ms. Tygre responded this is a good suggestion. Although she is generally in favor of the project, the main
problem is the parking, which impacts the density. When looking at the impacts to the neighborhood,
the height is not an issue from Castle Creek Rd. She walks the existing path and does not think the view
from the Marolt housing will be that much either. This project will not be anywhere near the
supermarket so a car will be needed. Even if parking was available at Health and Human Services or the
hospital, she does not feel that would be a good solution either. She feels if the parking can’t be
addressed, you can’t have the density in this particular project. She suggested alternative solutions be
evaluated such a car-to-go that are specific to this project or parking lifts. She also thinks it’s important
to allow space for deliveries.
Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any other areas to make recommendation.
Ms. Garrow then provided a map of the City zoning in relationship to the Greenline, City boundary and
urban growth boundary. She noted in much of the county, it is zoned single family. She added staff will
look into providing additional information regarding density to Council for their consideration.
Mr. McKnight feels it is time to look into other parking solutions. Parking has been an issue with every
project that comes before P&Z. He feels it would be good to get these issues in front Council and to
everyone who showed up tonight, he suggested them to do their research and provide the information
to Council in advance so they are not hit with it at the meeting. It is challenging to digest the information
if it is dropped on them at the hearing.
Mr. Mesirow stated there has been a tremendous amount of public outreach for this project and while
these projects are never perfect, but input is best received from the public members instead of sending
a lawyer. Mr. McKnight also suggested they come in with solutions and not just the complaints.
Ms. Garrow noted staff failed to list 8040 Greenline and Subdivision as two of the review, so they need
to be added. She continued stating based on P&Z’s conversation, where items in section two are listed
to be completed or reviewed by Council, she suggested adding to bullet four or add bullet five to explore
alternative parking solutions which could include a subgrade garage, other parking storage, or additional
TIA improvements such as car-to-go. She noted based on past conversations with the Transportation
department, there is a car-to-go at the hospital and they probably will not want to see one added to this
project, but they may be open to adding an additional car at the hospital. Mr. Mesirow would like to see
something specific to automated parking solutions added. He asked for a review including, but limited to
a car stacker system allowing for double height parking be added to the resolution. Ms. McNicholas Kury
asked if this effort would be to achieve parking spots on site or to achieve additional density. Mr.
Mesirow feels this will evaluate the use of the land.
Ms. Garrow suggested using a new bullet (#5) stating to explore alternative parking solutions including a
sub-grade garage, parking storage including but not limited to a car stacker system and additional TIA
improvements such as car-to-go.
Mr. Roy clarified this additional language is a supplement to what is already there with respect to their
understanding, the project is parked per code and they have the ability to pay a fee-in-lieu along with
other TIA requirements. Ms. Tygre stated she would personally hate to see cash-in-lieu used.
P12
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017
13
Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 14, Series 2017 with the stated amendments. Ms. Tygre
seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr.
McKnight; yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes; for a total of five (5) yes votes and zero (0)
no votes. The motion was approved.
Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. All in favor, motion passed.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P13
IV.A.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
MEETING DATE: November 7, 2017
RE: Aspen Skiing Company, 8040 Greenline Review for a new pump booster
station associated with snowmaking operations.
APPLICANT:
Aaron Shaffer
Aspen Skiing Company
PROPERTY OWNER:
The City of Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon,
BendonAdams, LLC
LOCATION:
Street Address:
Aspen Mountain Rd, uphill from the
Gondola station
Parcel Identification Number:
2737-182-00-801
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
The parcel is located in the
Conservation zone district and
contains a City of Aspen
underground water tank and
associated infrastructure, including
a pump station for Aspen Skiing
Company snowmaking operations.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicants are requesting to
construct a booster pump station in a
new 400 square foot building
adjacent to existing water facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve
an 8040 Greenline Review to allow for the construction of a 400
square foot pump booster station for Aspen Skiing Company’s
snowmaking operations; subject to conditions.
SUMMARY:
Due to a City of Aspen Utilities requirement that the snowmaking
pump station include backflow preventers to better protect City of
Aspen water resources, the proposed booster pump is necessary to
maintain adequate pressure in the system. The new pump equipment
is proposed to be housed in a 400 square foot building adjacent
(uphill) to an existing building. The pump house will be less than 15
feet in height.
Figure 1. Location of project
The site for the proposed structure is located on City of Aspen property
adjacent to an underground water storage tank.
Source: City of Aspen GIS.
Project Location
Gondola
Station
P14
VI.A.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following review:
• 8040 Greenline Review (26.435.030) The 8040 Greenline Review standards ensure that development
in the review area is subject to heightened scrutiny to reduce impacts to the watershed and surface
runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rock fall and mudslide
and aid in the transition of forest and recreational land uses to urban uses. Additionally, the standards
work to minimize disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features and reduce visual impacts.
Please refer to Exhibit A, Review Criteria and Staff Findings for discussion.
BACKGROUND:
Since 1980, Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) and The City of Aspen have had an Agreement for Purchase
and Sale of Water related to the use of uphill pumping of water for the purposes of snowmaking and other
uses at ASC facilities. Included in the agreement is language specifically regarding the site for the proposed
booster station that is the subject of this review.
To provide improved protection to the City of Aspen’s water system, the water department required that
ASC’s pump station install a backflow prevention device within the pump sytem. When this device was
installed, it had the effect of reducing pressure to the snowmaking system to the point that the system would
not operate properly. The backflow preventer was removed and ASC was temporarily allowed to continue
to operate the system with check valves – which do not allow the same level of protection to the City of
Aspen’s water system. The proposed booster pump would provide the necessary pressure to the system
once the backflow prevention device is installed.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
The proposed booster pump will be housed in a new structure adjacent to the existing ASC pump house.
The existing pump house is approximately 1,100 square feet and is located downhill of an underground
water storage tank. The proposed booster pump house will be 400 square feet in size and will be located
between the existing pump house and the water tank. Its location is primarily determined by the need to
connect to existing water piping, and to meet dimensions required by the Aspen Water Department and
Holy Cross Energy.
Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan
The proposed booster pump station
(depicted in green) lies just uphill of an
existing, and larger ASC pump house.
Figure 3 – Proposed Elevation
Booster Pump House
P15
VI.A.
The footprint of the new building will be 20 feet x 20 feet in size and will be just less than 15 feet in height
to the ridge of the roof. The proposed design sinks the uphill side of the building into the hillside. The
lower portion of the structure will be built from insulated concrete block. The upper portion will be finished
with metal panels. The new booster pump house will be roofed with asphalt shingles. Exterior materials
will be grays, light browns and desaturated greens in color with the purpose of the building blending into
the surrounding landscape and vegetation.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The 8040 Greenline Review Standards are meant to establish heighted requirements for development within
the 8040 review area. These standards work to reduce the exposure of development to increased hazards
related to steep slopes – including avalanche and mud flows. Additionally the standards are meant to protect
the watershed from erosion caused by development on steep slopes and to limit the visual impact of
development on the hillsides above Aspen.
Review by City of Aspen Planning, Engineering, and Parks Staff has determined compliance with these
standards. The site has been evaluated for mud flow and avalanche hazard. It is located adjacent to existing
development and has access to an established road. Efforts have been made to reduce the visual impacts of
the new structure. Please see Exhibit A for staff findings on the specific criteria.
As an additional note, prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2016, this project would have
also been subject Mountain View Plane standards in addition to the 8040 Greenline standards. As a result
of changes implemented by the new ordinance, view plane standards now only apply to development
located below the 8040 Greenline review area. Consequently, this project is solely being reviewed though
8040 Greenline standards.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
In the review of the project by Engineering and Parks Department Staff, two issues outside of the 8040
Greenline Review Standards were identified and warrant consideration of the following proposed
conditions of approval.
First, in the original Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water, Section 3 provides that ASC (Aspen Skiing
Company) “may use up to 900 square feet of real property adjacent to these tanks…” (for the pump house
and related facilities). Combined, the existing pump house and the proposed booster pump house will be
approximately 1,500 square feet. To correct this difference and to include a clause that the facilities will
revert back to City of Aspen in the circumstance that ASC no longer needs the pump station, an amendment
to the water agreement is necessary. City of Aspen Utilities and Engineering, and the Applicant are
supportive of an amendment of this nature. Staff recommends the following condition:
“The Applicant shall work with City of Aspen Utilities Department to complete an amendment to
the 1980 Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water that corrects the square footage actually being
utilized by ASC and includes a reversion clause in the event that ASC no longer needs the facilities
on this property.”
Second, the proposed location for the new booster pump station is dependent on the siting of existing
infrastructure, and required dimensions established by Holy Cross Energy and the City Utilities Department.
Unfortunately, the proposed location places necessary excavation and construction within the dripline of a
large Aspen tree. The Parks Department is concerned about the potential impacts of the project on this
large Aspen tree and will require a tree dripline excavation permit. Staff recommends the following
condition:
P16
VI.A.
“The Applicant shall work with City of Aspen Parks Department staff to minimize potential impacts
to existing trees on the site, particularly in the critical root zone. A tree dripline excavation permit
will be required as part of the building permit process.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve 8040 Greenline Review for the construction of a new, booster pump station, subject
to two conditions stated above.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. ____, Series of 2017, approving 8040
Greenline Review to construct a new pump booster station, subject to two conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Application
P17
VI.A.
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. XX
(SERIES OF 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
BOOSTER PUMP STATION ON ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD, A METES AND BOUNDS
PARCEL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2737-182-00-801
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
BendonAdams, LLC., on behalf of Aaron Shaffer of the Aspen Skiing Company requesting 8040
Greenline Review for the construction of a new booster pump station located on a City of Aspen
property on Aspen Mountain Road; and,
WHEREAS, The Applicant has submitted a letter from the City of Aspen verifying City
of Aspen ownership of the parcel and authorizing Aspen Skiing Company to apply for and obtain
necessary land use approvals; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Engineering and Parks Departments reviewed the
application and provided referral comments; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of the 8040 Greenline Review for
a new booster pump station; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public
hearing on November 7, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meet either applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution XX, Series of
2017, by a XX to XX (X - X) vote, granting approval of 8040 Greenline Review, as identified
herein.
P18
VI.A.
DRAFT
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1: 8040 Greenline Review
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the development of a new booster pump
station via 8040 Greenline Review as depicted in the attached Exhibit B and subject to the
conditions in Section 2.
Section 2: Conditions of Approval
As an outcome of referral comments from the Engineering and Parks Departments, the following
Conditions of Approval are required:
1) The Applicant shall work with City of Aspen Utilities Department to complete an
amendment to the 1980 Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water that corrects the
square footage being utilized by ASC and includes a reversion clause in the event that
ASC no longer needs the facilities on this property.
2) The Applicant shall work with City of Aspen Parks Department staff to minimize
potential impacts to existing trees on the site, particularly in the critical root zone. A tree
dripline excavation permit will be required as part of the building permit process.
Section 4:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 5:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
P19
VI.A.
DRAFT
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on November 7, 2017.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
____________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Full legal description of property
Exhibit B: Site plan and elevations of booster pump station
P20
VI.A.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT A – Legal Description
SUBDIVISION: M/B ASPEN, SECTION: 18 TOWNSHIP: 10 RANGE: 84 OLD WATER
TANK AT THE BASE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PARTS
OF THE BETSY JANE LODE USMS 3623 THE HOMESTAKE LODE USMS 4634 THE
BIG CHIEF LODE USMS 4237 THE MILLIONAIRE MILLSITE USMS 3620B
LOCATED IN THE SW4 NW4 SEC 18-10-84 BGNNG AT THE SE COR OF THE
ANTHONY ACRES SUB FROM WHICH THE ASPEN TOWNSITE COR NO 9 BEARS
N 15 DEG 30'E 797.50 FT & N 74 DEG 25'15"E 41.77 FT TH S 8 DEG 00'W 489.39 FT TO
THE SLY LINE OF THE TR DESC BK 46 PG 467 TH ALNG SAID SLY LINE N 41 DEG
16'W 408.00 FT TH N 2 DEG 20'W 149.90 FT TO A PT ON THE ELY LINE OF A TR
DESC BK 190 PG 110 TH ALNG THE ELY LINE OF SAID TR N 33 DEG 28'30"E 125.00
FT TO A PT ON THE SLY LINE OF SAID ANTHONY ACRES SUB TH ALNG THE
SLY LINE OF SAID ANTHONY ACRES SUB S 74 DEG 30'E 284.75 FT TO POB
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL LAND LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESC
BOUNDARIES BGNNG AT A PT ON THE SLY LINE OF ANTHONY ACRES SUB
SAID PT BE N 74 DEG 30'W 150.75 FT FROM THE SE COR OF SAID ANTHONY
ACRES SUB FROM WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE COR NO 3 BEARS N
15 DEG 30'E 797.50 FT & N 74 DEG 25'14"E 41.77 FT TH S 33 DEG 33'59"W 12.02 FT
TH N 79 DEG 52'45"W 85.84 FT TH S 63 DEG 26'03"W 17.11 FT TH S 38 DEG 18'17"W
74.20 FT TH S 15 DEG 24'24"W 83.40 FT TH S 16 DEG 44'29"W 62.69 FT TH N 02 DEG
20'W 132.90 FT TO A PT ON THE ELY LINE OF A TR DESC IN BK 190 PG 110 TH
ALNG THE ELY LINE OF SAID TR N 33 DEG 28'30"E 125.00 FT TO A PT ON THE
SLY LINE OF ANTHONY ACRES SUB TH ALNG THE SLY LINE OF SAID
ANTHONY ACRES SUB S 74 DEG 30'E 134.00 FT TO POB.
P21
VI.A.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT B – SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION
P22
VI.A.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION
P23
VI.A.
Review Criteria and Staff Finding
Exhibit A
C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one
hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth
below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development
considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the
possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain
hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where
necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
Staff Finding: One of the primary concerns in the 8040 review area is mudflow hazard. The
applicant has worked closely with the City of Aspen Engineering Department to evaluate
this risk and has provided a stamped letter from an engineer (John Mechling with CTL
Thompson, Exhibit C) that states that mudflow hazard is not of concern in this area.
Additionally, the City of Aspen’s Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and
has no concerns with the other issues addressed in this criteria. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
Staff Finding: The applicant will work with City of Engineering staff to mitigate any potential
concerns by adhering to the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in
the City.
Staff Finding: The proposed booster pump house does not adversely affect air quality in the
City. The pump utilizes electric power and no back-up diesel generator is proposed. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the
terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Staff Finding: The proposed booster pump house is the minimum size necessary to
accommodate the required equipment. It is clustered with existing structures in an area
that has been utilized for water storage and related equipment since the 1980s. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation
and natural land features.
Staff Finding: The proposed building is minimal in size and clustered with existing structures
to reduce new disturbance to the terrain. The site is accessible from Aspen Mountain Rd.
P24
VI.A.
and no new access will be necessary for the construction. The proposed structure and
required excavation will potentially require disturbance in the dripline of an existing tree.
A proposed condition will be included in the resolution to require excavation procedures
and construction techniques to limit impact to existing trees in the vicinity. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Staff Finding: The building is proposed for a location adjacent to an existing building. The
new building will result in minimal or no impact to the scenic qualities of Aspen Mountain.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into
the open character of the mountain.
Staff Finding: The building, at 400 square feet, is as small as possible to accommodate the
necessary equipment. The height of the building is just less than 15 feet at the ridge of the
roofline. The proposed exterior colors of the building are designed so that the building
blends into the landscape and surrounding vegetation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Staff Finding: The applicant has worked with City Utilities in the design of this project.
Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are in place to provide necessary service to the
proposed pump booster station. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained.
Staff Finding: The site is accessed by Aspen Mountain Road and can additionally be reached
by snowmobile or a snow cat during the winter season. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Staff Finding: The site provides access for fire protection and snow removal. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the
proposed development, to the greatest extent practical.
Staff Finding: The Parks Department reviewed the project and raised no concerns in regards
to this criterion. The proposed project creates no new impact to trails or open space. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
(Ord. No. 55-2000, §7; Ord. No. 3-2012, §8)
P25
VI.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 14, 2017
Updated July 21, 2017
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Aspen Mountain Booster Station
Ms. Garrow:
Please accept this application for 8040 Greenline Review for the development of a water pump station
associated with snowmaking on Aspen Mountain.
The parcel is owned by the City of Aspen and accommodates significant municipal infrastructure including
a large underground water tank and structures housing a pump station for municipal water service,
electrical equipment to regulate water pressure, and various equipment related to water service. The City
and the Aspen Skiing Company entered into a water purchase agreement in 1981 which contemplated the
Aspen Skiing Company developing additional snowmaking capacity on the City property.
This booster station will increase pressure to the existing ASC pump station. The additional pressure is
required due to the City of Aspen water department requiring a new backflow prevention device on the
existing pump station, prior to this requirement there was no backflow device. When the backflow was
added in 2016 the pressure that is received at the point of delivery from the 1 million-gallon tank was not
sufficient to get enough volume through the backflow and to the pumps, thus not allowing the system to
operate. The COA water department allowed ASC to go back to check valves for the 2016/17 ski season,
this is how the system was operated from original construction, with the requirement that ASC resolve the
issue before the 17/18 ski season. This booster station is the result of this requirement and is the only
way to provide the adequate pressure that is required to operate the snowmaking system.
The Aspen Mountain water tank was first installed in the early 1980’s to supplement potable water service
to area residents and snowmaking needs of the Aspen Skiing Company. This tank replaced a smaller, older
tank which was eventually removed in the 1990s. Reference to an 8040 Greenline approval by the City’s
Planning and Zoning Commission was included in a staff update to the Commission in 1981. There does
not appear to be a P&Z Resolution for this initial approval and the approval may have been by voice vote.
An exemption from 8040 Greenline was granted in 1994 for a drain line to address routine tank overflow
problems. The City’s tank is buried and has little visual impact. The various existing outbuildings blend
with the surroundings.
P26
VI.A.
Aspen Mountain Pump House
8040 Greenline
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The proposed location of the pump house is above the 8040 Greenline (approximately 8,100 elevation)
and is therefore subject to the 8040 Greenline Review. The review criteria are addressed below. The
proposed location is beyond (uphill of) the applicable area of the newly adopted view plane regulations.
The proposed pumphouse building is just under 400 square feet
with a height of just under 15 feet to the ridge. The building will
house the pumps and controls that must be protected from the
elements. Constructed with insulated concrete block on the lower
portion with metal wall panel above and a low-pitch asphalt shingle
roof, the building has been designed to blend into the hillside and
surrounding vegetation.
An initial design for this building used a separate retaining wall uphill
of the building. The current design sinks the building into the
hillside, partially burying the uphill side. Exterior materials will be
grays, light browns, and de-saturated greens in color.
Review Standards:
26.435.030.C 8040 Greenline review standards. No development
shall be permitted at, above or one hundred and fifty feet below the
8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes
a determination that the proposed development complies with all
requirements set forth below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located is suitable for development considering its slope,
ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence
and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic
solids, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the solids
or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
Response – The applicant’s civil engineer is working closely with the City Engineering Department to
identify and mitigate any hazards that result from the proposed pump house. The parcel is already
developed with maintenance facilities. A survey with slope analysis is included in the application. The
applicant will continue to work with the City Engineering Department for drainage and foundation
design.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed,
runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
Response – The applicant’s civil engineer reports that known geologic hazards will be mitigated to City
standards and measures will be taken to minimize erosion. Please refer to May 31, 2017, memo from
Chris Lehrman of SGM Engineers.
P27
VI.A.
Aspen Mountain Pump House
8040 Greenline
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City.
Response – The proposed pump house does not adversely affect air quality in the City. It is electric
power with no diesel back-up that would impact air quality.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain
on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Response – The proposed pump house is the smallest size practicable and is designed to blend into
the environment. See criterion 7 below for description of The pump house will utilize the existing
access road.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and
natural land features.
Response – any grading associated with the small 400 sf pump house will minimize disturbances to
the terrain and vegetation.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and
grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response – The proposed pump house has been sited near existing buildings to minimize visual
impacts.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the
open character of the mountain.
Response - The proposed pumphouse building is just under 400 square feet with a height of just under
15 feet to the ridge. The building will house the pumps and controls that must be protected from the
elements. Constructed with insulated concrete block on the lower portion with metal wall panel
above and a low-pitch asphalt shingle roof, the building has been designed to blend into the hillside
and surrounding vegetation. Exterior materials will be grays, light browns, and de-saturated greens in
color.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development.
Response – This has been coordinated by the City Utilities Department with the goal of facilitating
better water pressure for the on mountain snowmaking.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly
maintained.
Response – The proposed pumphouse building will utilize an existing access road that is property
maintained. Additional traffic is not expected to be generated by the pumphouse.
10. Adequate ingress or egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate
access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Response – Adequate ingress and egress
P28
VI.A.
Aspen Mountain Pump House
8040 Greenline
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed
development to the greatest extent practical.
12. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the existing
structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt
from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%).
Response – There are a variety of structures on the property, including a water tank, sheds, and
storage. This property is not a typical development that is processed through the 8040 Greenline
process. The structures and development on the property are specifically related to ski operations
and are an anomaly for floor area calculations within the Land Use Code. The proposed shed
(shown in the aerial and below) is less than 25% of the size of the water tank (circle at bottom of
aerial), and is also within the 10% requirement of the cumulative total of existing sheds, storage
and other ski industry related improvements on the property.
The Aspen Skiing Company was planning to install this facility this summer/fall in preparation for the
2017/18 ski season. This timeline has now been delayed until the 2018 building season. We look
forward to discussing this application with you and assisting with this decision. Please let us know if
there is any additional information that is needed or if a site visit is desired.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments:
1. Application form
2. Pre-Application summary
3. Agreement to pay form
4. HOA compliance form
5. Authorization to represent
6. City of Aspen proof of ownership and authorization to apply
7. 1981 Water Purchase Agreement
8. May 31, 2017, Chris Lehrman memo
9. Survey
10. Vicinity Map, Floor plans, Elevations
P29
VI.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 2 – LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Location:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone #:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply):
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ______________
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements – including Written Responses to Review Standards
3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be
submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference
summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use
GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
Special Review Subdivision
Conceptual SPA
ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane Final SPA (&SPA
Commercial Design Review Lot Split Amendment)
Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Conditional Use Other:
Aspen Mountain Booster Station
Aspen Mountain Road, Aspen CO
Parcel ID# – 2737-182-00-801
Aaron Shaffer; Aspen Skiing Company
PO Box 1248; Aspen, CO 81612
970.923.8736
BendonAdams
300 So. Spring St. #202
970.925.2855
Municipal water storage tank and associated utility infrastructure and buildings
Addition of a pressure booster pumphouse of approximately 400 square feet.
2,275
Exhibit 1
P30
VI.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: ______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________
Location: ______________________________________________________________________________
Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________
Lot Size: _______________________________________________________________________________
Lot Area: _______________________________________________________________________________
(For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water
mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal
Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________
Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________
Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________
On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
% Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
% Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________
Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________
Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________
Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________
Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Aspen Mountain Booster Station
Aspen Skiing Company
Aspen Mountain Road
C - Conservation
2.5 Acres
2.5 acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
~1,000
0'
10-15'
0
~20%
~7,775
25'
25'
n/a
n/a
+400
0'
15'
0
n/a~80%
~100'
~25'
~125
~0'
n/a n/a
100+ from so. lot line
30'+ from no. lot line
n/a
30'+ from east lot line
100'
30'
n/a
30'~100'
~100'
<10'
30'
n/a
n/a
30+ from west lot line
n/a
n/a
Property is substandard size ; existing shed on east property
line is within setback. Setbacks based on south lot line being
the only lot boundary adjoining a street (A. M. Road) and
therefore the front.none.
P31
VI.A.
ASLU
8040 Greenline and View Plane Review
273718200801
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Jessica Garrow DATE:4/13/17
PROJECT: Ski Facility water pump house
REPRESENTATIVE: Aaron Shaffer, Aspen Skiing Company
REQUEST: 8040 Greenline Review and View Plane Review
DESCRIPTION:
The Aspen Skiing Company is interested in adding a water pump and pump house to assist in snow making activities. The
work had been requested by the City of Aspen Water Department to ensure proper infrastructure in the area. The proposed
facility is located near the base of Aspen Mountain in the Conservation (C) zone district. The proposal is located within the 8040
greenline review area, and appears to be located within at least the Cooper Street View Plane. The applicant must demonstrate
the view planes that cross the property and if the proposed facility is located below the view plane line, or if it infringes on the
view plane. In addition, floor area and height calculations are required.
From the scope of work presented, it appears that this project qualifies for an administrative 8040 Greenline Review and possibly
an administrative View Plane review. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.435.030.B,
8040 Greenline Review Exemption, and Land Use Code Section 26.435.050.B, Mountain View Plane Review Exemption in
order for staff to make this determination as part of the land use application. Once the complete application is submitted,
depending on the ultimate scope, P&Z level reviews and possibly a public vote for any view plane infringement may be required.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20app%20form.pdf
Below is Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.435.030 Environmentally Sensitive Areas – 8040 Greenline
26.435.030 Environmentally Sensitive Areas – Mountain View Plane
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.220 Conservation (C) zone district
Review by: Community Development Staff.
Public Hearing: None at this time.
Planning Fees: $1,300 for 4 hours of staff time. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the
conclusion of the case. Additional staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour.
Referrals: $650 for Parks Department (flat fee) and $325/hour for Engineering Review (deposit is taken for 1
hour of work. All additional hours are billed at $325 per hour).
Exhibit 2
P32
VI.A.
2
Total Deposit: $2,275.
To apply, submit the following information:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Total deposit for review of the application.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which de velopment is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report,
or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the
owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed b y the applicant that states the name, address
and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the
current status of the parcel, as well as locations of view planes, certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed
in the State of Colorado.
HOA Compliance form (Attached)
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application § 26.435.030.B, 8040
Greenline Review Exemption, and § 26.435.050.B, Mountain View Plane Review Exemption.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
1 Complete Copy of all application materials. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following
items will then need to be submitted
2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.
A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.
digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current
zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or ma y not be accurate. The
summary does not create a legal or vested right.
P33
VI.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Property Phone No.:
Owner (“I”): Email:
Address of Billing
Property: Address:
(Subject of (send bills here)
application)
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment
of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that
I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________
$.___________ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to
the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of
an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly
rates hereinafter stated.
$________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
________________________________ _______________________________________________
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director Name:
_______________________________________________
Title:
_______________________________________________
City Use:
Fees Due: $____Received $_______
Aspen Skiing Company
c/o Aaron Shaffer
No assigned number
City of Aspen Water Tank Property
Aspen Mountain Road
Aspen, CO 81611
970.923.8736
ashaffer@aspensnowmass.com
c/o Aaron Shaffer
PO Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612
650 Parks
1,300 4
325 1
Aaron Shaffer
Managing Director of Facilities and Energy
Aspen Skiing Company
P34
VI.A.
City C970
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies
with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by
the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.
Property
Owner (“I”):
Name: Aaron Shaffer, Aspen Skiing Company
Email: ashaffer@aspensnowmass Phone No.: 970.923.8736
Address of
Property:
(subject of
application)
Aspen Mountain Water Tank
Aspen Mountain Road
Aspen, CO 81611
I certify as follows: (pick one)
□ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements
proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary.
□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements
proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary. Evidence of approval is attached.
I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I
understand that this document is a public document.
Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________
Owner printed name: Aaron Shaffer
or,
Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________
Attorney printed name: _________________________
P35
VI.A.
300 SO SP RING ST | 202 | ASPE N, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONA DA MS.COM
June 6, 2017
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: City of Aspen Water Tank Property & Booster Station
Aspen Mountain Road; Aspen, CO.
Ms. Garrow:
Please accept this letter authorizing and BendonAdams, LLC, to represent our leasehold
interests in the City of Aspen Water Tank Property located on Aspen Mountain Road (no
address) and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use
approvals for the property.
If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Property – No assigned address, Aspen Mountain Road
Parcel ID# – 2737-182-00-801
Legal Description – Metes and bounds, see attached.
Kind Regards,
Aaron Shaffer
Managing Director of Facilities and Energy
Aspen Skiing Company
PO Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612
ashaffer@aspensnowmass.com
970.923.8736
P36
VI.A.
Exhibit 6
P37
VI.A.
P38
VI.A.
P39
VI.A.
r·' .,' '.'
. -..... ":;:;'':'' .:' .' :~' .. " :' . ~ .
.'.
1 HIS AGREEI"iENT. entered into this 2..3cl day of' K ......... .,J,
\
1980", by and beb .... een the ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION (hereinafter
!lAse") and the CITY OF AS?EN (hereinaft.er ".Ci ty") j
WIT N·E SSE T H:
\'lHEREAS, by that cer'i:.ain Agreement dated tlfarch 3-," 1978.
by ~n~ betHee~ the '~a;~~es ~ereto certain'· term~ and conditions'
. were established for the provision of .sno',:making; ?lnd
l'I~EREAS,: ~he' parties' hereto' d~sire "to modify and supersede . '. .' . .. "."'. . '. -.,..! . '. -
that agreefilent by ,the \"/ithin contained terms and conditionsj
and '.' .. , ...
. ~'/HEREAS; the-' ASC cantem"plates I subj eet to its obtaining
:;." '" .
:-. , ..•. :
. ".-:,:-. ~.-.;.. .. i
necessary governmentai approvals and other possible contingencies,·
.t~:.-ins~'al·~·-~·;:~~·!i;~:~t~-~; eqUipm~nt on certain real proper~;"~sed
for:. the purpose of. recreational shiing loca~cd \'/ithin and Hitho'..lt ....
the City of Aspen, Colorado; and
.': ;;1 . : .' .
. NHER~AS·~.~~he Ci.ty contemplates that it: <lnd its inhabitants
~lill receive substantial collateral benefi ts from the installation
. of .snow.making equipment on Aspen r,lountain, and it is <1~sirous'
'of entering into' the \>lithin water supply agreement. . . . . .
· .. ·f ... ......
NON, THEREPORE,·. in consideration of 'the follo'lling' terms
.. ~ ·.a .
and conditions the parties hereto agree as fo11 0""5:
'1. The City'he'reby a~rees 't~ delive~ to J\SC ilt: the·point
of delivery as· set ~orth beloN the f0110'.1ing fl}axir.1Um quanti ties.
: .{.,
. of \-Tater at "the times described for Ase I 5 use in sno·.':mal(ing clOd
.. i',;'··
irrigation; provided ho· .. lever, that the City shall not be cbligated "1
to delive;" these q~antities of \.;ate~":"\'ih'eii.~ver the \·/ater \evel ':-'.'
in the 1,000, 000· gallon. (1. a MG). ~reated Nater storuge tanks
loc()ted on Little Nell is belm-1 10 feetj it.being tt:'e intent
of this prOVision "to mainta.in adequate minimum \"'atcr available
for firefighting:
Cal ~ovember 1 t:hrough December' 1 1 ,500 gallons , .
:1
I
: I
per minutej
: .. ,~: ':, ~,'
\. . -." .. / ;~t\;:·~/ ?~~g~;; I
.. ' ..
, ';;;i""."~1~~f,t~ "0
".' ., .. _ .
. .:.;. ~ '.~.; -;:;'" ;:,;iX·<:~/;.-: <.~;.'.<.::~:.
Exhibit 7
P40
VI.A.
".
\
it .,. ~
r
.y.. ., :' :: ...... '<f' ·,·::·:·,,:·~~t}~5~~~!:t:ti;r~~:;~;
(b) December 2 through December 20 -1,500 gallons
per minute;
(c) 'December 21 through January? -1 ,DOD gallons
per minute;
(d) January 3 through April 16 -1,500 gallons per
minute;
(e) April 17 through october 3:
(1) 12:00 midnight to 6:00 A.M. 500 gallons
per minute; .. :]'0:,
: . " . ',' '; ... ..,. ..•.
(2) 6:00 A.l<t. to 12:00 noon -100 gallons per ....
minute; ' ..
. '~:
(3)' 12:00 noon to 8:00 P.M. -0 ~allons pe~~in~te;
8:00 P.l·1. to 12:00 midnight -200 gallons
.per minute.
(f) The .quantities of Hater hereinabove describ::!d
are m<:tAi.mum quantities of \-later \'/hich the city is obligat~d
to deliver upon the call of ASC. In the event additionill
quantities of Hater are available in the ~.ystcrn. und ASC
has need therefo~.:·the Cit::., may in its discretion deliver
said quanti ties at such time and in s .. uch quanti tics .itS iOay
be reasonably possible.
(g) In the event of emergency circumstances such as
fire: maj~r \l-later facility failures. or other such occurrences
the Ci ty f-1anager may totally or partially restrict the use'
. of Hater in. the quanti tic.s . described in subparagraphs. (~)
"~.-.'.. ~'~~~~~~'~ough (e)
.' ~ . ' . .
of the Ci ty Cou~cil ~: .. _:.
'. .: ' .• >,
above un'til .,the n7xt meeting
_~,~ p,ermitted by the Aspen, Colo_:.ado Code §23-152 (197~) '. ' .... : .. :
.~~r .. _·.or. until the City Manager shall determine that the e~e~geHn~y':;" , . ..
~~;:~.~·s pas.sed I \'lhicheve~ occurs fi rst; provided, hm'lev~r •. ~hat '.~~'::~
~[it;.: Ci ty Council Hill me~t at the carliest practica~le ~at~ ';"'~:.:
=-after the emergency re~trictions are imposed for the purpose
of restoring Hater service.
or
to
(~) ASC agrees to hold the Ci t}; harmless f~~"~~y"'d~ma~'~''':
loss occasioned by' reduction ~f watc~ quanti ti~; ~~~~~a~:~'::'~~
.. ' '., ,. . ..... , " . .'" ......... ". .:: ;;:':":/"~:.~"'~'::i:¥.:;'
",0, • .," ", )',00 .... ~',:o, .. , 0 •• '(' .'. ;:.';Ol~~[~~11
P41
VI.A.
.. ,' '.",' ..... ,
":
"
r
",: . . :.'
2, The City hereby.agrees that the "point of delivery"
of the volumes of \,/atcr described in Pat'Clgrnph 1 hereinabove
shall be IS' cast of the existing all:.itude vault'on the cxi5tin~J
12" line at or near the 1. a NG stor<Iqe tank, Nhich \'lill be located
as described in thcit "Easement Agreement" execlited '·'larch 3, 1978.
Said "Easement Agreement" is attilched hel'eto as Exhibit "A" •.
The City agrees tha~. it has .the sale obligation to p.rovide \';ctcr,
transmission facili ties, and other appurtenant features of the.
\'Tater system and the maintenance tl,"lereof necessary .to so cieli vel'
, '
to ·the point o~: delivery the volumes described in Paragraph 1;
provided that the Ci ty 'may supply ASC Hi th treated or untr-cat.:ed
'water in its sale' discretion "and further may supply \·;ater from
any sour:ce .. Th~. Ci ty shall sur-ren.der control of the t-Iater to
;-.. ,
ASC at the point of deliverYi provid..:d, hO'llever, that the City
.-._ .• : •••. _< •••• ,:.-~-... ..;.
reserves:' the' right to claim all consumptive use of t-Jilter used
"
by ASC under. this agreement; the right,. if any, to cluim ~·jater· .~
storage resulting from ASC snot"lmaking; nnd the ri"ght, if any.
to recapture and reuse the \'later supplied to ASC put;suant to
~his .contract. The Ci ty: assumes no rcsponsibili ty for providing
facili ties, 'pumping, or for taking any ae tion necessary. to deli vcr
said water beyond the point of delivery to higher elevations '.
for sno·,Jmaking .. by AS'S; .~il f~c:ilities, appurtenant' structures,
and so forth, utilized by ASC after the point of delivery shall
be the sole responsibility of ASC.
3. In us~ng the quantities of \'/ater hereinubove described
..~
ASC shall: ......
, .'.
(a)' Install, at its sole expense, a pump house and
related facilities including an~y: sp~cial \-later ,r:'etering,
telem~tering or remote control devices, and ~ther .eqUipment
..... required for administration of this contract for sno:.;;nakin~'
purposes next to the City's 1.0 r'lG storage tank as jOintly
deter~ined by the parties hereto. ASC may use up to. gOO
,',
square feet of the real property. adjacent to these t~nks,. ' .. ' .
. .. , . .; . ~ ·~.I'i"
.for this purpose:
..: .. '. -: . .' :-:l~!,l A~C may use additional area during construction; provided ,-: :'.;'
.... ·'~.~~1~(1
Hhich is p.resently o~'1ned in fee by' the ti ty, -.. ,.
".'
,-3~ ' .. ,,' .;
. .:. ,,: .. .-
P42
VI.A.
[
( (
, "::',
..
•
" ~ . :
that ASC shull restore the area as nearly as possible to' its
CC:1d: !:i.on prior to CO~'Jnencement of c,)nstruc tion,. including
revegetation.
(b) By this "Agreer.tent, the city is increasing the quantiti<:
of ymter delivery OVer tho?e set forth in the agreement for
snmvmaking dated I·larch 3, 1978. In order to insure sufficient
capacity to serve existing customers I provide for fircfloHs and
satisfy the increased 'capacity to be supplied to ASC by this
Agreement, the city shall construct the folloHing structur.:!l
~dditions to its Hater supply system: 'Xhe 12" interconnection ,fro:
the 1.0 l-IG Reservoir to 1-1onarch, Hill, Aspen & Durant street!.';.
In the event ASC p'r'o~eed5 \>lith its Pha.sc II c1c'vC!lopmen t,-'1\SC: .
". hereby agrees to. sh~r~ in egu:.d parts Hith the City the cos.t of.
'the construction of a 12" intercon:1ect hclHeGn the 1. .0. l-lG
gravity -storage tank and the tcrri\inllS of the City \-1<1 tor mains'
" at 'the sou'th ~nds of Hill Street, 1,lon2l":ch Street and Aspen
Street. This does not include that pa:ct of tht:! 17." .interconnect
on Aspen Street to Durant Street. Upon cornmencement. of its
Phase II snmvmaking system, which is defined iI!..: increasing the
primary pUJnp capaci~y at the pu:-np house adj<1ccnt t:C? the
point of delivery o~er 1500 gp~, ASC Dhall pay its pro rata \(-
. ~ ,.
share of the interconnect set forth above. At that time the
max~mum quantity set ~orth'in paragraph lea) zhall be 2000 gpm~
(c) Hold the City harmless for any darr:age resulting from
. ,.,' . :~', .
its construction and use. of said real property and facilities: ' ,'.
~ ",
(d) Perform ordy such cor.st~uction or alterations' to th'~···;··:::
, . ' . . , .. ,
tap, pump, and.pur.lp house for ,·,hich it;. rcceive3 the City's . ,'.
prior written approval of des~gn. ASC shall accomplish the
": :' :'~"[
\-lork at such times as will not interfere witt: City '-later se:t;vice
to o~her City Users.
'4. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
forty (~O) years from .the date of this Agreement. Thi~ Agreement
shall automatically terminate and be of n~ fur~her; forc~ ,or ~f'f~~:~L I
j •• -4~ ' ... ;'. . ' .. ·,\.;·:~6:~·~(~;!~~:~~1
.'.,' .:~,.:.," .. ': ' 'J.:,. ':.:.,' {.<?~.:~~~::~~~i~t1.;~~~A~~\ . ',: \, , .... ~. :'" ';".
. , .... P43
VI.A.
'"
[
.: /. . : .... ..•.
'" .....
...
r
." .... :.' .;':::".:.: '
'upon the expiratio~'of the term of this
0,":: ··::;~;:::_': .. r;:,:::rt;-~Tf:it.~
, .
J\Hrccment ..
5. ASC shall pay to the City the plant investment fce,
tap service, and rates imposed by City of Aspen •. ColorCJdo, Ordinar
No. 60, Series 1980. These rates and charges ~hall be as set
forth belo'il.
., ..
(a) The ,plant investment fee for the delivery of munici
Hater pursuant to this Agreement shall ,be $75,000. The tap
service charge" for this connection shall be S6,900.
(b) The rate per 1000 gallons or fractions thereof
of municipal t'/ater supplied pursuant to this Agreement shall
.: ,."
be computed as f0110:'J5:
The sum of the. "total operating expenses
.. ,.
"co~tained"'in' th~ ci ty of Aspen Audited Financial state-
...... ..:
.-' ... ·~·e·~t:·fo·r·"·the t'later Fund for the five years iw;uediatcly
preceding the year of us~ shall be di viclcd by "~chc sum
,.; .:.,
of the Annual Total Treated ~·.'atcr Con~umption contained
for ~he five.~?ears ilTL'11cd~<1tely pl'cccding the year of
~se.· d~rivf~g the rC!3ul t<1nt r<-~te ~'Ihich i~ cxp~e5s~d'
.. ' in 'terms of dollars Clnd cents. per 1,000 gallons, Nhich
'shall'be multiplied by the number of 1,000 gallon or
;: "' ... " .. ',. '.~ ,.'
.fractions thereof delivered; pl'o~ided, hO'/lever: 'that
if the 'City ch~riges' its accounting metho·d~. a~d such
change ;resul.~.S ~in an increased charge for the ~'~pPly'
of rn'~'nicipal ~later for snO'tlrilaking purposes that \'/o'uld :.\
:. not have 'r~s~lted but for such ~hnnge of 'a?co'..lnting ....... ~!
. methods, ASC.' at its sole option ,and expense .. may rccomi
such charge under'the accounting method in existence
prior to such change. If th.e Ci ty Finance Dircc'tor
(or co~parable officer) concurs in such recomputed
charge, that rate shall be paid by ASC. In the·event
concurrence is not. obtained, AS.,? at its sole opti.on
'"
. ," .. ....... , .. )'
, .
',1" ".
P44
VI.A.
. " .'
(
r
(j"
\ .
.,' . ~:'r':' '. ···:<:-::·t~t~t~:~;;;~\~
(or' comparable officer) to ma!<e such recomputations,
~ !.~
\'/hich Hill then be binding upon -the Ci ty nnd I\S':.
(2) The rate so established shall be applied
uniformly for the succeeding period ApriL 16" through
April 15 ·of the follo~Jing year. The rute shull be annual: . .
re'detcrmined for each April 16 through April 15 period
during the ter~ of this Agreement.
(c) ASC' shall pay all overtime. costs associated ~'/ith
the deli very of all Hater in excess of 1,500 gallons per ......
minute ?-uring any requested delivery period. The City will'
.::-
separately bill ASC for such costs and \·sill provide documentat
':pf s~c.h .cost~.as requested by A5C. These surcharges shall
'. not be" incl~ded in the system overh2ad ra tcs and charg~s
set forth in this parngraph.
6.
. :. -;~ ..... ..:~~.~~~:
'As 'additional considerntion for the delivery of Hater.
ilS herein contemplated, ~'lhich tho p.::rties ogrce shall o~fset
the plant investment fee to the extent of $75,000, I\SC shatl:
. ~) ... ".
(a)/ ne-convey ccrtilin casements to the Ci ty Clccording l<
to the terms of the "EilSem?nt AgreC:;TIcnt" <1l:ti1ched h~rcto
as Exhibit "A" Clnd incorporated by this refel'cncc .. T!1e "EaseF,",~
Agreement" to/as entered into ilS consideration for. the Agreement
for Purchase and sille of ~'later of even date thcrc\'/i tho This
Agreement, upon re-execution, shall supercede the f4ar~h
". . ... : ..
. 3, 1978 !,greement for Purchuse and Sale of t'latcr but the
parties expressly agree thci't the "Easement Agrceonent" shall':::'::'
.' : .. :',;;.,-
remain in full force and effect as additional cO!1si'~leratio~:;":~ :
.:-::~};:~ for this.Agreement. . ...
(b) convey all right, title and interest in ?nd to . .. ~
the certain 'Hater right k.i·10·"Il~ as the Begley Di~ch) \rio~itY:"··~.:
No. 660, decreed for 1.5 c.f. s .. ~n Civil .t;ction r·lo. ",613 •. {!~ •• :.:.-
(c) Agr.ee that this Agreement is SUbject to ~he stipu-
lation of s.eptember 1, 1980 bett'/een the part~cs her~to and '.:.
the Board of County COr.1missioners of the County of r;~t:tin. : .. ::/.
Said stipul~tion is-a'~t~~he~ 'h~;~~~"~~-E'xh'ib~~ ·IID"··:~:~·· ~;~~~.~t.~
-. ,": .' .: .~.. • • .', -: OJ' ·.·~.~-;:;~jf
terms incorporilted by this reference. 5ilid Stipulation 'is ... -:;:::-;;
. :. ";,,'~::,:\,,,,:,::;, .. ,'. ,:.:.~~;i1l P45
VI.A.
-. :.'
.'
,.: ..
r ..•.
r
. ;-,.:
-'. ;:~ ·::·:~.:~?f~'::>cF:~;;~
.. '
.... '." ~ .--.~.:.~ ·;··~··:~·:i.~:
given in part as addit.ional consideration for the \.,ithin
.. ;. :
Agreement.
(d) LC.J.5;:! to the City, on an as uvai~uble basis. the
Stapleton Brothers Ditctl water riGht, with its diversion,
tran~mission and pll!npin~J facilities, upon terms and condition!
V/hich shall not be ~.iut..·5tt:lntiill.ly diffcrp.nt from those set
forth in the lC2se 2.ttJch::d hC!rc~to ilS E;;hibit. "G" <Joe!. inc.:or-
parated by this rcfc~cncc.
7. It"is understood by and betHcen the parties her~to
. . . :.: :
that this Agreement for provision of service to Ase
is undertaken ~·sith th,= 1<..'10·.·,1 edge thLlt the fir!'";t and rorcmost
obligation of .the City of Aspen is to "upply \'Ii=ter t:o j.t~ l:lunicipul
customer.s. Service to ;\sc for sr.c· .. Jr.laking ir> ~;eCO!'1dilry to thi~;
pu~~~~.e an~ _~his .Agrec.r.lcnt shull be in~:C!rprct'2d in that li~-iht.
8. This Agreeme:lt .shull not b(! construcd uS l~cliev!.ng
the ASC fro:n u:,y and all oblig<~tion to com;11y Hith nn:; City of
Aspen.ordinances,. Nhich arc nO'd in cffect or are hercC!ftcr adopted.
By this Agreement ASC shall be dccr.\'2d to helve Gor.;plicd \·:i"th the
Ci ty. of Aspen,. Colorado', Ordinance flo. GO, Series IlJnO. .
9. Th'is AgreeCilent, any of its prov:ipions, und t:h<;!.tcrms
of the Agreerri~'~t ma'y be modified only by the adoption of u ... ,riting"
,signed by each party;(hereto or their respective successors in
interest.
10. It is expressly agreed that this Agreement will not
pr'ovide any basis -for the ASC opposing any application filed
:. , ...... "
by t~e City pursuant to C.R.S. 1973. 937-92-.302 and Hill not
be, used in any.manner t'/hatsoever by the ASC to object: to the
exercise, ·use. transfer, or conveyance by the City of any
.,'
. .'::
....
'.
.: ' ...
rights in \'lhich-it no:.-l or may hereafter h.avc -an intcre~~; pr'ovi~e~;-
ho~';ever. that ASC reserves the right -to pz:-otect the supply of
water available to any vlater right it may nO'll o'om or h.ercafter
acquire. . "'. ".' "
11. ASC shall not petition to the Public utilities Co;n"llis~'io~' ..
H\th any 9 :OUP S~~~ing to es.tnblish PUbl.i~/?~~~.~ ~~:~;;~( \
for the provision of utili ty s~('vic~s by the City ... ::-':::;,
. '" ~ 7
-.. : . ."; .. ' .. ' "~~"" _:~ •••...••.•• '.}.::.:;.:.,~.;.~.i.t.ii:.:; .. ~.\.~.!.~.J,!
.. ' -.'}~':.:"';' '." .. :.' . ~ ---.'.'~ :.,,"~ ., .... .:.-
nor cooperate
,' ..
P46
VI.A.
[
(' (. ··.Cr
r
In the event pub~ic utility status is Clpplicd'to t.he provision""~'
of utility service by the City due to the efforts of hSC, this
Agreement may be terminated by the City.
12. The City shal~ not be held liable for. ilny failur'c to
perform hereunder due to drought, acts of God, Har, strik.es or
any ot})er natural or man made occurrences that are not subject
to the control of the City of Aspen.
13. This Agreement shall not affect ASC's right to mai-::e.
application for Hater services fro:n the. City for uses other than .... ','.
sno:-.rmaking, .under .~i.ty of AS'pen ordinances ltlhich are nON in effect
or arc he~eafter adopted.
-,-' ,
"14 .. This,Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto,
,their successor.s.and assigns, and is entered into in the govern-
m~ntul .capaci ty of ~he city.' .
. The parties hereto have cxocu'.::.ed this /l.greem~nt as of the
day and year first above v-Irittcn.
ATTEST:
,
STATE·OF COLORADO)
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
ASPEi'1 SKI IUe conpO;U,TrO:1
CITY OF N""?ZiI BY~~
55.
.... ;,
.. : .... ~:.:~~ ::~~~~
: .. ; :::;.-.-
.. ' .
-.....
-' -.'-.: . .. . ;
The foregoing' i~strument Has aclmo:'11edged before me this' ... ~:_ .. ~
.:>1.4day of rhC0Vu.. , ~. by .lUY" r3;n." n C.) !f,Le _ .... :,;:.! .
.ira President and 0(...1......(. 5 ........ .< d sf---? at I ClS secretary of the· ~:~:::::
.. 'C,: ': .•. ,.,.~' ..... ,:::; .. ; .••.••. :.,:.:.~.' :·.·., .•• :.· •. :·.r .•. ~i.~.;.".~tli
'.' .. " '. , . .'.' .... ' :.:.:. -.,., ,:"..:::.:;:':
P47
VI.A.
..... .J t.'
--"-"-----
.... .. ; .
Aspen skiing Corporation.
Hitncss my hand c.nd officicJl seal.
"ly co:nm.ission expi res:.--L!Y CCr;l.:nis:.i:Jn c1oi;.-:.s O;:toter 6, 1934
STATE OF COLORADO)
) 55.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The forcg~ing ins~rument
dati. day 0 f 'i'J)t!J).L..L, 1 98 {J ,
Kattlryn Koch as Ci ty-Cler~-; of
was ackn0'tllcdged before
by Herman Edal as Mayor
tho City of Afipcn.
t'li tncss rily hand and officiul seal.
me thi s.
and
e ornm iss i on e:-p i rC! ~ : _cfIL2fLil/~?:~r~'f,--__________ _
':1
r
, -
" : ~ .
". ' . . . ::.: ..
. ' .'
-"
': .. '
,',' . '"
", 1"
. . ; ... : .
I.; '", :.: .. ;
....jc"!:\i~
":;' \i~;:.i;;~}i~1i~~% P48
VI.A.
Exhibit 8P49VI.A.
8"
5"
4"
- LINE TABLE -
LINE #BEARING DISTANCE
- VICINITY MAP -
SCALE: 1 Inch = 2000 Feet
Site
8"
- LEGEND -
FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT TABLE
POINT #NORTHING EASTING MARKINGS
Job No.
Drawn by:
Date:
Of
File:
Revision#Date By
Approved:
Notice:
Graphic Scale
In Feet: 1" = 30'
0 15 30 60
City of Aspen
Engineering Department
Compliant Survey
2017-223.001
JLW
06/07/2017
REB
AJAX_WaterTank
1
1
Aspen Water Tank Parcel
City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado
1
2
3
4
5
118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com
City of Aspen Compliant Survey
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN
Section 18
T. 10 S., R. 84 W. of the 6th P.M.
City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado
6.7.17P50 VI.A.
GENERAL NOTES
A.THE LATEST EDITION OF AIA DOCLt,tENT A201 'GENERAL CONDITIOOS Cf THECONTRACT FOR C<NSTIWCTION", IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE CCMRACTDOCUMENTS, EXCEPT AS AMENDED HEREIN, COPIES ARE ON FILE AND ARE AVAII.JIBLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT.
B, THE CONTPJ.CT DOCUMENTS CONSIST OF THE AGREEMENT, THE GENERAL NOTES AND THE DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE COOPERATIVE AND CONTINUOUS, WORK INDICATED OR REASONABLY IMPLIED IN ANY ONE OF THE DOa.JMENTS SHAll BE SUPPLED AS THOUGH FULLY COVERED IN ALL fVN DISCREPAl'-l:Y BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PARTS SrO.JLD BE REPORTED TO TliE ARCHITECT 1""1EDIATEL Y.
C. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH Ali STATE ANO LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES, AND SH.AJ..L BE PERFOIWED TO THE HIGI-EST STANDARDS OF CRAFTSMAN.SHIP BYJOURNEYMAN OF THE APPROPRIATE TRADES.
0.TI-IESE DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED TO INCLUDE AU. LABOR, MATERW.S,EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ALL WORK DESCRIBED HEREIN. IT 1.5 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO BRING TO Tl-IE ATTENTION OF lHE ARCHITECT ANY CQNDITKWS WHICH Will NOT PERMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO THE INTENTIONS OF THESE OCCIJ,ENTS. IT ISTHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ARCHrTECT TO PROVICE. CETAILS AND/OR DIRECTIONS REGARDING CESG.I INTENT WHERE IT ISAL TERED BY THE EXISnJG CONDITIONS OR WHERE NEGLECTED IN 11-IE OOCUMENTS.
E ANY MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR SUBSTITUTION OF 11-IOSE SPECIFIED 00 CALLED OIJT BY TRADE NAME IN THESE DOCl.MENTS SHALL BE PRESENTED TO 11-IE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW. 11-IE roNTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SAMPLES IM-IEN REQIJIRED BY THE ARCHITECT, AND ALL SUCH SAldPLES SAMPLES SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE ARCHITECT BEFORE THE WOOK IS PERFORMED. WORK MUST CONFORM TO 11-IE REVIEWED SAMPLES. NNWORKIM-IICH OCES NOT CONFORM SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH WORK 'M-IICH COOFOOMS AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT REQUESTS AND SAMPLES FOR 11-IE REVEW 11-IROOGH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WHEN WORK IS LET THROUGH HIM OR HER. REQUIRED VERIFICATIOHSAND SUBMITIALS TOBE MADE IN ADEQUATE TIME AS NOT TO DELAY WORK IN PROGRESS
F.ALL REQUESTS FOR SI.ESTlTIJTIONS OF ITEMS SPECIFIED Stw.L BE SUBMITTED IN YIRITING TO 11-IE ARCHrTECT AND WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF BETTER SERVICE FACILITATES MORE ADVANTAGEOUS DELIVERY DATE, OR A LESSER PRICE WITH CREDIT TO THE CU ENT WILL BE PROVIDED Wlll-lOOT SACRIFICING QUALITY,APPEARANCE, AND/OR FUNCTIOO, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE WILL THE ARCHITECT BE REQUIRED TO PROVE 11-IAT A PROOUCT PROPOSED FORSUBSTmmJN IS OR IS NOT OF EQUAL QIJAI.ITY TO 11-IE PRODUCT SPECIFIED.
G. ALL WORK SHALl BE EREClED PWMB AND TllUE-T0-1.INE IN ACCORDANCE WITHBEST PRACTICES OF 11-IE TRADE AND MANUFACTURER'S REOCMMENDATIONS FOR THE PARTICULAR ITEM.
H.SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ARCHITECT FOR HIS OR HER REVIEW WHERE CALLED FCF! ANYWHERE IN THESE DOOJMENTS. REVIEW Stw.L BE MADE BY THE ARCHITECT BEFORE THE WORK IS BEGUN, AND WORK SHALLCONFORM TO 11-IE REVIEWED SHOP lmWINGS, SUBJECT TO REPLACEMENT AS REQIJIRED FOR SAMPLES IN PAR. E., ABOVE
I.THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR 'M-IEN THERE IS NEED OF INSPECTION AS REQUIRED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE OR BY ANY LOCAL CODE OR ORDl�CE,
J.THE CONlRACTOR SHALl BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY AND CARE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES DIJRING COOSTRUCTOO, FOR COMPLL'iNCE Will-IFEDERAL AND STATE O.S.HA REGULATIONS, AND FOR nE PROTECT� OF All WORK UNTIL IT IS DELIVERED COMPLETED TO THE OWNER.
K. Af.L DIMENSIONS NOTED TAKE PRECECENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.DIMENSIONS NOTED "N.T.S." DENOTES r-L>TTOSCALE.
L.CONTRACTOR SHAU VERIFY ANO COORDINATE ALL OPENINGS 11-IROOGH FLOORS,CEILINGS AND WALLS Will-I ALL ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING ANO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS.
M. CONTRACTOR WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITEMS REQUIRING COORDl'iAT� AND RESOLUTION DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS.
N. VERIFY ilJ..L SPACE DIMENSIONS /JS SHOWN WITH EXISTING JOB CONOITIOOSBEFORE STARTING CONSTRUCTION.
0. WHERE WORK IS INSTAllEO OR EXISTING FINISHES ARE DISTURBED, REFINISHSUCH AREAS TOMATCI-I EXISTING
P.CHECK AND VERIFY roNTRACT OOCUMENTS, FIELD CONDITIONS FOR ACCUFW;Y,CONFIRMING THAT ALL WORK IS BUILD ABLE AS SHOWN BEFORE PROCEEDING Will-I CONSTRUCTION. IF THERE ARE ANY QlESTlONS REGARDING THESE CF! OTHER COORDINATION QUESTIONS, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSlll.E FOROBTAIN NG CLARIFICATION Wlll-111-IE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK OR RELATED WORK IN QUESTION.
a.EACH MISCELLANEOIJS ITEM OF cumNG, PATCHING, OR FITING IS NOT NECESSARILY NDIVIDUALl Y DESCRIBED HEREIN. NO SPECIFIC DESCRIPTKJ>J OFCUTTING, PATCHING, OR FITTING REQUIRED TO PROPERLY ACCOOMOOATE THE SCOPE OF WORK SHALl RB.IEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE RESPONSIBILITYTO PERFCRM SUCH WORK AS REQURED
R. NN QUESTIOOS REGARDING lHE INTENT OF THE lmWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONSARE TO BE a.ARIFl8l WITH 11-IE ARCHITECT BEFORE ORDERING MATERIALS OR PROCEEDING Will-I THE WORK IN QI.ESTION OR RELATED WORK.
S, Af.L rTEMS ARE NEW UNLESS CALLEO OUT AS EXISTING,
T. AREA OF SEPTIC FIB.OS WST BE LEFT UNDISTURBED AND PROTECTED DIJRING CONSTRUCTION. CONTR/1.CTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOO STAKING AREA & FENCING AROONDIT.
EXISTING CONDITIONS NOTES
ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLS
��
PROJECT NORTH ARROW
\,_ / NORTH
461.0' + NEW OR REQUIRED POINTELEVATIOOS
, / EXISTING CONTOURS
/ B.EVATION NOTED ON HIGH SIDE
3/' NEW CONTOURS
/ B.EVATION NOTED ON HIGH SIDE
____._ TEST BORING Te-1T
LEVEL LINE
@ WINOOW TYPE DESIGNATION
DOCfl NUMBER DESIGNATION
DASH ANO OOT LINE
DASH ANO OOllllE DOT UNE
DASHED Ur-£
BREAKUNE
V \,
� DRAWING TITLE
HEET, SCALE
A
[fil]------2)(6
COLUI.N GRID DESIGNATION
DETAIL REFERENCE DRAWING NUMBER
BUILDING SECTION, WALL SECTION, AND ELEVATION REFERENCE DRAWING NUMBER
ROOM NIWEANDM.JMBER DESIGNATION
WAil, ROOF, OR FLOOR TYPE
STIJD SIZE WHERE DIFFERENT FROM TYPICAL
FLOOR TRPNSITION DESIGNATION
DIMENSIOO DESIGNATION
KEYED NOTE REFERENCE
FOR CENTER LINES, R.OOR LINES IN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, PROJECTED LINES
FOR PROPERTY LINES, BOUNDARY LINES
FOR HIDDEN LINES (ABOVE OR BELOW)
TO BREAK OFF PARTS OF lmWINGS
DRAWING TITlE AND SCALE
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUMP HOUSE
PARCEL ID: 1�1
PERMIT#: TBD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED SURVEY
ZONE DISTRICT: C/CONSERVATION
MAX HEIGHT: ACTUAL= 14'-8" REQ. = 25
OCCUPANCY TYPE: u
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B
SPRINKLER:
PROPERTY
SIZE:
SETBACKS:
ALLOWABLE
FLOOR AREA
(FAR):
PROPOSED
FLOOR AREA:
SPECIAL
INSPECTIONS:
NOT REQUIRED
1�1 ..--10 ACRES,
MIN. WIDTH = 400')
F = 100', S = 30', R = 30' 1�1
386 GROSS SF
SOILS
APPLICABLE
CODES:
BUILDING CODE: 20151.B.C.
ENERGY CODE: 20151.E.C.C.
PLUMBING CODE: 20151.P.C.
MECHANICAL CODE: 20151.M.C.
ELECTRICAL CODE: 2014 N.E.C.
FIRE/LIFE SAFETY: 20 I.F.C
FUEL & GAS CODE: 20151.F.G.C.
ASPEN LAND USE CODE
INSULATION I ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:
DESIGN CRITERIA:
ATTIC/OTHER: R49 �• U.021
INSUL. ABOVE ROOF: R35CI ... u_028
MASS WALL: R15.2CI "' U.071
W.FRAME WALL: R13.5 + R7.5CI,
OR, R20 + R3.8CI ••• U.051
WALL BELOW GRADE: R10CI "* C.092
SLAB: R15, 24" BELOW••• F.4
ROOF SNOW LOAD: 100 PSF
GROUND SNOW LOAD 100 PSF
WIND SPEED: 89 MPH, EXP. B
SEISMIC:C
WEATHERING: SEVERE
FROST DEPTH: 36"
TERMITE/DECAY: NONE TO SLIGHT
WINTER DESIGN TEMP: -15 DEG. F
SUMMER DESIGN TEMP: 82 DEG. F
ICE SHIELD: YES
FLOOD: FEMA MAP 6/4/1987
AIR FREEZING INDEX: 2000
SOILS: PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DATED MAY 15, 2017,
# GS06137.000-125, PREPARED BY CTL THOMPSON
MEAN ANNUAL TEMP: 40 DEG. F
SITE CLASS: PER SOILS REPORT OR ENG.
ABV A.F.F AO:. ACC.FL."· ACOUS.AC.PL ACT ACR.PI.. ADD. ADH. ADJ. ADJUST.AGG.
ALT. AWM ANCH. ANOD, APPROX.ARCH. '°· ASB ASPH
AIJTD
BSMT BRG. B.PL BO.JT SCH.MK. BTWN. BEV BITIJM. BU{ BL.KG. BD . B.S. B.W. BTM. BRIC BRZ BLDG B.U.R. B.BD. ""'· CPT CSMT. C.I.P C.sT. C.B.
CLG. CLG.HT. CEM. CM CER. C.T. C.M.T, CH.BO.CHAM.CHRO.CLR CLO. COL COMB COMP'!".COMPO. COMPR. COl'IC. C.M.U. CONST. CONTIN. CONT'R C.LL. C.JT. CPR C.G. CORR.CTR C.FL CTR.SK. CRS. CU.FT. CU.YD.
0PR.D.P. 0.L DEMOL. 0EP. 0TL DOG ,., DISPR ow. OR. D.H. ON D.S. DRN.BD. D.T. OWR. OWG D.F. D.W.
-llOOt'EI finBlad floar .,.. access floor aco.ss panel-aooustical plaster"""""" acrylt plaster addendum alJhasive l!Ojacent81Jjustable �·-aircondiOOring -·alurrirum 111clJJr, anoorage lllodized approximate 11!:hitect(ural)ireadrain --.... aephaltile �-"""'" "'"� bearing plell! ..,,� benalmari( "'""" bevel (ed) lilumi'looablod< -�... both SilesOOthwaysbo�m "" .,., OOiklilg OOilt � roofing OOllelin bd.
cellilet ""' ceaell'l8nt cast il place""'"" catch tlasin ceuk Ong) ceiling ceiling heigttcement t;;rntimelerceranic ceranic tie cerarric rmsaictilechak ooaro chamfer(ed) chrorrium clea-(ance) ,, .. ool= oombhalkm oomperbnert oompositim (Cffll)C)Site) compress (ed) Oon) Q�e) 00"""' concrete maaonry unll oons1ruclkm oontil'IJOUS ooa-oontrad limlt line oontrd]olnt .,., oornergucldoom,g,Jol oounmr oounmr Dashingoounmrsurt; course cubk:foot cublcyartl
damper damwroolir,;i...... !Emctlsll !Epress Jed) -daiional do•<ac dsperttr<hisioo .., aluble hung .., d,w,nspout d'ain board d'aintile ...., -� dinllil"IJ fwntain d61Masher
EA.FA.E ELEC E.P. E.W.C. EL ElEV. EMERGENCL Ea. EQUIP.ESC. illAV.EX/{ EXIST. EXP. EXT.
F.O. F,BO. F.GLS.FIN. FIN.FLR.FA F.BRK FE F.EC. F.H.S. F.PL. F.P. F.R.CF.RT. �SHG �"' �R R.R.C.O F.D. R.R.PL. R.UOR.R.R.JT. FOONDFRG. F'-'JR F.B.0.FUR. FLIT.
GA. GALV. GSKT. G.C. "-· G..BLK. G..C.M.U. G..S.T G.• GRT. G,W.B, GYPC. GYP.PL.GYP.T.
HD.BD.HDW. HDW0 HO.JT.HOR HTG. HVAC
HVV.D.HT. HEX H.B.H.CH.M HORIZ.HR H.D. H.W.H,
I.B.C.INCININCi..I.D, INSUL,INT. INTERMINV.
J.CL.JT J.F. JS!.
K.PLKIT. "'
,.__ LAB LAM. IJ.V. l.H LGTH. LT l.C LT.PF. LT.WT.LMS. LTL l.l L.PT. LT.CONG.
SURVEY ••
ABBREVIATIONS
"""''' M.H rMntr-19 ""' MFR manufacture (e1electrt (el) '"' "'""' electrtal panelboard 1,1,\£ """" electJtwata"cooler M.O. masonry opening
8181'0.tiOO l,IATL """"' elevator ""' rmx1rrum ..... ., MECH. mechanical enclose(tre) M.C, medicine cabinet �"' MED. medium equipment M.BR. masterb9:lroom="'MEMB.memlrane """"' MTL -exhaust M.F.D. rrelal floor d�ing Blli81ing M.RD. melal roof deding expanskln M.lHR metal lhreshald exterior ' -" rrillimell!r .... "''·rrillwttk fibelOOIIIJ MIN, rrinimum fibe[pess '" -� finish (ed) MISC. lliscellaneaus finished floor MOD. """" fire alann MLDG. rmuldilg firebridc. ,1 """" flre axdngi.leher �TD. rmunted flre exllngi.lstl'!rrabln!!t MDV. 1T1JYe (able)fire hose cat.net MULL ITllllioo fireplace fireproof NAT. ""''" flre-reBl!llantooaU'll N.R noise reduction flre-retardart N.R.C noiae redudioo weff.fti!Shi'lg NOM. nominal flE!Xi�e NON"ET.nonmetallcflooc N ""� floor clean 0lt N.I.C. not i, oonlracifloortain N.T.S.notto&eaefloor �ate fluorescent ""· -floor joint o.c. on center foundation CPAQ .... frami� CPll. """"' fresh ai" O.W.JST. open web Jolat ftmished by others OPP. opposile lined (ilg) OPP.H opposilehand ""' OPP.< opposila sllface O.D. ootelde diameter.... "'· """' �lw.rizal OH. """"" ... .. '18neral oontraclor R<T. paint
;� Pm. pain1Bd �!iBllbkK:k ""· �" �eied oonc. masor,y 111l , .. panK:bar �azed stnx:IJ.lral tie P.T.DISP.paperlllweldi!p811S81 i,ab bar P.T.REC. paper lllwel rooeplacle ... PAR paralet g'/p611TI�looan:I ""· parking -P.BD. particle board iJ1PS1111 plaster Pffi. partitioo iJ1PS1111tile Pl/MT.pavement PERF �'""""tl!lrtlb00rtl PERIM. perimeter ,._ PlAS. ,..,. ,._ P.I.AM. �He lamilateheadjC.nt PL. ,,.. ""'" P.L.F. pourds per lineal foot""''' PLGL plate gl889 reallnWVllntlla11onl PT. �Im !irconditiori� P.V.C pol)','inyl chloride heavy duty P.T.COOC. posl-lensiooed concreteha�ht 1:EfO"' &i��nrn:1 root ,.,,, ..!me blbb P.S.F. pounds per S!Jiar& foo trJllowcore P.S,1. pounds per �are ir,:h trJllowmetal PREFAB prefabrilJlled trJrizortal PREFIN. pre/ilished '""' P.S,COrf::. prestressed concrete heavy duty P.L prqiertylile trJ\w.ter heater Q.T. querrytilB lrmrmmnal BuildirQ Cadeh°'1era1or RBBT. """ l'lclude (Ing) RAO. racius i'lsiJe ciameter REF. raferance/referto ilsulate Ong) RFL rafl9ct(ed)(iw)(or) il\eriar REFR. refrigeral!Jr il\errnediate REG, re�r ""' REINF. reinforce (ed) R.C.P. reinforced coooel8 �?tijanlordooet REM. ·-jaint RES. reslient jailifiller RET. ""m jais1 RA return !ir R't.l. l'8'l8l'S8 (side) kick plllle REV. l'B'liskm I relise ""� RH. ri;!hlhand ....., R.O.W.lght ofway R .. -�,RVT. .. ,.,..,, RO. roof drain laminite RF.HCH mofh ... --RFG. rooft� .... "· �, lang1h RO. rough operi� ,,,. RB. rubllerbese l�contrtl ROT. rubllertile ·�proof RB.ST. rubble stone l�we�htlmestone '"'' "''"' .. ... lltJlweiltrt concrete
SF.GL safety glass SCHED. schadJle SNT. se81M1 STG. ..,� SCTN, """" SHTH, sheathingSHT. ., .. SH.Cl.. sheetglase SH0. shore I shcting••• similar SKYLT. ,.,,,,. SL. ,,-&C. solid core SP. sound proof Ong) S.T.C sound lrlllsmislikm (D!fft:lent s �· SPCR. ·-� SPKR, speaker SPEC, speciljJ!tioo (5) square SSTl s1ainless steel STTJ. .... .. STA. .... 511 ... STORSil. s1ormdrah STRUCT.s1ructure/ slruGtllralS.C.T. s1ructural clay tile SUSP suependi,:I SYN. sym!M1r1cel SYN. syntte11c SYS. .,.,
TK.BD. •etooaroTK.STR tadcs1rlp TEL telephone TV tel&vision T.C. ·�""'TZ. ·-THK.thick (neea) THR ..... T.PTN toil&tpartition T.P.DISP.toil&! paper disperserTOL. .,_ 1'G lo!"Qu& aoo grooveT.B, towel bar T.O.C. top ctcolum T.O.CONC top ct concnrt&T.O.F top ct looting T.0.J, top ctjoiat TRA.NS. "'"" T """ TYP. typical
U.G ""=' UNFIN. ll'lfinishedUR uinel
V.JT. v-jaili , .• vapor balrer VAR varies VNR. Ylll10ar VERM verniculiteVERT._, V.G. ver1DI grail "'·vinyl VIN.B '"""" VIN.F Ylnyliabr1cVIN.T.Ylnyltile
w.lCT wairEool W.T.W. walltowalW.H. wall hU!"Q w.c. water closet W.PRFG. ""'"'"""' W.REP. water repelent W.S . ...... W.Wf. welded Mre fabrk:w ... W. \OOth /wide.,.,. window W.GLS. wire �886 W.M. Wire mesh W/0 without ""· """ 111).B """"" W.PT working point
SYMBOLS USED AS ABBREVIATIONS ...
C d _L PL
�
centerlinechannel �"· parpsndiCUar ,,.. �,, ...
ARCHITECTURAL HEIGHT EQUATION
SURVEY ELEVATION 9,99'1--_•nr'.'.,it-1 !"URAL ELEVATION I00'-0 11
SYMBOLS
MASONRY:
FIREBRICK
FACE BRICK
CERAMIC TILE
CONCRETE: CONCRETE BLOCK
CAST-IN-PLACE and PRECAST
LIGHTWEIGHT
EARTHWORK:
UNDISTURBED
DISTURBED
STONE I GRAVEL POROUS FILL
INSULATION:
BA TT /BLANKET LOOSE FILL
RIGID
FINISH MATERIALS:
ACOUSTIC TILE
GLASS
� Wm/81
��\ilfR\�\lllll\W\ll
� t-.-:--1 t ������������� j
µ;;;W;';lli;;;W;;;] �«<«<"�«t<l
CAULK and SEALANTS:
SEALANT WIBACKER ROD
JOINT FILLER
SETTING BEDS:
SAND/MORTAR/ PLASTER
METAL:
ALUMINUM
STEELLARGE SCALE
STEELSMALL SCALE
WOOD:
FINISH
ROUGH FRAMING/ BLKG.-CONTINUOUS
BLOCKINGDISCONTINUOUS
SHEATHING-LARGE SCALE
TEMPERED HARDBOARD
1111
I I
I I
1:=:>-<::1
1_______-1
PLASTER/BACKING BOARDS:
SAND and CEMENT GROUTw/MTL. LATH
------
�
GYPSUM WALL BOARD
GLASS MESH MORTAR BOARD
STONE:
STONE VENEER
MARBLE
I I
P/7 /I
FLOOR COVERING:
RESILIENT TILE FLOORING
CARPET Jii41'1@mi1w1 wiar1
CLIENT: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY ASPEN, CO 81611
PLANNER:
CONTACT: AARON SHAFFER 970-618-2591ashaffer@aspensnowmass.com
BENDON ADAMS LLC 300 S. SPRING ST. #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 CONTACT: CHRIS BENDON 970-925-2855chris@bendonadams.com
A-001
C-999C-999C-999
A-IOI
INDEX/PROJECT INFORMATION
SURVEY
CIVIL
CIVIL
CIVIL
CIVIL
ARCHITECTURAL
PIAN/ELEVATIONS/SECTION
1-9991-9991-999
INDEX
STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL
PUMP ENGINEERING
TORRENT ENGINEERING PUMP STATION:
DRAWINGS SHEETS 1-4
PRO ECT SCOPE
This Document Set pertains to the Land Use Application regarding the Aspen Skiing Company's proposed new
Pump House on Aspen Mountain.
Project: The addition of a new pump house & associated site-work to assist in snow making activities_
Proposed construction are concrete foundation walls and floor slab; walls are proposed as Continuously
Insulated Concrete Masonry units for the lower portion of the walls, and metal siding for the upper portion; the
roof is proposed as prefabricated trusses with asphalt shingle roofing. The building is proposed to be fully
insulated.
VICINITY MAP
CONTACT DIRECTORY
ARCHITECT: Z GROUP ARCHITECTS 411 EAST MAIN ST. #205 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.1832 OFFICE CONTACT: SETH HMIELOWSKI 970-319-8327seth@zgrouparchitects.com
CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
CONTRACTOR:
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER 118 W SIXTH ST. SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
TBD
CONTACT: ALEX EWERS 970-384-9076AlexE@sgm-inc.com
a r C h I e C 1 s
:::z:: � � 0 CD -0 1--< u z 1--'--""'
ci:::: <(
LU 1--'--""' 0 0 cc :::z:: -< 1--:::z::: ::::::, 0 ::c:
:::z:::
LU c.... '--""' <
Seal:
PRELIMINARY
# DATE ISSUED FOR
05.16.17 REVIEW
Constrnclion
Issue Date:
Dept. Use:
Drawing Title:
INDEX/
PROJECT INFORMATION
Sheet#:
-
copyrlgh12015 Z-Group Architects
Exhibit 10
P51VI.A.
P52VI.A.
14"Ø75 HP+P175 HP+P214"ØMOTORCONTROLENCLOSURE400ASERVICE ENTRYHOUSE PB9'-0"12'-8"18'-0"19'-6"DRAIN TOATMOSPHEREINCOMINGPOWER3'-6"(MIN. CLEARANCE)6'-0"W x 7'-0"TDOUBLE DOORwww.torrentee.comWRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE COMPANY.PROPERTY OF TORRENT ENGINEERING SHOWN HEREON IS THE EXCLUSIVEAND EQUIPMENT, LLC, AND SHALLTO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT PRIORNOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSEDTHIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION Fax: (574)-658-3229MILFORD, IN 46542 USAEngineering and EquipmentPhone: (574)-658-3200TORRENTP.O. BOX 270APPROVED :PLAN VIEWASPEN MOUNTAIN, CO04-25-2017911117-M1DRAWING NUMBER :REV : 1DATE:DRAWN BY:SCALE:JDMSHEET :CHECKED :PRIMARY SUPPLY PUMP STATION1 OF 4MRMB - SIZE DRAWINGPRIMARY SUPPLY PUMP STATIONJDCAS NOTEDPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPLAN VIEWSCALE: 38" = 1'-0"ALL TORRENT DRAWINGS ARE PROVIDED FOR PROCESS EQUIPMENTDESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SITE PLAN AND BUILDING DETAILS AREREPRESENTATIVE AND SHOWN FOR CLARITY ONLY.SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN OR BUILDING DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR ALLSITE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONSASPEN MOUNTAIN, CODATENO.REVISIONBY03-22-170FOR QUOTEJDM04-25-171UPDATEDJDMPUMP RATING: 1300 GPM @ 164' TDH + SUCTION PRESSURE = TOTAL DISCHARGE PRESSUREA2A2P53VI.A.
1'-77 16"
4'-93 8"
6'-612"www.torrentee.comWRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE COMPANY.PROPERTY OF TORRENT ENGINEERING SHOWN HEREON IS THE EXCLUSIVEAND EQUIPMENT, LLC, AND SHALLTO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT PRIORNOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSEDTHIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION Fax: (574)-658-3229MILFORD, IN 46542 USAEngineering and EquipmentPhone: (574)-658-3200TORRENTP.O. BOX 270APPROVED :SECTION VIEWASPEN MOUNTAIN, CO04-25-2017911117-M1DRAWING NUMBER :REV : 1DATE:DRAWN BY:SCALE:JDMSHEET :CHECKED :PRIMARY SUPPLY PUMP STATION2 OF 4MRMB - SIZE DRAWINGPRIMARY SUPPLY PUMP STATIONJDCAS NOTEDPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSECTION A-ASCALE: 38" = 1'-0"ALL TORRENT DRAWINGS ARE PROVIDED FOR PROCESS EQUIPMENTDESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SITE PLAN AND BUILDING DETAILS AREREPRESENTATIVE AND SHOWN FOR CLARITY ONLY.SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN OR BUILDING DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR ALLSITE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONSASPEN MOUNTAIN, CODATENO.REVISIONBY03-22-170FOR QUOTEJDM04-25-171UPDATEDJDMP54VI.A.
0'-0"0'-0"2'-6"
15'-512"
18'-0"5'-8"3'-9"19'-6"OUTLINE OF PRE-FAB SKID12'-8" x 9'-0"ESTIMATED WEIGHT = 13,000 LBS9'-0"12'-8"
4'-5"2'-10"www.torrentee.comWRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE COMPANY.PROPERTY OF TORRENT ENGINEERING SHOWN HEREON IS THE EXCLUSIVEAND EQUIPMENT, LLC, AND SHALLTO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT PRIORNOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSEDTHIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION Fax: (574)-658-3229MILFORD, IN 46542 USAEngineering and EquipmentPhone: (574)-658-3200TORRENTP.O. BOX 270APPROVED :SLAB PLANASPEN MOUNTAIN, CO04-25-2017911117-M1DRAWING NUMBER :REV : 1DATE:DRAWN BY:SCALE:JDMSHEET :CHECKED :PRIMARY SUPPLY PUMP STATION3 OF 4MRMB - SIZE DRAWINGPRIMARY SUPPLY PUMP STATIONJDCAS NOTEDPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSLAB PLANSCALE: 38" = 1'-0"ALL TORRENT DRAWINGS ARE PROVIDED FOR PROCESS EQUIPMENTDESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SITE PLAN AND BUILDING DETAILS AREREPRESENTATIVE AND SHOWN FOR CLARITY ONLY.SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN OR BUILDING DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR ALLSITE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONSASPEN MOUNTAIN, CODATENO.REVISIONBY03-22-170FOR QUOTEJDM04-25-171UPDATEDJDM111 - 14"Ø STEEL PIPE - STUB-UP +/-3'-0" ABOVE SLABP55VI.A.
6'-0"W x 7'-0"TDOUBLE DOOR0'-0"0'-0"8'-0"19'-6"18'-0"0'-0"12'-6"8'-0"HHOUTLINE OF PRE-FAB SKID12'-8" x 9'-0"ESTIMATED WEIGHT = 13,000 LBS9'-0"12'-8"
4'-5"2'-10"www.torrentee.comWRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE COMPANY.PROPERTY OF TORRENT ENGINEERING SHOWN HEREON IS THE EXCLUSIVEAND EQUIPMENT, LLC, AND SHALLTO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT PRIORNOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSEDTHIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION Fax: (574)-658-3229MILFORD, IN 46542 USAEngineering and EquipmentPhone: (574)-658-3200TORRENTP.O. BOX 270APPROVED :BUILDING PLANASPEN MOUNTAIN, CO04-25-2017911117-M1DRAWING NUMBER :REV : 1DATE:DRAWN BY:SCALE:JDMSHEET :CHECKED :PRIMARY SUPPLY PUMP STATION4 OF 4MRMB - SIZE DRAWINGPRIMARY SUPPLY PUMP STATIONJDCAS NOTEDPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBUILDING PLANSCALE: 38" = 1'-0"ALL TORRENT DRAWINGS ARE PROVIDED FOR PROCESS EQUIPMENTDESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SITE PLAN AND BUILDING DETAILS AREREPRESENTATIVE AND SHOWN FOR CLARITY ONLY.SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN OR BUILDING DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR ALLSITE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONSASPEN MOUNTAIN, CODATENO.REVISIONBY03-22-170FOR QUOTEJDM04-25-171UPDATEDJDMRECOMMENDED VENTILATION;(1) 2515 CFM EACH @ 0.125" SP (STATIC PRESSURE), 24"Ø, WALL MOUNTEXHAUST FAN, 115/230 V/1/60, 1/4 HP, TEFC MOTOR, WITH ALUMINUMSPRING LOADED BACKDRAFT SHUTTER AND GUARD. GRAINGER #1HLB2OR EQUAL.(1) 24" MOTORIZED INLET AIR DAMPER, ALUMINUM FRAME, POWER TOOPEN, SPRING RETURN TO CLOSE, 120/240 V/1/60 POWERED. GRAINGER#3C315 OR EQUAL.(1) SINGLE SPEED THERMOSTAT WITH ONE SPDT, 16 AMP, 120/240 V/1/60RATED CONTACT, GRAINGER #4LZ94 OR EQUAL. CONNECT ONE EACH FANAND INTAKE TO A COMMON THERMOSTAT.RECOMMENDED HEATING;(2) 5 KW EACH ELECTRIC UNIT HEATER, 480 V/3/60 POWERED, CEILINGMOUNT WITH BRACKET KIT. GRAINGER #25D235 W/ THERMOSTAT(#25D246) AND BRACKET (#25D242) OR EQUAL.ABCABCCP56VI.A.
Project Engineer
Vicinity Map
Aspen Mountain
Sheet Index
Project Location
Scope of Work
Grading, drainage, utilities, erosion control and general civil design to support the proposed
booster pump station. Structural design for the proposed booster pump station and retaining
wall.
Progress Set
July 12, 2017
118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com
1-Cover
Preliminary Not
For Construction
Title:
Cover SheetRevision#Dwg No.Aspen Skiing CompanyAjax Booster StationJob No.
Drawn by:
Date:
File:
PE:QC:
2017-223.001
AE
07/12/2017
JH
AjaxBooster-Admin
CL
Aspen Skiing Company
Ajax Booster Station
1-COVER COVER SHEET
G1 GENERAL NOTES
V1 SURVEY PLAT
C1 DEMOLITION PLAN
C2 EROSION CONTROL PLAN
C3 SITE PLAN
C4 DETAIL SHEET
C5 COA DETAIL SHEET
Project
Milestone:DateBy:Scale: 1" = 2000'
P57VI.A.
G1
Preliminary Not
For Construction
Title:
General NotesRevision#Dwg No.Aspen Skiing CompanyAjax Booster StationJob No.
Drawn by:
Date:
File:
PE:QC:
2017-223.001
AE
07/12/2017
JH
AjaxBooster-Admin
CL
Project
Milestone:DateBy:Additional Abbreviations
Legend P58VI.A.
P59VI.A.
Graphic Scale
In Feet: 1" = 5'
0 3 5 10
C1
Preliminary Not
For Construction
Title:
Demolition PlanRevision#Dwg No.Aspen Skiing CompanyAjax Booster StationJob No.
Drawn by:
Date:
File:
PE:QC:
2017-223.001
AE
07/12/2017
JH
AjaxBooster-Design
CL
Project
Milestone:DateBy:P60VI.A.
Graphic Scale
In Feet: 1" = 5'
0 2 5 10
C2
Preliminary Not
For Construction
Title:
Erosion Control PlanRevision#Dwg No.Aspen Skiing CompanyAjax Booster StationJob No.
Drawn by:
Date:
File:
PE:QC:
2017-223.001
AE
07/12/2017
JH
AjaxBooster-Design
CL
Project
Milestone:DateBy:P61VI.A.
Graphic Scale
In Feet: 1" = 5'
0 3 5 10
C3
Preliminary Not
For Construction
Title:
Site PlanRevision#Dwg No.Aspen Skiing CompanyAjax Booster StationJob No.
Drawn by:
Date:
File:
PE:QC:
2017-223.001
AE
07/12/2017
JH
AjaxBooster-Design
CL
Project
Milestone:DateBy:P62VI.A.
Graphic Scale
In Feet: 1" = 20'
0 10 20 40
C4
Preliminary Not
For Construction
Title:
Detail SheetRevision#Dwg No.Aspen Skiing CompanyAjax Booster StationJob No.
Drawn by:
Date:
File:
PE:QC:
2017-223.001
AE
07/12/2017
JH
AjaxBooster-Details
CL
Project
Milestone:DateBy:P63VI.A.
C5
Preliminary Not
For Construction
Title:
COA Detail SheetRevision#Dwg No.Aspen Skiing CompanyAjax Booster StationJob No.
Drawn by:
Date:
File:
PE:QC:
2017-223.001
AE
07/12/2017
JH
AjaxBooster-Details
XX
Project
Milestone:DateBy:P64VI.A.