HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960409AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 9,1996, 4:00 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
I. SITE VISIT
Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 5
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) PUD Conceptual Review
IlI. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Conceptual Review
DATE: April 9,1996
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has established two public hearings (04.09.96 and 04.23.96) to
review the conceptual PUD Plan application for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 3 (Top of Mill)
will not be presented to the Commission until a later date. Due to the complexity and importance of the site
in the context of the central core of the City, staff has used the first staff memorandum to address conceptual
issues that should be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the early stages of review.
Issues staff feel are appropriate to frame at this point include the proposed use, mass and scale, the general
relationship to the existing neighborhood, and the sensitivity to the critical nature of linking the site with the
Little Nell and gondola area. These issues are summarized in the context of the applicable criteria for
conceptual PUD review. As consensus is reached on the broader aspects of the project, staff is suggesting
that the review become more detailed in scope.
PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The project is being processed as a four -step application, with reviews
occurring at different steps. Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below.
Step 1- P & Z Step 2 - Council
Conceptual PUD Conceptual PUD
Subdivision(1) Subdivision (1)
Notes: Italics represent public hearings
(1) Subdivision for only Lot 3
Step 3 - P & Z
Step 4 -Council
Final PUD
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Text Amendment
Rezoning
Rezoning
Conditional Use
8040 Greenline
Viewplane
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Sunny Vann and John Sarpa
LOCATION: Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 5 is located on Dean Street south of the ice rink between
Mill and Galena Streets, and extending south to the Alpenblick condominiums. The parcel includes a
portion of the Dean Street right-of-way, which was vacated in connection with the original PUD approval.
ZONING: L/TR PUD, (Lodge/Tourist Residential, mandatory PUD review) A small area of the vacated
Dean Street right-of-way is zoned CL, Commercial Lodge.
LOT AREA: 86,605 gross square feet. When the vacated right-of-way is subtracted from the total lot area,
the net lot area for the purposes of calculating FAR is reduced to 73,070 s.f.
1
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to develop 30 multi -family units on Lot 5.
Twenty-two units will be located within a single, high -density, multi -family structure along vacated Dean
Street (the "Dean Street building"). Just south of the Dean Street building, eight townhouse units are
clustered into two primary structures of four units each, fronting on Mill Street and Galena Street. Dean
Street will be closed to vehicular traffic and converted to a landscaped pedestrian mall, which is intended to
link the Ritz -Carlton and Lot 5 to the gondola plaza.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following
departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows:
Environmental Health: Environmental Health has reviewed the project, and had concerns regarding that the
Traffic Study prepared by TDA Inc. which assumed average annual occupancy rates, as opposed to Institute
of Traffic Engineers (ITE) rates. Staff notes that due to the decrease in trips from the elimination of the
Grand Aspen Hotel, it not likely that mitigation will be necessary.
Environmental Health did note that the proposed parking (72) far exceeds the 30 spaces recommended in
the traffic study, and recommends that the parking be reduced to encourage other means of travel.
Ordinance 30 requires two spaces per unit, requiring 60 spaces. Staff would suggest that the potential for
utilizing some of these excess spaces for public uses could be coupled with the removal of on -street spaces
in the central core, consistent with the intent of enhancing the pedestrian experience of Aspen.
Engineering Department: The Engineering Department is now responsible for compiling comments from
Parks, Water, Electric and Streets as well as comments from Engineering staff. Staff notes that a large
majority of these comments are either in regards to Lot 3 (Top of Mill), or are technical issues more
pertinent to discuss at the final PUD.
Housing: Housing has not submitted comments at the time of writing.
Additional Comments: Due to the historical complexity of the project, the City contracted with Alan
Richman to review the application from the perspective of the past agreements and amendments to the PUD.
Mr. Richman's comments germane to Lot 5 are summarized below, and attached as Exhibit B:
• The "Approval Parameters" in Table 1 (page 5) and Table 2 (pages 9-10) of the application appear to be
accurate for the Lot 5 site;
• The GMQS allocation representations regarding both Lot 3 and 5 are accurate, and reflect recorded
agreements;
• The statement on page 17 of the application that there are "150 hotel units and seven deed restricted
housing units in the existing Grand Aspen Hotel" is consistent with the PUD in reference to the
maximum number of lodge units that can operate within the PUD (447) and the required housing for the
Ritz Carlton and Ice Rink projects. The seven employee units must be relocated as part of any approval
for Lot 5;
2
• The PUD agreement (page 39) also makes the applicant responsible for net new employees and other
employee housing requirements as may be determined during the amended approval process for the Lot
5 component of the PUD.
Staff has attached all of the background material submitted by Alan and referenced in his comments.
STAFF COMMENTS
PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a
development application for PUD review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Staff
has framed the responses in the context of the conceptual issues identified in the summary.
General Requirements
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: Although it is true that the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan did not specifically address Lot 5
of the Aspen Mountain PUD specifically, several policies appear to be relevant to the project. For example,
under "Design Quality and Historic Preservation" includes a policy to Study which areas in the downtown
core could be developed in order to attract social activity in specific places. Although the Downtown
Enhancement Plan effort has just begun, the critical relationship of Lot 5 with both the Ritz -Gondola
corridor along Dean Street and the Ice Rink emphasizes the public nature and future potential of the site.
The project currently proposes a curvilinear landscaped plaza along the vacated right-of-way of Dean Street
to provide an enhanced pedestrian path from the Ritz to the Little Nell Plaza. This linkage has been a
priority for the City for some time. Staff's concern with the proposed Dean Street pedestrian mall as
proposed is the private nature of the proposed project, in the context of the public setting adjacent to the Ice
P
Rink and proximity to Ruby Park and the downtown core. The projects public aspect is reduced by the
applicant's intent of only using free market allocations and abandoning plans to use 50 hotel/lodge credits
approved with the original PUD.
The possibility of animating the mall by including first floor commercial development, and allowing for
some form of outside seating to encourage public use of the area is an issue worthy of discussion. Staff
recognizes that additional GMQS allotments for commercial development would be necessary. An option
that could potentially overcome this constraint would be to develop a conversion factor between either the
lodge or free market credits to allow for small-scale street level commercial uses without competing through
the GMQS system.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area.
Response: Neighboring development includes the Ritz -Carlton hotel and numerous mixed use multi -family
condominiums, commercial and public uses. The Dean Street building is located directly across from the
ice rink and the Rubey Park bus station. As discussed above, the private residential nature of the project
appears to conflict with the public setting, particularly in light of enhancing the pedestrian pathway along
vacated Dean Street.
Height: The highest point of the Dean Street building is approximately 55 feet to the top of the proposed
mansard roof, exceeding the maximum height in the underlying zone district by approximately 27 feet.
This is nearly double the allowed height of 28 feet in the L/TR zone district. The height steps down to
approximately 32 feet at the ends of the structure. In addition, the Dean Street Structure will encroach into
the Wheeler Opera Viewplane to a maximum of 30 feet. The applicant contends that this encroachment is
minimal due to the existing development behind Lot 5 (Durant and Fifth Avenue Condos). The viewplane
review will occur at the Step 3 of the review process.
The Mill Street/Galena Street Townhomes are proposed for 29.5 feet in height, only slightly exceeding the
28 foot allowable standard, and is generally consistent with the structures to the south and east.
Bulk: The Dean Street building, based on the proposed architectural design, will be an imposing structure
when compared to the Grand Aspen site and other existing uses to the east of Galena and the adjacent edge
of the downtown area. In fact, adjacent underlying zoning in the CC and C-1 zone district are 40 feet. As
proposed, the structure would extend the scale and urban design feel of the Ritz Carlton east along Dean
Street.
Although this is not certain, it appears that the largest portion of the structure may obscure the viewplane of
Aspen Mountain, when viewed from the Ice Rink, to a horizontal line formed by the catwalk. Staff
suggests that the applicant's submit photographs with the proposed front facade of the Dean Street building
superimposed, from the following six geographic locations that appear the most sensitive to the proposed
structure:
The Ice Rink Patio directly across from the proposed structure;
• The front entrance to the Ruby Park Transit Station;
• The southeast corner of Wagner Park;
• The southwest corner of Galena Street and Durant Avenue;
• The seating area located in front of Paradise Bakery;
• The Wheeler Opera house.
In addition, the applicant has agreed to provide a massing model with adjacent structures to assist staff and
the Commission in determining compliance with this standard.
Consistency with the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines: The applicable section of the Goals
for the Aspen Mountain Neighborhood are attached as Exhibit C. Specific components applicable to Lot 5
include the need to enhance the pedestrian experience at the street level, protect views of Aspen Mountain, a
promote a sense of visual integration in the neighborhood while also encouraging a diversity of building
types. All of these goals suggest that the height and use of the property should be modified.
4
7. Architectural Site Plan: An architectural site plan will be provided with the Final PUD application,
however the conceptual plans and profiles are of some concern to staff. The proposed Dean Street
Building is a significant architectural departure from the Grand Aspen and other adjacent uses to
the east and north, and the mass and scale of the structure is similar in tone to the Ritz Carlton.
8. Lighting: All lighting will be designed to minimize impacts on neighboring development and
streets. A detailed lighting plan will be provided with the Final PUD application.
9. Clustering: Not applicable
10. Public Facilities: Existing facilities are adequate to service the project, and all costs associated
with the provision of facilities will be born by the applicant. Staff notes that the applicant has had
on -going conversations with Engineering, and staff would suggest that the majority of infrastructure
issues should be discussed at final PUD submittal.
11. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: All units will have access to a public street. The sub -grade
parking garage will be accessed from Mill Street, which is highly preferable to Galena in terms of
site distance and traffic circulation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the applicant re -study the following conceptual
issues:
1. Consider reducing the height of the Dean Street Building to reduce the imposing mass of the front
facade;
2. That the applicant, in cooperation with the Community Development Department, investigate the
possibility of integrating street -level commercial uses to animate the plaza and the pedestrian experience
along Dean Street pathway towards the gondola;
3. Provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with a series of photographs from important sites
around the City with the Dean Street Building facade superimposed to illustrate the potential visual impact
of the proposal;
4. Recognize the linking function of the Dean Street corridor and seek to integrate the proposed
structure, the ice rink, the gondola, and development to the west (such as the Ritz) through the careful
design of corridor elements.
Exhibits:
"A" - Referral Memos
"B" - Alan Richman Memo
"C" - Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
area.
Response: Lot 5 represents the last significant development opportunity in the immediate area. Although
the area is essentially fully developed, that redevelopment can be expected in the general area. Staff would
suggest the proposed height variance request, if approved, will impact the viewplanes from these properties,
or set precedent for future development. In addition, the proposal would place passive, private land uses
adjacent to an active public space and transit center.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments
are obtained by the applicant.
Response: As discussed at length at the work session and described in the application, no GMQS
allocations are required for the development. Thirty-nine of the forty-seven residential units proposed for
Lots 3 and 5 are to be developed utilizing reconstruction credits which were previously approved the City
and confirmed in the Amended PUD Agreement. The remaining eight residential credits were obtained via
the GMQS process. Final approval can be granted to the project following the completion of the PUD
review process. Staff notes that the GMQS allocations are maximum ceilings for development of Lot 3 and
5, and in no way should be considered approved densities on either parcel.
Additional PUD Standards
1. Density: The L/TR zone district requires 1,000 square feet of lot area per bedroom. The project
proposes 72 bedrooms, which requires 72,000 square feet of lot area. Sufficient lot area is available
to accommodate this density. No reduction in density is necessary due to the presence of slopes in
excess of 20%. Staff notes that the net lot area is 73,070 s.f. The proposal represents the maximum
number of bedrooms that can be placed on Lot 5.
2. Land Uses: Multi -family dwellings are a permitted use in the L/TR zone district.
3. Dimensional Requirements
4. Off-street Parking: 72 parking spaces will be provided in a sub -grade parking garage, which
slightly exceeds the minimum number of 60 required spaces (one off-street space per bedroom, or
two per unit).
5. Open Space: The L/TR zone district has a minimum open space requirement of 25 %. The
applicant represents that approximately 39% of the undeveloped area on Lot 5 meets the open space
definition. Staff notes that the proposed design leaves sufficient open space to provide visual relief
to adjacent properties by breaking up the structures and providing east/west corridors parallel to
DeanStreet, and north/south between the townhome structures.
6. Landscape Plan: A detailed landscape plan will be provided and reviewed with the final PUD Plan
application. Staff has suggested that the eventual configuration of the passage way on Dean Street
is a critical component of the project, and should be refined at this stage of the process.
5
Exhibit A
MEMORANDUM.
To: Dave Mi.chaelson,'Deputy birector
Community Development Department.
From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental. Health Department
Date:. March 8, 199.6
Re.: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD (Lots'3`&.5) Conceptual
' Submission,. -Rezoning. -and Text Amendment ;
Parcel.TD # 2737-182-85-00.3 & 005
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental 'Health.Department•has reviewed t.h-e
Aspen Mountain Subdivi-sion (Grand Aspen and Top of Mill) land use
submittal under authority of. the . Municipal Code of the City . of
Aspens and has the following comments
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND 'COLLECTION: 'Section 11-1 . 7 "It shall be unlawful for
the owner or occupant.of.any building. used for residence -or business purposes within the city to construct or .
reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal 'device." •.
The plans "to .provide wastewater disposal - for this, project through
.the central - collection lines • of the Aspen "Consolidated ..Sanitation
District. .(ACSD) meet the requirements of this- Department . ' The
.ability 'of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle..
the increased f low-• for the project should be .determined by. the
ACSD . The applicant has failed to provided documentation- . that the
applicant and the service agency,- are mutually bound to the
proposal and that the service agency is. capable of serving the
development
ADEQUATE PROVI S IONS FOR WATER NEEDS • Section 2 3 - 5 5 "All buildings,
structures,. facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected- to the
municipal water utility system.."
The provision •of potable water from the - City of . Aspen system is
consistent with Environmental Health policies.ensuring the supply
of saf 6 water The City .• of Aspen Water .Departmentshall determine
if .adequat.e water .'is . available for the, project . The, City, of 'Aspen
water supply meets all standards of the Colorado. Department of
Health for .drinking..water quality.
IMPACTS • Sect ion 11-1 3 "For. the purpose ,of . maintaining and
WATER QUALITY
protecting -its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory. and
he incorporated limits of .the City of- Aspen and over all streams and sources
supervisory jurisdiction within t
contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of. five (5) miles above the points from which municipal
water supplies are diverted." .
A., drainage. plan to mitigate- the water quality impacts from drive ;
and parking areas Iwill- be evaluated by the -City Engineer This
application is not- expected to impact..down stream water quality.
AIR QUALITY Sections 11-2.1. "It, is the purpose of [the air 'quality section of the
Municipal Code]' to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possibleby requiring, the .use of all,
available practical methods and techn goes to control, prevent,and.reduce air pollution throughout- the city..."
The .Land Use. Regulations seek to'"lessen congestion" and' "avoid transportation demands that cannot .be met" as
well. as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The major concern of our department is the impact of
increasing, traffic in a non -attainment area designated by the
EPA. Under the'requirements of the State Implementation Plan
''for the Aspen area, ' PM-10 (which comes almost ' all from
traffic driving on -paved roads). must'be reduced by 25% by.
1997..In order to achieve that -reduction, traffic increases
that ordinarily would occur•as a result of development must
be mitigated,. or else the.�gains brought about by community
control measures will be lost In addition,,in order to
comply with the municipal code requirement to achieve the
maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available
practical methods to reduce pollution., traffic increases of
development.must be�offset*.In order to do this, the
applicant will need.to determine the traffic increases•
generated by the project, commit to a set of control
measures, and show that. the 'traffi.c decreased by the control
measures is at least as great as the traffid.increases of the
out mitigation..
project with
A Traffic and Parking Study,was prepared by TDA Inc. to describe
the impacts -and mitigation.for the proposed project. The study
concludes that -no mitigation is -required since; the. proposed
development .decreases.the number of p.m. peak trips from
background conditions. However, this assumption is based on using.
an -average -annual occupancy. rate .. The standard ITE- trip.
generation rates should be :used. The units will generate trips
E ..
from. residents., guests, . cleaners; maintenance, etc .year round and
especially during winter when PM-10 pollution is a concern.
E However, the total number of- units is-. being' redticed. The .hotel
will not be developed. It -can be anticipated that there -mill. be a
decrease in traffio and that.they -have already mitigated their.
:impacts.
Page 68 ' states that. according t.o the Traf f is . and Parking. Study
prepared by TDA; Inc., the. proposed parking.substantially exceeds
the estimated demand. Based on. their analysis., TDA estimate's'that
only 3.0 spaces .(vs 72) will -be required to accommodate. the
development on.Lot 5,. and only 20 (vs 36) spaces will'be required
on Lot. 3 (excluding the five single-family residences)..*-. If
Community Developmean.t agrees with the :applicant's contention that
the parking supply being proposed is actually greater than the
parking demand,'. -thi*s, Department., would. recommend reduction in the
number of of parking. spaces being 'considered This is because
adding excess .parking serves to. fac'ilit.ate_ use of cars instead of •
to encourage walking 'and other means ..of travel..
FIREPZACE/WOODSTOVE .PERMITS. The. applicant must file a
fireplace/woodstove permit with .-the. Environmental Health
Department before the building permit will -be issued. In
metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which. includes this site,
buildings may have 'two gas Igg fireplaces or two certified
wbodstoves (or. 1 of each) and unlimited . number's of decorative. gas
fireplace appliances. -per 'building.' New homes* may NOT have wood,
burning fireplaces, nor .may any ' heat-ing device use coal ,as fuel .
Barns and agricultural buildings may not install any. type of
fireplace device
FUGITIVE. DUST A. fugitive- dust control plan is required which
'T'
includes, but .is not.. limited to. fencing, watering of haul roads
and disturbed areas, daily. cleaning of adjacent paved roads to
remove mud that --has been carried out, speed limits, or other
measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the
property fine or causing a nuisance.
A major concern is fugitive. -dust during construction A condition
of approval should be continual. removal of any mud —or dirt. and.
maintenance of streets in a clean condition throughout the
aving their own flusher truck. on the
project, by hsite and
flashing•as many times a:day as necessary:
FMOLITION Prior to,demolition the applicant,should.notify.the
Colorado Department of.Health and -have the material tested by.a.
licensed asbestos tester.Any asbestos must be removed BEFORE
demolition. It.-must.be removed by a licensed asbestos removal
..contractor and -it must be disposed of in a.licensed landfill
The Environmental Health Department will not be able to sign the
demolition permit until it receives the asbestos test. report.
UNDERGROUND PARKING The applicant must consult with, an
about the design of, the underground parking
engineering firm
structure ventilation system to ensure that ventilation is
adequate to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching high levels.
inside. the facility or in the nearby areas outside ,it'. In order. -to,
determine. -whether the proposed design prevents excessive levels: of
carbon monoxide from concentrating inside the structure and in
nearby areas and' buildings, the applicant will need to submit the
proposed ventilation system plans to the Colorado Department of
Health for their evaluation to meet the above criteria.: The
applicant will also need to. contact the Colorado Health Department
to apply for'an air pollution permit.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT • Section 16.1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a
of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public
significant source
peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and. it. its visitors.
..Accordingly, it is the policy' of inc to provide- standards for permissible noise levels in various
areas and'manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of. those levels."
construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible
.During
sound level standards, and construction. cannot be done except
between the -hours of.' 7 , a . m . and 10 ' p..,m .
It' is. very likely that noise generated during the construction
phase of this project will :.have some negative impact on. the
4
',
t
MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Enginee
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
Date: March 12, 1996 (Revised)
Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD (Lots 3 & 5), Conceptual Submission,
Rezoning & Text Amendment
The information provided to us to date is insufficient to make a full review of the proposed project
therefore this response is a preliminary draft, subject to amendment, based on further information to
be provided by the applicant.
Our comments, questions and concerns about various aspects of the proposed project are:
Water Utility
• 15 service connections to neighbors plus one hydrant to be moved from 6 inch line and
reconnected to existing 12 inch line through Galena and Summit streets
• The existing 6 inch line through Galena and Summit Streets to be abandoned after removing
water services remaining on 6 inch line
• City needs easements for water lines
• The Water Dept. has verified sufficient capacity in the distribution system to service this new
development
• Service to the proposed units above the 8040 line will require an auxiliary pump system to
provide adequate flow and pressure for domestic use and fire suppression as stated in the
application
• The Water Dept. is concerned about the apparent conflict of interest created by Leonard Rice,
Water Engineers, (Mr. A.J. Zabbia) working for the developer when this consultant has been
retained by the City as its consulting engineer for the Water Dept.
Electric Power Utility
• Sufficient illumination is needed on new streets and possibly on existing streets, particularly
on upper Galena St. and Summit St.
• Pants of this development are within the Holy Cross service area so the electrical plans will
also need to be reviewed by Holy Cross Electric.
1
3/ 12/96
DRCM3A96.DOC
MEMO - Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD, lots 3 & 5
Streets
• Full -width Roto-milling of existing asphalt pavement and installation of a leveling course
plus 2 inch asphalt overlay is required to support the traffic and the frequent cuts due to
service trenches.
• Utility trenching: Straight asphalt line cutting; 12 inches beyond trench width to establish a
straight neat line plus installation of 4 inch asphalt patch prior to street overlay is required.
Maintain 1 /2 inch asphalt lip at concrete gutter pans.
• On -site drainage; Text of application (pg. 43) mentions storm water and snow melt draining
from the project site to City streets which will not be permitted. Drywell inlets or other on -
site drainage system will be allowed if soils permit.
• Pre and post development drainage leaving site must be the same, i.e. the projects must
detain run-off and effectively route the flows through open space for percolation and
evaporation, and allow for the pre -development level of mitigated conveyance.
Parks and Open Space
• Open space and trail alignments are not shown and they are required
• Bike path has moved from existing easement (pg. 46) - proposed route must meet
requirements of and be approved by Parks Dept.
• Lot lines on PUD conflict with dedicated easements, (Lot 3) - must be corrected to existing
easements or make an acceptable trade with the City.
• Proposed open space is a "private" park which needs to be readily accessible to the general
public as a public space
• Proposed landscaping will require additional reviews during design process
Engineering
• Lot 3: Utility easements are required for all utilities (page 43) and at other locations for
future improvements.
around and
• Flood control R-O-W for snow melt/storm drainage must be granted to the City
through projects. Since the master plan of primary and secondary conveyance systems is
not in place, this development cannot proceed without dedication of R-O-W s/easements to
the City.
+ Aspen Mountain area drainage master plan study is planned to begin in the near future.
Although this may have been overlooked in previous reviews, the Pioneer/Vallejo Gulches
Detention/Debris Basin appears to lie in the center of Lot 3. This basin is intended to capture
the snow melt run-off from the mountain immediately to the south. (Urban Runoff
Management Plan, August, 1973). This can significantly change as a result of the future
master plan.
• -off needs to be addressed in the feasibility study phase
Site generated and off -site storm run
of thisproject ' ect given the location at the base of the mountain in a natural drainage basin. This
2
3/ 12/96
DRCM3A96.DOC
MEMO - Aspen Mt. Subdivision / PUD. lots 3 & 5
needs to be studied and reported on by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. No
storm runoff from soils exposed by excavation and construction shall be permitted to enter
City streets or alleys. Sediment transport or debris from the construction site onto City
streets is prohibited and preventative measures that will meet our approval must be employed
by the developer and shown on the construction plans.
• The Mill Street storm sewer needs to be extended further south up Mill Street to receive
drainage before it leaves the development site and to prevent it from entering the City streets.
The drainage design will need to satisfy the City design standards and procedures of Sections
26.88.040 and 26.88.050.
• The entire subdivision will need to meet the City design standards and procedures of Section
26.88.040 and 26.88.050 for subdivisions.
• The developer needs to quantify what responsibility and role SkiCo may have in mitigating
run-off due to snow melt and erosion through the site and on to public streets.
• The City needs the geotechnical and environmental reports from the applicant to make
further evaluations, e.g. landslide hazard, site drainage, erosion control, sediment transport
control, and slope stabilization.
• Private Road: Indemnity clause from developer to the City for the publicly accessible but
privately maintained loop into Lot 3 is required with submittals and on plans.
• If the homeowner's assoc. is dissolved, this roadway shall be dedicated to the public.
• All the plan (application) sheets need to be submitted on 24" x 36" size sheets
• The application does not include neither a property survey nor a topographic map certified
and stamped by a PLS; submitted "maps" are uncertified, unstamped drawings and sketches
• As a note of reference to the Wheeler Opera House view plane, a 5' 11" person standing on
the sidewalk in front of the Wheeler Opera House can see all of the existing ski but higher
than approximately 30 inches above the deck or door sill elevation on the west side of the
hut. The actual projection Of the view plane will be reviewed further.
• Directional crossing (non -diagonal) handicap ramps shall be installed to provide access to
and through the development areas. Curbs, gutters and storm runoff inlets will need to be
located and constructed to retain water within the design drainage patterns and collection
system, and to prevent the storm drainage from collecting on, flooding, or running across
handicap ramps, driveways, sidewalks, streets or areas other than into the designated
collection systems.
DRCM3A96.D0C 3/12/96
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services W
SUBJECT: Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Conceptual PUD
DATE: February 28, 1996
Purpose
Pursuant to your direction, I have reviewed the 1996 Conceptual PUD
submission for the Grand Aspen Hotel and Top of Mill properties.
I have also examined the City's files on the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision, in particular, the 1984/1985 Conceptual and
Preliminary PUD files and the applicant's original submission
booklets for what were then identified as "the residential
projects".
The purposes of my review are to assist you in understanding the
history of the Aspen Mountain PUD project as it pertains to the
current submission and to help you to determine whether the
applicant has correctly described that history for you in the
application.
In general, I find that the applicant's review of the history of
the PUD, which begins on page 2 of the submission, is accurate. In
particular, the applicant's review of the "approval parameters" in
Table 1 (page 5) and Table 2 (page 9-10) appears to be correct.
However, in reviewing the project history for the Top of Mill
portion of the property, the applicant has either not mentioned
some pertinent events or has not emphasized certain issues which I
think may be important. I will provide .you a description of these
issues below.
It is also important that you are aware that my work with the PUD
essentially ended when I stopped working for the City in 1989.
Although I subsequently performed limited contract work for the
City on the PUD in 1990 and again in 1992, those were very specific
assignments which did not provide me an overall perspective of how
the project approvals were changing. In particular, I have not
been involved in what are known as the "Section M Amendments". I
would suggest that you talk with Amy Margerum and Diane Moore if
you have any questions about the history of those amendments.
Project Review
Following below are my comments on the application. To simplify
your review, my comments are organized to follow the order of the
presentation in the application booklet.
1. Page 3 of the application booklet states that "The approval
process for the Top of Mill project was suspended following
conceptual approval pending further evaluation of the site".
It is correct that conceptual approval was the last formal
approval granted to the Top of Mill project. I previously
provided you a copy of City Council Resolution 84-23, which
granted that conceptual approval, subject to conditions.
Subsequent to that approval (and just after the lodge projects
received preliminary approval on January 22, 1985), the
applicant filed an application for preliminary approval of the
residential projects on January 28, 1985. I submitted two
memos to the P&Z reviewing that submission, dated March 5 and
March 19, 1985 (copies attached). Our review of the project
had to proceed in phases because we did not receive some key
referral comments in a timely manner.
These late -arriving referral comments addressed what we
identified as the "natural hazards review". Based on comments
received from the Colorado Geologic Service, staff recommended
that action on the Top of Mill project be tabled until further
analysis and study of the potential for landslide, debris
movement and mud flood to affect this property was completed.
The P&Z concurred and review of the project ended at that time
and did not commence again during my tenure with the City.
I also attach P&Z Resolution 85-6, dated April 2, 1985, which
delayed the approval of the Top of Mill preliminary PUD
submission until 12 specified conditions were met.
I have also provided you with copies of the relevant staff and
referral agency comments on the preliminary submission and can
show you where the original files are located in City Hall.
2. On page 9 of the application it states that the principal
change to the Roberts approval in 1988 was to change the
number of lodge units. While this was certainly one outcome
of that review process, it was not the only reason the
applicant made the amended submission. Its primary purpose
was to achieve a re -design of the hotel, including changes in
architecture, site layout, internal configuration, etc. The
focus of the 1988 debate was on the height, massing and floor
area of the hotel and on impacts such as employee housing.
3. On page 10, Table 2 correctly notes that 8 of the units
planned for Lot 5 arose from a prior GMQS allocation. I
recall us completing a GMQS amendment procedure for the
residential units in 1988, just prior to final approval of
that amendment. You may need to complete another GMQS
amendment, as a technical matter, prior to final approval of
this proposed amendment.
2
4. on page 13, end of the second paragraph, the applicant makes
the statement that six covered parking spaces for Summit Place
are to be provided on Lot 3 on or before January 1, 1997. 1
have been unable to find the source for this condition. You
should ask the applicant to provide the applicable reference
for you, as the Amended PUD Agreement (page 3 1) provides that
parking for that project would be on site (sub -grade).
5. The statement on page 17 that there are 150 hotel units and 7
deed restricted housing units in the Grand Aspen Hotel means
the PUD complies with prior conditions as to: (a) the maximum
number of lodge units which can be in operation within the PUD
(447 units, as per representation 2 on page 42 of 1988 PUD
Agreement) ; and (b) the required housing for the Ritz Carlton
and Ice Rink projects. As the application states, the 7
employee units must be relocated as part of any approval for
Lot 5. Please also note that the PUD Agreement (page 39) also
makes the applicant responsible for providing "off -site
employee housing for net new employees and other employee
housing requirements as may be determined during the amended
approval process for the Lot 5 component of the project 11.
6. The description of the Ski Club condition on page 22 is
accurate. The original reference for this condition is found
in representation 9 on page 44 of 1988 PUD Agreement.
For your information, although the City was not responsible
for choosing the new building site, we completed considerable
work on possible sites. In fact, there is a study of
alternative sites for a new building contained within the 1985
preliminary PUD file for the residential projects. The study
was done by Larry Yaw for the Ski Club and focuses on sites in
and around Willoughby Park and Lift 1A. During this time
period, staff worked as a "catalyst" for a plan to build a ski
museum and Ski Club building in this area. I can describe
this for you in greater detail if you think it is relevant.
7. on page 25, the application mentions the payment of $250,000
to the City toward preparation and implementation of an Aspen
Mountain drainage plan. The original reference for this
condition and the intended uses for the funds are found in
representation 10 on pages 44-45 of the 1988 PUD Agreement.
The applicant accurately states on page 25 that this
contribution relieved the applicant of a prior commitment to
provide on -site detention facilities within the open space
easement contained within the Top of Mill property. However,
on page 65 of the application, the applicant makes another
reference to what this payment meant, that I do not believe is
correct. On page 65 the applicant states that based on the
amended PUD, "storm water generated as a result of the
development of Lot 3 is to be mitigated by the City".
3
It was my understanding that the on -site detention facilities
were principally intended to detain water and debris that
originate off -site and run onto this site during a storm
event. When it was determined to be premature to decide on
the best form that this hazard control would taker the City
agreed to allow the applicant to contribute towards its study
and ultimate resolution, rather than to build facilities that
might not prove to be adequate. I do not recall that the City
accepted this money with the understanding that the city would
become responsible for mitigating the additional drainage
impacts the development would place on the City.
8. An aspect of the project history not mentioned in the
application is that the City gave the applicant approximately
11,000 sq. ft. of land (8 lots) it owned within the Top of
Mill site in exchange for a portion of the Koch Lumber
property (Koch Park) . The rest of the Koch property was given
to the city in exchange for a series of street vacations
within the PUD. The 8 lots had been zoned Public and were
rezoned to L-2 (now L/TR) by Ordinance 85-11 on 5/13/85.
9. On page 54 (and again on page 76) the applicant proposes
rezoning the land within the Top of Mill property zoned R-15
to L/TR. For your information, the prior PUD application also
contained such a request. The staff did not support this
request and the attached Resolution 84-5 of the Aspen P&Z
recommended denial of this request for three reasons:
a. The proposed development could be achieved without the
rezoning.
b. The rezoning would create a more favorable FAR for the
property, which could instead be achieved by a PUD
variation for FAR (a variation which has since been
removed from the Regulations).
C. The L-2 zone district would allow multi -family
development to occur, which was not consistent with the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designation for the area.
Before the rezoning could be considered by Council, it was
withdrawn by the applicant (see 4/6/84 letter from Joe Wells) -
10. on page 58, the application states that 60,260 sq. ft. of the
Top of Mill parcel (about 25%) will be open space. In
reviewing the 1985 preliminary PUD booklet, I note that on
page 50, it states that about 170,000 sq. ft. (70%) will be
open space. I have not spent any time analyzing the site plan
to see why the open space has changed by so much. However, I
would remind you that the definition of open space was changed
in 1988 and it is possible that some areas which qualified as
open space in 1985 do not still qualify today.
4
11. Some other aspects of the Top of Mill design which appear to
differ from the representations made in 1984/85 include:
a. The prior design did not bring vehicles into the site.
Instead, they were directed to a sub -grade parking
structure. There was only a single street within the
project site, oriented to continue the City' s grid street
network. The application booklet repeatedly made the
point that "powerful axial views up Mill Street will be
maintained and reinforced". The City ultimately vacated
the top portion of Mill Street to facilitate this design
(see City Ordinance 85-14, adopted on 5/13/85 and as
referenced on the final plat) .
b. The 33 units within the Top of Mill project were all
planned to have 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area, contained
within a 1,000 sq. ft. footprint.
12. The analysis of mountain view plane issues (page 84) is
consistent with the staff approach to that issue in 1984/85.
For your information, during the prior review we discussed
mountain view plane and 8040 greenline issues at the
conceptual stage, but only gave final approval to the issues
when full architectural and grading plans were submitted at
preliminary plat. I would also point out to you that in 1988
the mountain view plane provisions were amended to take into
account the potential that the review of a development in a
view plane that is blocked by another structure should take
into account whether future re -development of that structure
may re -open the view plane. I do not know if that amendment
is relevant to this situation, but wanted you to be aware of
that change since the original review.
13. Finally, I would remind you that the PUD agreement established
park dedication fees for the residential units to be built at
that time. Such fees would appear to also be applicable to
these dwelling units.
I hope this memorandum provides you the information you require to
understand the complete history of these projects. Please let me
know if it would be helpful to you for me to go into greater depth
on any of the issues discussed herein or to provide you any
additional analysis.
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects - Preliminary
PUD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews
DATE: March 5, 1985
APPLICANTS' REQUEST
The Applicants request preliminary PUD/subdivision approval for the
residential projects included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. Other
associated review procedures to be followed at this time are are follows:
1. Confirmation of prior RHO for Ute City Place;
2. Condominiumization;
3. 8040 G reenl ine ; and
4. Conditional use for short -terming in the R-15 (L) PUD zone
district.
This application is being processed subsequent to the completion of
your review of the lodge component of the PUD. Permission to phase
and separately review the lodge and residential components was expressly
granted by Council on August 27, 1984, provided that the approval of
any preliminary stage not become effective until the preliminary
review for the entire PUD has been approved. You granted preliminary
approval to the lodge component of the PUD by your Resolution 85-1 on
January 22, 1985, including a condition that the approval not be final
until you have also approved the preliminary residential component.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The residential projects included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD
are as follows:
1. Internal to Hotel - 14 units (8 via GMP application, 6 via
reconstruction of demolished units within the PUD).
2. Top of Mill - 33 units (all units are a reconstruction of
demolished units within the PUD) .
3. Summit Place - 3 units (two units are already under construc-
tion, exempt from GMP as a duplex on a previously subdivided
lot; the third unit is to be a reconstruction of a demolished
unit within the PUD).
4. 700 South Galena - 4 units (all via GMP application).
5. Ute City Place - 22 units (all units are employee units and
have been granted a GMP'exemption as deed restricted housing) .
In summary, there are a total of forty (40) units which the applicant
has verified and wishes to reconstruct within the PUD, and twelve (12)
units for which the applicant has received GMP allotments and proposes
to build within the PUD. The twenty-two (22) employee units at Ute
City Place represent one element of the total employee housing solution
for the project, which also includes the following:
1. Alpina Haus - 43 rooms (change in use from lodge to employee
housing, 46 employees to be hol, ') .
2. Copper Horse - 14 rooms (change in use from lodge to employee
housing, 43 employees to be housed) .
3. Airport Business Center Apartments (32 units (deed -restriction
of units which are presently in the free market, 69 employees
to be housed) .
4. Ute City Place - 22 units (construction of new deed restricted
housing, 37 employees to be housed) .
The total of 195 employees to be housed within these four (4) projects
is intended to meet the applicant's commitments with respect to the
lodge, residential and commercial GMP applications submitted during
the last 18 months, plus the replacement of any housing which exists
and is being demolished or was otherwise committed to within the PUD.
While employee housing represents one key issue which will require
review at this stage of the process, there are a variety of other
issues which should receive your attention at this time. The major
items which the Planning Office feels require review, based on our
comprehensive review of the conditions of conceptual approval, are:
1. Basic land use and site design issues, particularly in terms
of landscaping, height and compatibility with surrounding
developments, incorporating the preliminary PUD, 8040
Greenline, and condition use criteria of the Code.
2. Circulation plans for the site, including roads, trails,
parking solutions and overall access for emergency purposes.
3. Plans for mitigation of natural hazards, including potential
geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain, stormwater drainage from
the mountain onto the site, contaminated soils on the site,
an`d potential mine subsidence on the site.
4. Miscellaneous issues such as the Koch Lumber land trade, the
relocation of the Aspen Ski Club's building and condominiumiza-
tion of the free market units.
REVIEW APPROACH
Normally, the Planning off ice's approach to a project of this magnitude
would be to initiate our review with some of the broad site concerns
(i. e. , #1, 2 and 3 above) and then move on to the relatively peripheral
concerns such as employee housing and miscellaneous items. However, the
Planning Office has been severly hampered in its review of this
project by some unusual delays in receipt of referral memos from
several key agencies. Recognizing the very technical nature of of
some of the issues being addressed by these individuals, we have
decided to concentrate this memo on those items where adequate informa-
tion is presently available (principally employee housing and items 1
and 2) . We will forward additional memos to you prior to your review
of the other issues when better review data is received.
Following is the schedule which we propose for review of the residential
projects:
Tonight.- Employee Housing, Architectural Concerns
March 12 - Site Design and Circulation
March 19 - Hazard Mitigation
March 26 -Miscellaneous Concerns and Wrap Up
April 2 - Resolution
This memo before you tonight should be adequate to take us through the
first two meetings and a follow-up memo for the 3rd and 4th meetings
will be written subsequently. This schedule has been reviewed and
approved by both the applicants and the Chairman.
2
EMPLOYER HOUSING
The key concerns with respect to employee housing are included in the
attached City Council Resolution 84-27, endorsing the Aspen Mountain
PUD revised employee housing proposal. The major aspects of that
Resolution were as follows:
1. The applicants should recalculate the employee housing
generation figures, based on revisions to the lodge program,
and further document that existing employee housing units
have been replaced.
2. The applicants should deed -restrict the units in the Alpina
Haus, Copper Horse, Ute City Place and Airport Business
Center Apartments.
3. The applicants should identify needed building improvements
to the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse.
4. The applicants should identify parking and transportation
plans for the employee housing units.
5. The applicants should address eight (8) specific conceptual
conditions for Ute City Place.
In response to requirement It the applicants have submitted an update
of their employee housing generation figures, contained on pages
139-142 of the submission. Jim Curtis, representing the applicants,
indicates that the new requirement for the hotel and residential
projects, based on GMP commitments, is 195 employees, as compared to
the 201 employees previously to be housed. The recalculation also
includes the employee housing units which must be replaced to mitigate
the displacement pressures of condominiumization.
Looking specifically at the employee generation figures, we find that
the reduced level of accessory retail space in the hotel is the
primary reason for the drop in lodge employees at this time. Given
the fact that the same approach is used by Jim in the original and
updated calculations, Jim Adamski comments that "the Housing office
concurs with the applicants' methodology and calculations and therefore
endorses this portion of the Preliminary Plat."
As you may recall, the only issue which the Planning Office raised
with respect to the replacement calculation was the applicants' substitu-
tion of a commitment to house all thirteen (13) of the employees
generated by the 36 units of the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP for the prior
Cantrup commitment to house 35 employees in 24 units. This issue was
resolved during the review of the lodge component in favor of the
applicants' proposal.
The second item, with respect to deed -restrictions, has been properly
addressed through the applicants submission of the necessary documents,
to be incorporated in the PUD Agreement.
The third item, with respect to Building improvements, has been
addressed by Jim Curtis in a letter contained on Pages 161-162 of the
application. In essence, Jim found that both buildings are well
maintained and therefore have no major mechanical, roof or structural
problems. Therefore, the applicants have committed to various cosmetic
improvements to make the units somewhat more pleasant for occupancy.
The fourth item, with respect to parking and transportation, requires
first, that the the applicants retain all on -site parking at the
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse. The applicants have agreed to retain
the 11 on -site spaces at the Alpina Haus and the 4 on -site spaces at
the Copper Horse to comply with this requirement.
The second parking requirements was that the applicants mitigate the
effects of this below Code parking ratio by providing at least one
parking space for every two employees at the housing units. Across
the four residential projects, the applicant is providing 100 spaces
for the 195 employees housed (see Table 11 page 163) . However, in
town, the applicant is only providing 42 spaces for the 126 employees
housed, a ratio of one (1) space for every three employees housed.
The other half of the parking equation is parking for employees at
their place of work. The applicants' traffic consultant believes that
there will be unused parking spaces in the hotel which could be
segregated for employee parking. The likely cushion available is 28
to 56 spaces, plus, 10 permanent spaces for employees. To address the
parking short -fall which is likely to result, the applicants propose
the f oll owing:
1. Employees will be discouraged from driving to work through
management policies such as assigning spaces to specific
employees. Please note that three of the projects are
within walking distance of the hotel and are on bus routes,
while the ABC property will be served by an employee shuttle
-and the RFTA buses. (See page 166-170 of application) .
2. Employees will be prohibited from bringing their cars to the
hotel during peak occupancy periods.
In my opinion, the applicants have not adequately addressed the need
for employee parking at the employee's place of residence for the
in -town projects. I suggest that the applicants be asked to provide
documentation that a ratio of one space for every three employees is
adequate, given historical auto ownership patterns. If such documenta-
tion is unavailable, the applicants should be required to provide a
minimum of 21 additional spaces in and around the 3 in -town projects to
bring the ratio up to one space per two employees.
4n the other hand, I feel more comfortable with the lack of employee
spaces on the hotel site. My reasons for concurring with the applicants
proposals in this regard are the availability of public and private
transit service, the ability of the hotel operator to control the
employees and my expectation that adequate on -street controls can be
enforced to prevent long-term parking by employees.
The fifth item, with respect to the eight conditions of conceptual
approval of Ute City Place requires the following responses:
1. The water system interconnect originally required of this
project has already been made by the City Water Department.
2. The applicants have re-evaluated, at the request of Jay
Hammond, the proposed curb cut entryway on Cooper to the
parking area and have found that by moving the cut away from
the West End Street intersection to the vicinity of Cleveland
Street, the traffic conflict problems identified earlier can
be solved. Jay feels that the new location will eliminate
the need to prohibit left turns into the lot from Cooper
Street and will help to provide better access to several
properties which are currently not well served by the alley
behind the Ute City Place Project.
3. The applicants have agreed to provide a sidewalk along Cooper.
4. The applicants have provided a landscaping plan which provides
the majority of its planting along Cooper Street. The
street trees include cottonwoods, spruce and aspens, with
the spruce specifically intended to screen the parking lot.
Shrubs and ground cover are used for accent purposes only.
The adequacy of the plan, only requesting that some minor
changes be made to the proposal.
5. The applicants have agreed to eliminate all fireplaces in
the Ute City Place project, going beyond the requirements of
the Code.
6. The applicants are providing 27 spaces for the 37 employees
to be housed, in excess of the one (1) space per two (2)
employees requirements.
7. There is no response to this issue required.
8. The question of rezoning this site to RBO is one to which I
have given a great deal of thought. In effect, this site
is already zoned RBO, although that zoning designation was
given to a particular project. However, the rezoning
ordinance did not indicate that the RBO designation would
expire if the project expired, and so I believe no rezoning
is required.
What I believe is necessary at this time is for us to reconfirm that
this project is in compliance with the RBO which was granted to this
site. On pages 129-133, the applicants make some very convincing
arguments about the appropriateness of this site and project for the
RBO designation, including:
1. It exceeds the 50% deed -restricted housing requirements of
RBO by having 100% of the units so designated.
2. It is in a neighborhood which is primarily free market
housing and therefore helps to disperse employee units.
3. Its design and bulk is in keeping with surrounding uses.
4. It is on a bus route and close to shopping and the lodge.
It provides adequate on -site parking.
In my opinion, since we found the prior Ute City Place Project to be
in conformance with RBO criteria, this project should be found to be
in even greater compliance for the following reasons:
1. The FAR in the project has been reduced from 1.34:1 (using
current calculation methods) to 1.1:1.
2. Open space on the site has been increased from 18% to 23%.
Although this amount of open space is below the newly
imposed 35% requirements in the R-MF district, this requirement
can, and we believe should, be waived, as per Section
24-10.5 (f) of the Code. Please also note that the project' s
height continues to be at 28 feet (not the 25 feet required
by the zone) due to the applicants' having obtained a
variance from that newly imposed provision of the Code.
3. Landscaping on the site exceeds that previously proposed.
Parking has been increased from 26 to 27 spaces and is
accessed in an improved fashion.
4. The project is 100%, rather than approximately 67% employee
housing.
Based on the above considerations, I believe that the project should
be confirmed as meeting the intents and purposes of the existing RBO
zoning designation.
The only remaining issue with respect to employee housing is the
applicants request for condominiumization. The applicants have requested
condom ini umiz ati on of the Ute City Place units for possible sale to
employees. Jim Adamski raises a concern, shared by the Planning
Office, that due to the seasonal nature of many of the lodge employees,
purchase may be an inappropriate option. The Housing Authority has
therefore asked for the ability to review the mix of rental and sale
units three months prior to their deed -restriction for a determination
as to what percentage of the total project housing mix can be condomini-
umized.
0
With the exception of the above issue, no other concerns relative to
Section 20-22 appear to be relevant at this time, since the one
existing unit on the site has never been rented on a long-term basis.
We will impose the relevant conditions on this proposal (i. e. , six
month minimum lease) in our resolution containing conditions.
ARCHITECTURE, SIT$ DESIGN AND CIRCULATION
The residential projects have changed as regards basic design, to
varying degrees since conceptual submission. The Top of Mill Project
has remained essentially the same as its original presentation, with
the exception that the project has addressed the conditions and
concerns raised at the conceptual stage. The 700 S. Galena project,
as presented to you in the recent residential competition, has changed
significantly, and, in our opinion, much for the better. Finally, the
Summit Place and Ute City Place projects remain essentially as they
were originally presented at the conceptual stage. Following is a
review of the key architecture, site design and circulation issues for
these four projects.
1. Top of Mill
The major improvement to the Top of Mill project is its compliance
with Condition #7 of Resolution #84-27 which requires that
building height be kept to 33 feet from the lowest floor level to
the mid -point of the roof. Parking and part of each unit have
been placed underground, to reduce massing, and the illustrative
site plan now shows five (5) single-family and fourteen (14) duplex
structures, as compared to the three (3) single-family and
fifteen (15) duplex structures shown previously. There are no
multi -family units within this project.
The development approach to the site has been to cluster the
units into "courtyard -like settings" in two distinct areas of the
property. The lower part of the property, in the vicinity of the
Mountain Queen and Summit Street, contains five (5) duplex
structures in a clustered configuration. The units are accessed
by entering the parking structure on Summit Street, and by taking
an elevator and pedestrian system through the complex. A 25 foot
easement has been created on Summit Street to handle the anticipated
traffic; and to comply with Condition #9 of the Resolution.
The upper part of the property begins in the portion of Mill
Street which is being vacated, where cars and emergency vehicles
enter the site and can turn around, park in the six (6) guest
parking spaces or enter the upper parking garage. Three (3)
of the single-family houses are clustered in the vicinity of
this entry area, although retaining a view corridor up Mill
Street to the Mountain. The remaining two (l) single-family
units are located at the very top of the "bowl". The remaining
eight (8) duplexes on the upper portion of the site are principally
arranged to form "courtyards" open to the mountain. Once again,
internal access to all units is through the parking garage,
elevators and a pedestrian system.
The Top of Mill project maintains approximately 70% of the
property in open space, including a major open space easement in
the northwest corner of the property above the Mountain Queen,
and landscaped open space throughout the project. The landscape
plan includes formal landscaping with a transition toward more
natural planting as one moves towards the upper limits of the
site. Condition #8 of Resolution 84-23 required that existing
mature vegetation be retained to the maximum extent possible and
that landscaping be used to screen view of the project from Mill
Street, Lift lA and the ski area.
It is important for P&Z to recognize that the site will be
extensively disturbed during the construction phase. Drawing 3A
shows the limits of site excavation to encompass about 2/3 of the
entire site. It should be noted, however, that little of this
area is in a "natural" condition today, and much of the disturbance
will be to cover materials left on the site, including toxic mine
remains, and to construct a retention pond
the ski trail. The drawing also shows two groves of aspen trees
which will be disturbed by the project. The applicant intends to
investigate the possibility of replanting trees in the retention
pond since it is intended to hold water during only a portion of
the year. other areas where trees will be disturbed are in the
lower portions of the site, where both evergreens and cottonwoods
ents
on the removed,
pl cants and
prroposed landscaping ssibly relocated.
are that athes "planting
replacement program appears quite adequate."
There were a number of important conditions in Resolution Condition
related to circulation through the Top of Mill site.
#4 required "resolution of the Engineering Department's concerns
with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of
the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes."
To respond to this issue, the applicants employed Rolf Jensen and
Associates, who prepared the report contained on Pages 95-96 of
the application. The report indicates that the project's design
does not comply with the Uniform Fire Code criteria for access.
The maximum travel distance from an access road to an exterior
wall of a building ard. in the
Theref ore, ect ito 318 feet, well in mitigate this problemssof
the
the 150 foot s
consultant recommends the following:
A. Provide automatic sprinkler protection throughout living
units and parking areas.
B. Provide dry standpipes, located so that exterior walls of
buildings are within 150 feet of an outlet.
C. Provide a turn around space at the dead-end of Mill Street,
and provide Fire Department connections for the dry standpipe
system at this location.
The applicants have committed to the above mitigation measures
and the City Engineer informs me that he is therefore satisfied
with this resolution of the problem.
Condition #5 had to do with the vacation of Mill Street. In
response to this Condition, the applicants have agreed to realign
all utility lines at their own expense, and have therefore been
able to obtain sign -offs from the utilities, concurring that the
loss of right-of-way will not interfere with their current or
future needs. Furthermore, the proposed street vacation ordinance
for all vacations within the PUD, contained in Appendix
specifically reserves to the City rights -of -way and easements for
utilities and the right to use the vacated street for emergency
vehicles and the diversion of public traffic during emergency
purposes.
Condition #9 required that an adequate easement on Summit Street
be granted to the City. The applicants have granted the 25 foot
easement desired by the City Engineer and have further moved the
buildings on the lower portion of the site such that the Summit
Place and Top of Mill units are 40 feet apart. The "applicants
have also noted that their traffic consultant, TDA, felt that
the disadvantages of opening Summit Street outweigh the benefits.'
In a conversation with the City Engineer, this conclusion was
found. to be quite doubtful. While we are willing to accept the
applicants desire to keep Summit Street closed at the beginning
of this project, we question whether ultimately circulation needs
of the area will outweigh the advantages of the ski -in trail
which er eded onittherstr.eetBand thathmonitoringroft traffic
will b
problems in the area will be necessary.
7
Condition #10 required the applicants to provide "a landscaped
sidewalk across the Top of Mill site and within the Summit Street
easement so as to facilitate pedestrian and emergency vehicle
access between Monarch and Mill Streets." The applicants have
committed to an eight (8) foot wide paved sidewalk along Summit
Street from the driveway access for the lower parking structure
to the west property line, to be landscaped with grasses.
Condition #12 required that the applicants increase the parking
on the Top of Mill site from eighty (80) to ninety (90) spaces.
F The applicants now propose ninety-two (92) spaces in the following
locations:
Upper Structures Spaces 58
Lower Structure Spaces 28
On -Grade Guest Spaces 6
TOTAL 92 spaces
Two other issues which should be discussed with respect to the basic
land use and site design of the Top of Mill property are its
compliance with 8040 greenline criteria and the use of the
property for short-term rental purposes, which the applicants
believe is a conditional use in the R-15 (L) PUD zone.
The intention of 8040 Greenl ine Review is to evaluate all develop-
ment above that line and any development up to 50 yards below
that line for its compatibility with the natural features of
Aspen Mountain. The applicants have specifically address each of
the relevant criteria as follows:
1. Adequacy of water pressure and other utilities: These
issues have been addressed in the conceptual PUD submission.
Booster pumps will be provided to insure adequate water
pressure to the upper units.
2. Adequacy of roads for fire protection, snow. removal and
maintenance: The issue of fire protection has already been
addressed above. We await the City Engineer's comments on
the other items.
3. Site suitability including slope, ground instability, mud
flow, rock fall and avalanche danger: These issues have
been extensively discussed in reports prepared by Chen and
Associates and will be reviewed at a subsequent meeting when
referral comments are available.
4. Effects on run-off, drainage, erosion and water pollution:
The referral comments on these items are also forthcoming.
5. Effects on air quality: According to the applicants analysis,
the fireplaces and vehicle emissions impacts of the project
will be a minor increase in particulates, hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide, but that there will be a decrease in
all vehicle emissions categories. Confirmation of these
claims has yet to be obtained from the Environmental Health
Department.
6. Compatibility of roads and structures with terrain: In our
earlier review of the project, we indicated that the units
will comply with the height requirement of the zone and are
compatible with surrounding uses. Units have been stepped
up Mill Street, and use the relatively invisible location of
the bowl to best advantage. New road construction in the
area has been keep to an absolute minimum.
7. Disturbance to terrain, vegetation and land features through
grading: As noted above, the development will result in
extensive site grading and disturbance of vegetation. Jim
Holland has approved the applicants' tree replacement
8
program. The site grading which will take place will not
affect natural terrain but instead will disturb previously
modified lands. The net impact of all of this disturbance
should be a substantially reclaimed area, although admittedly
the loss of some of the existing trees will result in less
of a "natural" feel to the site.
8. Placement of structures and roads to increase open space,
minimize roads, cutting and grading and preserve the scenic
mountain: As noted above, roads are kept to a minimum within
the site and open space is at approximately 7 0% . The
retention of the view corridor through Mill Street is a key
to the success of the design, as is the stepping of units up
the hill. There will be significant cutting and grading, as
noted above.
9. Reduction of building height and bulk: Bulk has been reduced
through the use of underground parking and the design of
structures as single-family and duplex units.
In summary, the applicants appear to have met the intent and
purposes of the 8040 Greenline Review through their project
design. Final 8040 Greenline approval should only be granted
after adequate referral comments addressing criteria 2 through 5
have been received.
The other issue with respect to use which should be discussed is
the question of conditional use. Since the property includes
land zoned R-15 (L) PUD, the applicants have applied for a
conditional use permit for the rental of the Top of Mill units on
a short-term basis. The R-15 zone use requirements in Section
24-3.2 of the Code state that lodges are a conditional use in the
R-15 zone district where an "L" is shown on the map. In my
opinion, rental of these units on a short-term basis does not
represent a conditional use, rather, it is actually a request to
except condomini umized residential units from the six (6) month
minimum lease restriction. My reason for this determination is
the definition of lodge in Section 24-3.1(o) which includes the
following language:
"A building containing three (3) or more units, none of
which units contain kitchen facilities, intended for temporary
occupancy of guests."
Since none of the buildings on the Top of Mill site contain three
(3) or more units and all contain kitchen facilities, this use
cannot be considered a lodge and is ineligible for a conditional
use permit. Excpetion of these units from the six (6) month
minimum lease provisions will be considered as a miscellaneous
issue during a subsequent meeting when residential condominiumiza-
tion of the free-market units is discussed.
2. 700 South Galena
The 700 South Galena project has experienced the most significant
changes since conceptual submission. Rather than developing the
site as a twelve (12) unit condominium complex, the proposal is
instead to building two (2) duplexes in more of a townhouse
configuration, with the remaining eight (8) units having been
transferred to the lodge building. The major reasons for these
changes are to accommodate the concerns of neighbors and the City
Council°s conditions of approval, and to address the desire of
the City to realign Galena Street.
The principal features of the project as regards architecture,
site design and circulation are as follows:
A. The duplexes will conform to the height limitations of the
zone, thereby complying with conceptual Condition #16.
B. The project provides fifteen (15) underground spaces and
four (4) on -grade guest spaces for the twelve (12) bedroom
complex. The parking areas are accessed off the northern
edge of the property.
C. A sidewalk is shown for the length of the property and
allows pedestrian access to the units through a courtyard.
D. The applicants have agreed to realign Galena Street, in
keeping with Condition #17 of Resolution 84-23 and much to
the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. The realign-
ment has avoided the issue identified in Condition #14
regarding the identification of any easements which must be
acquired to construct the project. The gas line beneath the
site no longer encroaches onto the site and is instead
within the right-of-way. Furthermore, the existing dead-end
overhead electric line remaining along the rear of the site
will be buried, for which a utility easement has been located.
3. Summit Place Townhouses
There are virtually no design or circulation issues which have
been noted to date with respect to the Summit Place aspect of the
PUD. The architectural style of the project has been established
as a result of the prior work on the exterior of the original
duplex. The third unit will match the other two homes, while the
foundation for the fourth unit will be removed to make room for
the ski -in trail. The three (3) units all meet height and bulk
limits for the zone. No conditions relative to Summit Place were
identified at the conceptual stage, and no additional concerns
have arisen at this time.
4. Ute City Place
Compliance of this project with its conditions of conceptual
approval has been reviewed above. Since this project has already
been taken through the entire subdivision process for a very
similar configuration, it seems redundant to apply these procedures
once again. We believe that a finding as to compliance with the
conditions of conceptual approval should be adequate to deal with
Preliminary PUD issues concerning site design and circulation.
SU! K"T
This memo is intended to introduce you to the residential projects
contained within the Aspen Mountain Lodge and to address the following
review concerns:
1. Employee Housing; and
2. Architecture, Site Design and Circulation.
I anticipate developing a second memo for your meeting on March 19,
addressing the following issues:
3. Hazard Mitigation; and
4. Miscellaneous Concerns.
Following the series of meetings at which these topics are reviewed, I
will draft a resolution which comprehensively addresses the points you
have raised regarding these projects.
10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge - The Residential Projects - Preliminary
PUD/Subdivision and Associated Reviews
DATE: March 19, 1955
v INTRODUCTION
In our previous memorandum to you on this subject, dated March 50 we
provided you with a general description of the Top of Mill, Summit
Place, 700 South Galena and Ute City Place projects. The memo also
reviewed these projects in terms of basic land use and site design
issues, circulation and employee housing. These issues were reviewed
and completed at your meetings on March 5 and March 12.
The purpose of this memo is to address the remaining concerns with
respect to the residential projects for the discussions which are to
take place on March 19 and March 26. As a reminder, the issues to be
discussed are as follows:
1. Plans for mitigation of natural hazards.
2. Miscellaneous outstanding issues emerging from conceptual
conditions of approval
3. Residential condominiumization.
The meeting on March 19 is intended to address topical area #1, while
that on March 26 should deal with areas #2 and #3 (unless time permits
on March 19 to complete all outstanding issues) . Finally, on April 2
we hope to present you with a resolution for action on these projects.
NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW
There are four (4) types of natural hazards which have been addressed
by the applicants in response to the conditions of conceptual approval.
Taking these issues in rank order, from the least complex to the most
complex, the areas addressed are as follows:
1. Potential mine subsidence on the site.
2. Contaminated soils on the site.
3. Stormwater drainage from the mountain onto the site.
4. Geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain.
1. Potential Mine Subsidence
The study of mine subsidence potential by Chen and Associates is
contained in Appendix D of the submission. The study was a
literature review, as opposed to an on -site analysis, and made
the following findings:
"The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project site is located at
least 200 feet from the area where large concentrations
of mine workings have been mapped. Based on our
experience with similar projects, the geology and type
of mining, a safety zone of 200 feet from mine workings
should be satisfactory. Records of underground mine
workings below the site were not found. There is some
possibility that mine workings (small, shallow pits,
abandoned exploration tunnels or shafts, mine water
drainage or ventilation tunnels) may be present at the
site which were not mapped or. recorded through 65 years
of mining. Because the proposed site is located.
outside of the main ore bearing zone, the possibility
of major unrecorded mine workings below the site is
very small. In this regard we recommend that field
observation by an experienced geologist be made when
the snow cover is gone. "
I have discussed this study with Jay Hammond and it is our
opinion that the field observation suggestion by Chen should be
implemented. It should be required that the results of these
reports be available to the Building Inspector prior to the
issuance of any building permits on the site.
2. Contaminated Soils
Appendix D also contains the Chen and Associates chemical investi-
gation of near surface soils. The purpose of this study was "to
determine whether the soils might be classified as potentially
hazardous materials, based upon testing procedures recommended by
the U.S. EPA." Twelve test pits were excavated and the samples
were analyzed for total lead content and EP toxicity. The
results of this analysis were that among the three zones sampled,
Zone 1, in the southermost portion of the site and Zone 2, just
above the proposed terminus of Mill Street, failed the toxicity
test, while the sample from zone #3, in the central and lower
portion of the site, was not classified as hazardous.
Based on this analysis, the consultant identified four (4)
mitigation alternatives:
a. Do nothing;
b. Excavate the contaminated soils and ship to a disposal
site;
c. Cover the contaminated soils with soils from off -site;
or
d. Develop a cut -and -fill plan using uncontaminated soils
from the property to cover contaminated soils.
The consultant chose the fourth option based on its cost effective-
ness. Tom Dunlop comments that contouring the site and covering
the soils is an effective technique for mitigating the health
hazard of contaminated soils. Tom further recommends that
surface water be diverted from the contaminated areas to insure
that no contamination of groundwater takes place. In this
respect, we would note that no testing was done in the area of the
proposed detention pond. Such testing would seem appropriate
before approval is given to place the pond in this location.
Tom further notes that if any excavated material is to be shipped
off -site, it be limited to materials which are not contaminated.
We, therefore, recommend that no material from the Top of Mill
portion of the site be permitted to be moved off the site. This
limitation should effectively deal with all contaminated soils,
since, as one moves further down the site, the hazards become
negligible. Tom also had several other informational requirements
which can be dealt with in your resolution.
3 & 4. Storawater Drainage/Geologic Hazards
The final two hazard issues have been addressed jointly due to
the comment by Jeff Hynes of the Colorado Geologic Survey that:
"Three general hazards are directly associated with
this proposal. They are: unstable and potentially
u- atable slopes; debris flows; and flash flooding.
These processes are dynamically interrelated in extremely
complex ways in which each can be the cause or the
result of any of the others. Events can be random,
sequential or episodic in nature with highly variable
time delays between related events."
The applicants had Chen and Associates prepare two studies on
these hazards, one being a study of the 1984 landslide event,
while the other looked at the potential for debris flow originating
on the north face of Aspen Mountain. A study of stormwater
drainage was prepared by Rea Cassens and Associates, to coordinate
the overall site drainage needs with the off -site impacts of mud
flows, debris flows and other materials transported from the
mountain onto the site.
The applicants have summarized the conclusions of the Chen and
Associates report as follows:
a. "Debris flows have occurred in the past with reoccurrence
intervals measured in hundreds of years.
b. Mud -floods have occurred in the past. The mud -flood is
similar to the water flood except for significant volumes of
transported sediment. The mud -flood return period is 25 years.
c. The potential for a debris flow from the landslide reaching
Aspen Mountaan Lodge and the Top of Mill sites as anything
but a fluid ,"mud flood" appears relatively low. The "mud
flood" hazard can be mitigated in the same manner and using
the same structures as proposed for storm drainage.
d. Based on the results of our investigation, it appears that
hyper -concentrated mud -floods with solids concentration of
about 40% by volume pose the most risk of damage to the
proj ect.
e. We believe the potential risks and mitigation measures for
the project should be evaluated by hydrologic and hydraulic
methods. Water flood volumes, however, should be increased
by 50% to account for transport of solids in the flows.
f. Conceptual mitigation measures would include the construction
of detention/debris basins, diversion structures and channeli-
zation. Provisions for periodic debris removal and cleanup
should be included in the design of mitigation measures.
g. The monitoring program has not indicated any significant
movement of the landslide mass during the period of this
study. The lack of data showing a clearly defined failure
surface has limited our ability to analyze the landslide and
propose corrective measures. However, the preliminary
results indicate a relatively shallow failure surface within
the mine dump material or near the contact of the original
ground surface and the mine dump.
h. Continued monitoring of the inclinometers and piezometers is
recommended through at least the last spring of 1985.
Additional monitoring may be required beyond this time if
the Aspen Skiing Company desires to develop corrective
measures for stabl iz ing the landslide."
Jeff Hynes, of the Colorado Geologic Survey, has provided us with
a detailed review of these studies, focu-ing on study methods,
conclusions and recommendations. Jeff's full response is included
in your packet, but can be summarized with the following highlights:
a. "While Appendices D and E provide a great deal of valuable
information, they are less than what is necessary to understand
and predict the behavior of this slope -failure -prone area.
b. The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of
last June is insufficient in both detail and time span to
adequately characterize this slide mass and/or predict its
future behavior.
c. Stability analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions
rather than actual, measured characteristics of the landslide
due to insufficient data. One of the critical assumptions
made was that the materials were drained. This is most
probably not the critical condition of the landslide deposit
nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with the
movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions,
a safety factor of less than 1.0 was achieved in one of the
two cases. This case was classified as "marginally stable"
in the Chen Report. By definition, the correct classification
for this case is unstable.
d. Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as
a mud -flood, and therefor mitigatable by channelization does
not take into account the episodic nature and potential
interaction between several events. A small landslide or
debris flow which would present only a trivial threat to the
actual structures could effectively block or alter the
drainage network rendering it all but useless to defend the
development from the flash flood which could occur before
the blockage was cleared, or even noticed...
e. In summary, we would like to concur with and reiterate the
recommendations found in the Chen reports calling for more
detailed studies of the mass wasting and slope failure
processes affecting this area. The complexity of these
phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood
in order to make any reliable predictions about their
likelihood, recurrence interval, and the risk they pose to
the anticipated development. Additionally, the excess
moisture conditions associated with the spring thaw and
runoff period represents the critical phase of the landslide
problem. Given the movement and surface disruption last
June, it is highly likely that this slide mass will absorb
more water this spring than last and may move again.
f. Based upon the above considerations we recommend that the
City postpone any decision on this application until detailed
studies have been completed and the hazards are better
understood and realistic risk assessments can be performed.
The timing of the studies should be such that the critical
period (melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field
investigations."
Given the recommendations made by Mr. Hynes in points a and f
above, I reviewed this issue in a meeting with the City Manager,
City Engineer, and Chief Environmental Health Officer. We all
concur with the recommendations made by Chen and Associates
and by Jeff Hynes that further study is needed before any decision
on this application can be made. We recommend that Chen and
Associates be requested to set up a study program for monitoring
and analysis of the hazard and that this program be reviewed by
Mr. Hynes for his concurrence. These conclusions have been
discussed with the applicants who concur with the approach we are
taking, and who have already moved forward with developing the
necessary study and contacting Mr. Hynes.
Based on these conclusions, we further recommend that the applicants
return to City Council for reconsideration of the condition which
limits the lodge portion of the PUD from proceeding to final plat
until the residential projects have received preliminary approval.
In our opinion, the main reason for this condition was to insure
integrated planning of the site from the standpoint of architecture,
site design, circulation and similar issues. Since these issues
have been addre- sed and resolved to the City's satisfaction at this
time, we see no reason to hold up progress regarding the lodge itself,
as well as the 700 South Galena, Summit Place and Ute City Place
projects. However, this approach does leave the applicants at some
risk since it means that Top of Mill is essentially an unapproved
portion of the PUD at this time. We feel that the City's interests in
the PUD can be preserved since the eventual development of the site
will likely be in the form proposed at this stage or at some lessened
density.
MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
There were two conditions of conceptual approval which did not fit into
any of the categories previously discussed. These conditions (#1 and
#2 of Resolution 84-23) dealt with the Koch Land Trade and the relocation
of the Ski Club's buildings.
The condition with respect to the Koch Property reflected the Council's
desire to consummate the land exchange in conjunction with the final
plat submission. The applicants have contacted the City Attorney and
Planning Office to establish a procedure for dealing with the land
exchange. As you are aware, the exchange involves two (2) pieces of
land, one being traded in exchange for the City Lots in the Capitol
Hill Addition and the other being freely given as a gift to the City.
The City Attorney and I concur that the best way to deal with the
subdivision of the land into two parcels for purposes of its conveyance
to the City is as a subdivision exception. This procedure is expected
to be completed simultaneously with the Final Plat action, with the
request having been recently submitted by the applicants.
As one condition of obtaining the Capitol Hill lots, the applicants
agreed to construct for the Aspen Ski Club a new building of at least
equal size and of better quality than that which it now occupies on
the City lots. This commitment also showed up as Condition #2 of
Resolution 84-23.
In response to this condition, the applicants have reiterated their
commitment to construct a new Ski Club building of increased size and
improved quality relative to the Cl ub' s present situation. It has also
come to my attention that the Ski Club is now actively involved in a
search for a new building site. The attached letter from Larry Yaw to
Alan Novak was written in response to an earlier letter by Dick
Meeker of the Aspen Ski Club. Laryy has evaluated the suitability of
three sites based on eight criteria, all as originally identified by
the Ski Club.
The three sites identified for the new building are within or in the
vicinity of Willoughby Park. Larry Yaw finds the parcel currently
used for the volleyball courts to be the most suitable of the locations
and proposes that the volleyball use be relocated to the Koch parcel.
While it is not the P&Z's for the applicants') responsibility to
choose the site for the building, it would be helpful at this point to
give the Ski Club some guidance about the proposed locations. Given
the lack of site planning for the Koch parcel, I am somewhat doubtful
about displacing this use without a straight -forward replacement
plan. It seems more reasonable to me to consider some form of recon-
struction of, or addition to the ARA building to house the Ski Club.
CONDOMINIUMISA?ION
On pages 32-38 of the submission, the applicants request subdivision
exception for the purposes of condominumization of the 700 S. Galena,
Summit Place and Top of Mill units. The units within the lodge have
already received your recommendation of approval for condominiumization,
while the units at Ute City Place were addressed in an earlier memo.
The applicants' responses to the criteria of Section 20-22 are as
follows:
a. No existing tenants need be given written notice, as the
condominiums are new construction or the completion of
previously unoccupied units.
b. The applicants request exception from the six (6) month
minimum lease provisions. As with the units within the
lodge, the intent for theses units is to rent them on a short-
term basis to visitors. Given the location of these projects
within the lodge district, where the intent is for short-term
occupancy, we concur with the exception request.
c. The applicants have demonstrated that the supply of affordable
housing will not be reduced by agreeing to replace, as part
of their employee housing calculations, any units which are
eliminated by the construction of the project.
The Planning office recommends approval of the condominiumization
request, including exception from the six (6) month minimum lease
restriction.
SURMY
This memo completes the Planning office' review of the preliminary
PUD/Subdivision and associated reviews, for the residential projects
included within the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. When the Planning
Commission has made its comments on each of the issues included within
out report, we will be able to prepare a resolution summarizing your
action on the projects.
AR:jIr:apz.aml.3.19
6
Coto`~`
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR 1876
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREE
DENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) W6-2611
D.
March 8, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE RESIDENTIAL GMP
Dear Mr. Richman:
PI-85-0003
,wz*
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
We have reviewed the PUD and Subdivision Submission and Appendices DAE as well
as the general and engineering geology of the area.
Based upon this review, our historical involvement in the area, and the events
of last June we would like to make the following comments regarding this
proposal and the geologic hazards and constraints associated with it.
- The entire north face of Aspen Mountain is adversely affected by one
or more geologic hazards or constraints, (Bryant, 1972).
- All other factors held equal, the degree of risk associated with
slope -related hazards increases with the slope and proximity to the
source area.
- Three general hazards are directly associated with this proposal.
They are: unstable and potentially unstable slopes; debris flows, and
flash flooding. These processes are dynamically interrelated in
extremely complex ways in which each can be the cause or the result of
any of the others. Events can be random, sequential or episodic in
nature with highly variable time delays between related events.
Slope failure processes appear to cause minimal impacts in their natural
setting because they are an integral part of the "dynamic equilibrium" of
the site. This equilibrium can be significantly altered by construction
disturbance, seriously affecting the behavior of the process with respect
to "things -put -in -the -way".
- While Appendices D and E provide a great deal of valuable information,
they are less than what is necessary to understand and predict the
behavior of this slope -failure -prone area.
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE
Mr. Alan Richman
March 8, 1985
Page Z
The level of investigation of the reinitiated landslide of last June
is insufficient in both detail and time span to adequately characterize
this slide mass and/or predict its future behavior.
- Stability analyses were based, in part, upon assumptions rather than
actual, measured characteristics of the landslide due to insufficient
data. One of the critical assumptions made was that the materials were
drained. This is most probably not the critical condition of the
landslide deposit nor the field conditions observed in conjunction with
the movement last June. Even using somewhat favorable conditions, a
safety factor of less than 1.0 was achieved in one of the two cases.
This case was classified as "marginally stable" in the Chen Report. By
definition, the correct classification for this case is unstable.
- Test pit investigations yielded a debris flow sequence and a carbon-14
date of about 5000 B.P. Statigraphic relationships for this locality
indicated a crude recurrance interval of one event per thousand years.
Due to the nature of debris flow phenomena, this value should be taken as
a maximum recurrance interval since generally only a portion of the total
number of events occupy any given location on the overall fan complex.
- Characterization of the principal mode of debris movement as.a
mud -flood, and therefor mitigatable by channelization does not take into
account the episodic nature and potential interaction between several
events. A small landslide or debris flow which would present only a
trivial threat to the actual structures could effectively block or alter
the drainage network rendering it all but useless to defend the
development from the flash flood which could occur before the blockage
was cleared, or even noticed. Conversely, presuming that any major mass
wasting event would move slowly enough to permit mitigation is begging
the point. In many cases the only appropriate mitigation is to abandon
areas adversely affected by landslides and debris flows.
In summary we would like to concur with and reiterate the recommendations
found in the Chen Reports calling for more detailed studies of the mass
wasting and slope failure processes affecting this area. The complexity of
these phenomena and their interactions must be very well understood in order
to make any reliable predictions about their likelihood, recurrance interval,
and the risk they pose to the anticipated development. Additionally, the
excess moisture conditions associated with the spring thaw and runoff period
represents the critical phase of the landslide problem. Given the movement
and surface disruption last June, it is highly likely that this slide mass
will absorb more water this spring than last and may move again.
Based upon the above considerations we recommend that the City postpone any
decision on this application until detailed studies have been completed ar.d
the hazards are better understood and realistic risk assessments can be
performed. The timing of the studies should be such that the critical period
(melt/runoff) be included in the detailed field investigations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Horn
FROM: Jay Hammond
DATE: February 22, 1985
RE: Geologic Hazard On Aspen Mountain
This memo is intended to serve as an supplement to Chuck Roth's
memo to you of February 11, 1985, regarding the proposed Aspen
Mountain Ski Area Master Plan. Pursuant to our discussi-��.1.6
in consideration of the recently released Chen report on the
geologic stability of the Strawpil a area, the Engineering Department
would offer some additional comment on the application.
The recent application by the Aspen Mountain Lodge
Topprojectf.or
preliminary approvals relating to the re P
ill
speaks to on -site mitigation of potential "mud flood" hazard from
the Pioneer Gulch area above the project site. The application
notes, however, that some two-thirds of the Pioneer Gulch do =t
flow into the Top of Mill. This flow is intercepted by roads and
existing drainage routing on the ski area. Top of Mill, therefore,
only offers mitigation of the debris flow hazard in the form of
on -site channelization and detention/debris basins for a portion
of the flows. Several measures contained in the Chen report are
not addressed by Top of Mill and, in view of their location on
Ski Company property, would seem appropriate for their considera-
tion.
Based on the Chen report, we would recommend conditioning any
approval of the ski area master plan expansion on a commitment by
the Ski Company to undertake the following:
1. Continued monitoring of the inclinometers, piezometers and
topographic location of the inclinometer casings to evaluate
potential mitigation measures.
2. Construction of further mitigation measures as may be deemed
appropriate by Chen and Associates including, but not necessarily
limited to the following:
a. On -site grading to improve drainage and remove water
from slide area.
b. Installation of on -site structures, channels, membranes,
surface and subsurface drainage facilities as may be recomm-
ended.
C. Construction of appropriate on -site detention/debris
basins with provision for periodic debris removal.
Page Two
Geologic Hazard on Aspen Mountain
February 22, 1985
Some of the above items, particularly on -going monitoring may be
undertaken by the developers of the lodge project, however, in
the absence of a clear indication of those portions of the Chen
recommendations the lodge developers intend to pursue, we would
assign the responsibility to the Ski Company. Let me know if you
require further clarification.,,Y
JH/co/GeologicAspenMt �¢
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR THE TOP OF MILL, SUtDIIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA
CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AND
RECOMMENDING A REZONING TO R-15(PUD)(L) FOR THAT PORTION OF THE
TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND OPINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution No. 5
(Series of 1984)
WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association,
Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the
"Applicants"), have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub-
division approval for the Top of mill and Summit Place condominium
components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews
and approvals including 8040 Greenline and Fountain View Plane review
and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Ilill site
currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD)(L); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning
to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R-
15 (PUD) (L) ; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission") did consider the Applicants' requests
for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the Top of mill and Summit
Place condominiums, 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review,
and rezoning from Public to L-2 at meetings held on March 20th, March
27th and April 17, 1984, and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted
on April 10, 1984; an CA
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect
to the Applicants' request for 8040 Greenline and r1ountain View Plane
review until its consideration of the Applicants' preliminary PUD/sub-
division submission, given the technical nature of the various review
criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately
assess project impacts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-11.3(f) of the Municipal Code,
any project needing PUD or subdivision approval which has received
a development allotment may be deemed by the Planning Office to have
satisfied the conceptual presentation requirements of the City' s
PUD and subdivision regulations; and
P.esolution No. 84- 5 _
Page 2
P7HEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section
24-11.4(g) of the Municipal Code, a development allotment of twelve
(12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component
of the Aspen Mountain PUP_, as set forth in Resolution No. 7, Series
of 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did review, Section 24-11.3(f) of the
Hunicipal Code notwithstanding, the 700 South Galena condominium
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD with respect to the conceptual
PUD/subdivision criteria of the Municipal Code at meetings held on
April 24th, May 1st and Ilay 8, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700
South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in
response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office and
Commission, including a significant reduction in the overall height
of both projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning_ Commission
of the City of Aspen, Colorado:
Section 1
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen Citv Council grant
conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, pursuant to Sections 20-10 and
24-8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the Top of Hill, Summit Place and
700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants' acquisition of that portion of the Top
of Mill site currently owned by the City.
2. The Applicants' resolution of the Engineering Department's
concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal
areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes.
3. The Applicants' submission of a detailed proposal, acceptable
to the Aspen .Ski Club, for the relocation of the Ski Club' s
facilities.
4. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the
retention of all utility rights, the provision of appropriate
utility casements, and each utility franchised in the City
signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that
the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each
utility's current or future needs.
5. The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm
drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information
with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required
to construct the proposed retention ponds.
W
Resolution No. 84- 5
Page 3
6. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding
thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor
elevation to the midpoint of the roof.
7. The Applicants' revision of the Top of Mill site plan so
as to increase the distance between the two single-family
units located at the southern terminus of till Street in
order to expand the view through the project from the Street
to the ski area.
8. The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing
mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation
of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact
of the project, in particular as viewed from Mill Street,
Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain.
9. The Applicants' provision of an adequate easement, acceptable
to the Engineering Department, so as to allow the extension
of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro-
priate by the City.
10. The Applicants' granting of an acceptable trail easement
across the Top of Mill site so as to provide access, to
the extent feasible, to the base of Little Nell and Lift
1-A.
11. The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water
table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include
an evaluation of slope stability both during and following
construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the
700 South Galena project should be expressly conditioned
upon the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability
or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation
to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision
submission.
12. The Applicants' identification of all easements required
in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena
project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent
required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit.
13. The Applicants' agreement to a completion schedule for
the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the
provision of an appropriate performance bond so as to prevent
and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the
form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for
a longer period of time than is necessary.
14. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units not
exceedinq a maximum of thirty-four (34) feet along the
projects' south facade, a maximum of thirty-nine (39) feet
along_ the north facade and a maximum of forty-three (43)
feet in any other location as compared to the maximum height
allowed in the underlying L-2 zone district of thirty-three
(33) feet, all as measured from natural grade to the ridge
of the roof and as shown on the Applicants' revised elevations
dated April 27, 1984. These restrictions are to be noted
and recorded on the Applicants' final PUD/subdivision plat.
15. The Applicants' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity
of the 700 South Galena project, to the extent feasible,
so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the
general site area.
16. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub-
division pproval.
17. The reconstruction of existing residential units being
limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section
Resolution No. 84-_ 5
Page 4
24-11.2(a) of the municipal Code, being accomplished within
five (5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted
to the Aspen Mountain PUD site.
18. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual
PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications not speci-
fically referred to above being made a condition of this
appro.val.
Section 2
That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council deny
the Applicants' request for a rezoning from Public to L-2 of that
portion of the Top of mill site currently owned by the City and does
hereby recommend instead that the parcels) be rezoned to R-15 (PUD)(L)
at such time as the parcels) may be conveyed to the Applicants,
for the following reasons:
1. While the proposed development is consistent with the intent
of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations
Transition land use category applied to this area in the
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required
to achieve the proposed development.
2. The primary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable
them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio
available in the L-2 zone district. Since the FAR provisions
of the t1unicipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PU D
regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of
the requested variation is inappropriate.
3. The L-2 zone district permits multi -family residential
uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes and,
therefore, does not guarantee that development will occur
consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on clay __ 8 , 1984.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By
Perry rvey, Chairman
ATTEST:
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION OF THE AS PEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING APPROVAL TO A PORTION OF THE PRELI MI NARY POD/SUBDIVISION
AND RECOMNENDI NG ASSOCIATED APPROVALS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
INCLUDED WITHIN THE ASPEN 14OUNTAIN PUD
Resolution No. 85-6
WHEREAS, by their Resolution No. 84-23, the Aspen City Council
(hereinafter, "Council") did grant Conceptual PUD/Subdivision approval
to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena Condominium
components of, the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, by their Resolution No. 84-27, Council did endorse the
revised employee housing proposal of the Aspen Mountain PUD and did
grant conceptual subdivision approval and exemption from the City's
growth management allotment procedures for the project's Ute City
Place component; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 1984, Council did agree that the lodge and
residential components of the project could continue to be reviewed
separately, provided that the approval of any preliminary stage not
become effective until the preliminary approval for the entire PUD has
been granted; and
WHEREAS, by their Resolution 85-1, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission (hereinafter, "Commission") did grant preliminary PUD/sub-
division approval for the lodge component of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, John H. Roberta, Jr., Alan R. Novak and Robert Calloway
(hereinafter "Applicants") have submitted an application for Preliminary
PUD/Subdivision approval for the residential component of the Aspen
Mountain PUD; and
WHEREAS, the Commission did hold a public hearing on the Applicants
submission on March 5, 1985, which hearing was continued to March 12,
March 19 and April 2, 1985, to consider the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision
application and associated review procedures for the residential
component of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby recommend that approval of the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision and
8040 Viewplane applications concerning the Top of Mill component of
the PUD be delayed until such time as the following conditions have
been met:
1. The Applicants shall continue their evaluation of the
geologic hazards from Aspen Mountain which may affect this
site by monitoring and reporting on the data gathered during
the critical melt/runoff time period. Based on this infor-
mation the Applicants shall provide responses to the concerns
expressed by Jeffrey C. Hynes, Senior Engineering Geologist
of the Colorado Geologic Survey, in his letter dated March 8,
1985. The Applicants shall submit their program f or on-
going monitoring to Mr. Hynes for his review and approval
prior to the critical period.
2. The Applicants shall expand the scope of their soil contam-
ination sampling program to determine whether any toxic
materials are located within the area proposed to be used
for storm water detention on the site. If such materials
are found in this area, the Applicants shall develop a plan
to insure that toxic substances do not leak into the ground-
Resolution No. 85---(k_
Page 2
water below the site, to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineer and Chief Environmental Health Officer.
3. The Applicants shall develop a soil monitoring program and
detailed grading plans for the entire Top of Mill site to
satisfy the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer
that no toxic material be moved off the site or be excessively
disturbed and that the toxic soils on the site will be
properly covered and controlled.
4. The Applicants shall insure that all exposed mine dumps and
tailings on or around the perimeter of the PUD site are
isolated from human exposure to inhalation or ingestion by
the placement of fill material over toxic soils and by
diverting all surface water from such soils.
5. The Applicants shall demonstrate that they have taken into
account and worked cooperatively with the Aspen Skiing
Company on their plans to change the finish area for the
World Cup and to address plans to mitigate site drainage
impacts from Aspen Mountain.
6. The Applicants shall commit to having the booster pump
system proposed for the Top of Mill project reviewed by the
City Engineer and Director of the Water Dept. prior to its
installation to determine its reliability and adequacy of
fire flows.
7. The landscaping plan for the Top of Mill site shall be
revised to move trees and shrubs further from the curb than
the two foot distance presently shown to avoid conflicts
with cars and snow removal. The landscaping plan shall be
supported with an irrigation plan.
8. A construction phasing program for the Top of Mill site
shall be submitted which meets the requirements of Section
24-8.9 (b) of the Municipal Code.
9. The Applicants shall commit to providing the Building
Inspector prior to building permit review with field data
demonstrating that units cn the Top of Mill site are not
likely to be subject to subsidence from underground mines.
10. Adequate air handling facilities, satisfying the Environmental
Health Officer, shall be designed into the underground
parking structures to eliminate any buildup of air contam-
inants.
11. The Applicants shall place a note cn the plat for the Top of
Mill project advising potential buyers of the hazards
affecting the property if the continuing studies demonstrate
the existence of such problems.
12. The Applicants shall submit documentation of their compliance
with the above conditions to the Planning Office which shall
present the submission to the Commission at a duly noticed
public hearing following its review by the appropriate
ref erral agencies.
BE IT FUR4gRR RBSOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby
grant to the residential projects within the Aspen Mountain POD
(other than the Top of Mill) Preliminary PUDISubdivision approval,
does recommend subdivision exception for the purposes of condominium-
ization and does confirm the compliance of the Ute City Place project
Resolution NO. 85-
Page 3
with the provisions of the Residential Bonus Overlay which was previously
applied to the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants shall designate 30 of the already proposed
parking spaces on the PUD site to long-term storage of cars
of specific employees housed at the Alpina Haus and Copper
Horse and shall con tin ue to search f or added parking at
sites near these two housing projects.
2. As per Section 24-10.5 (F), the P&Z waives compliance of the
Ute City Place project with the 35 percent open space
requirement in the RMF zone district. The Applicants shall
provide that at least 23% of the site remains as open space.
3. The Applicants shall rectify, prior to the occupancy of the
west wing lodge units, the life,, health and safety code
deficiencies in the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus identified
by John Ostwald and Tom Voorhies of the Building Department
in their memos dated March 20 and March 21, 1985.
4. The Applicants shall comply with the landscaping comments
provided by Jim Holland in his memo dated February 26, 1985.
5. The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the
employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and
occupancy to the rental or sale guidelines established and
indexed at the time or prior to issuance of the building
permit by the City Council's designee for moderate income
employee housing units. Verification of employment and
income of those persons living in the moderate income
employee units shall be completed and filed with the City
Council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date
of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property
records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be
deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the
benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City
or its designee by any appropriate legal action including
injunction, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy,
during the period of life of the last surviving member of
the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of
fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the
Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall
be greater.
6. Condominium maps for each project shall be submitted to the
City Engineer following substantial completion of their
construction for review and recommendation prior to the sale
of any unit.
7. The plat shall be revised to indicate the curb designs
which have been recommended by the City Engineer.
8. The final plat shall identify all slopes in excess of 30%.
9. The Engineering Department shall be copied cn the Applicants
CDOH driveway permit for the Ute City Place project.
10. The Ute City Place final plat submission shall comply with
the standard size requirement for such documents.
11. All drainage needs for the Ute City Place project shall be
handled on site. An irrigation system shall be installed to
serve the landscaping on this site.
12. The Applicants will initiate any or all customary air pollution
control measures recommended by the Environmental Health
Officer to minimize wind blown fugitive dust leaving the
Resolution No. 85 =-(-P—
Page 4
site during the demolition and construction stages of the
project. Contact shall be made by the applicant with the
Air Pollution Control Division District Engineer of the
Colorado Health Department to determine if an emission
permit and/or fugitive dust control plan is required at
these stages.
13. The six month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 (b)
is recommended to be waived for the residential projects
within the PUD.
14. The details of the an -site drainage plan for the PUD site
shall be made available for review by the City Engineer
during the final plat review process.
15. All written and verbal representations of the Applicants
with respect to the residential projects within the PUD are
hereby made conditions of this action.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend
that Council delete the trail easement along the Top of Mill site and
pursue alternative alignments due to the topographic impracticality of
connecting this segment to other trails across the mountain and based
on the Commission's finding that the adopted Trails Plan contains no
segments to which this easement could be linked.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby
recommend that Council proceed with the processing of the final plat
for the remainder of the PUD, in spite of the delay associated with
the Top of Mill project. The Commission refers the Council to its
Resolution 85-7 to identify its reasoning on this recommendation.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 2, 1985.
ASPEN PLANNING AND S ONI NG
Comm SSI ON
BY
Perry H vey, Chairm
ATTEST:
Rim Wilhoitt, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit C
The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood once tivas
the focus of mining activity in the cite and it saw a
variety of building types and forms. Todati', it continues
to exhibit diverity in its architectural character and
scale of buildings.
Shadow Mountain Neighborhood
Chapter 6
The Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood is
bounded by Aspen Mountain on the south and Durant
Avenue on the north. Its western boundary is
Carmisch Street and its eastern boundary is High-
way 82.
Historic character of the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Aspen Mountain was a focus of mining activity in the
early years of the city. Early photographs show a wild
mix of buildings, including tipples, trestles, mills and
other mine -related structures, rail yards, depots and
towers, and huddling at the base, a dense collection
of small miner's cottages.
Overall, the area exhibited an industrial character,
and the architecture was more rustic than that found
in other Aspen neighborhoods. The buildings had a
variety of forms and materials, which reflected the
diversity of uses in the area.
The scale of buildings was quite varied, ranging from
small one-story dwellings to imposing mill build-
ings. The tallest buildings in town were found here,
and the Clarendon Hotel, which occupied almost half
a block where the Wagner Park Ball Field is today,
was among the largest buildings in town.
Building materials were varied and exhibited a range
of finish, from painted clapboard to rough -sawn,
unpainted timber. The mining structures were built
from basic materials. Large timbers were hewn from
logs, and untrimmed board planks were used for
siding and roofing. Metal was also seen in braces and
connectors. Although houses were painted, little else
was.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
Page 39
Current character of the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Although the signs of mining activity have long since
been removed, the Base of Aspen Mountain contin-
ues to exhibit diversity in architectural character and
building scale. Buildings have more of a vertical
emphasis than any place else in town and some of the
tallest structures are still found here.
In comparison with other neighborhoods, this area is
densely developed. A mix of building sizes, forms
and types is seen including condominiums, hotels
and commercial structures. Most present a street
level that is of human scale and that is inviting to
pedestrians. Some multi -family residential buildings,
however, have been constructed with multiple en-
trances and an overall horizontal emphasis that is in
contrast to the traditional vertical character of the
area.
Building materials continue to be varied, even more
-� than historically. Stucco, brick and wood are com-
n. A range of metals, tiles and stone are also seen.
Streets are clearly defined in the neighborhood, often
with a curb, gutter and sidewalks. Views to the
mountain are an important feature of this neighbor-
hood, and should be preserved when feasible.
Major public trails r4n near the base of Aspen Moun-
tain and opportunities for connecting to these exist
on many new development sites. In order to maxi-
mize the potential benefits of these trails, it is impor-
tant that the streets connecting them invite pedes-
trian activity.
Development trends in the Base of Aspen
Mountain Neighborhood
Recently, some structures have appeared that deny
the street, and instead turn inward, providing little
visual interest for pedestrians. Some entries are de-
tached from their buildings, and entrances are not
scaled to the pedestrian.
The introduction of structured parking at the lower
levels of buildings is altering the street level experi-
ence, because extensive expanses of wall surface in
these cases are blank, or garage openings. These plain
surfaces have weakened the pedestrian appeal of the
street. In some cases, important views also have been
blocked due to insensitive placement of some struc-
tures on their sites.
Asa part of new development, more commercial uses
are being introduced into the Base of Aspen Moun-
tain neighborhood. These uses can add appeal to the
street, if the facades are designed to be in scale and to
provide interest to pedestrians.
An important factor in the character of the neighbor-
hood is building use. Many structures are second
homes, or are accommodations facilities that see cycles
of intense activity followed by quiet periods. There-
fore, creating street walls that encourage pedestrian
activity during all cycles is important to maintaining
liveliness in the area.
Goals for the Base of Aspen Mountain
Neighborhood
A special concern is that the strut level of buildings
be designed in a manner to encourage pedestrian
activity. Because many buildings in this neighbor-
hood are only occupied for shorts periods of the year,
and streets may appear lonely, it is vitally important
that buildings reinforce a streetscape thatis of human
scale. Therefore, the City holds these design goals for
the Base of Aspen Mountain neighborhood.
1. To enhance the pedestrian experience at the
street level
2. To protect views of the mountain
3. To promote a sense of visual integration in
the neighborhood while also encouraging a
diversity of building types.
Page 40
Divide larger projects into modules that are similar to
those of buildin;s seen traditionally.
Buildings should have sloping roof forms. Cable, hip,
and shed roof shapes are appropriate.
Base of Aspen Mountain
Design Guidelines for the
Base of Aspen Mountain
Neighborhood
The design guidelines in this chapter apply to all
projects in the Base of Aspen Mountain Neighbor-
hood, in addition to the chapter of General Guide-
lines for All Neighborhoods. When considering the
appropriateness of a project with respect to these
guidelines, also consider how the project will help to
accomplish the design goals for the neighborhood.
Mass & Scale
53. Set taller buildings against the
mountains to reduce their perceived scale.
a. Although taller buildings can be accommodated
in this area, it is still preferred that their appar-
ent mass be minimized. Incorporate some den-
sity into sloping roof forms to reduce the per-
ceived scale of the building.
b. Locate the building mass so as to avoid creating
icing conditions on public walkways.
C. A vertical orientation is preferred.
d. Divide larger projects into modules that are
similar to those of buildings seen traditionally.
e. Step buildings down in scale as they approach
adjacent, smaller structures.
Building Form Guidelinea
54. A variety of building forms is
appropriate in this area.
a. However, rectilinear forms are encouraged.
b. Buildings should have sloping roof forms. Gable,
hip, and shed roof forms are appropriate.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
Page 41
April 4, 1996
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Robert Blaich
Marta Chaikovska
Sara Garton
Roger Hunt
Timothy Mooney
Jasmine Tygre
Steven Buettow
Re: Aspen Mountain Planned Development
Dear Commission Member:
The Aspen Snowmass Lodging Company manages 9 properties on Galena, Mill, Dean and
Summit Streets which are affected, in some way, by the proposed redevelopment plan submitted
by Savannah Partnership at the March 19th meeting.
Overall I have had numerous homeowners say they are impressed with the proposed development
and applaud the initial plan.
A number of the Associations will have Board Members present at the April 9th meeting.
Summarized below are some of their concerns:
I. Grand Aspen Hotel Site Lots #5 & #6
A. Alpenblick Townhomes - Located on the south side of Lot 5, site of 8 proposed
townhomes.
1. Height of the new townhomes and obstruction of views from the second floor
bedrooms facing town. The construction drawings elevation plan implies 42
feet above grade, but only 29.5 feet on page 40 of the Spec Book. Which is
correct?
2. The Board has concerns about movement that may occur when the foundation
hole is dug, and that stress fractures in the Alpenblick buildings will result.
What precautions and assurances will be given to the Association to limit
potential problems and, if problems arise, to expedite any necessary repairs
to make the buildings sound?
747 Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970.925.2260 800.321.7025 Fax: 970.925.2264
Pg. #2
3. The proposed 53 foot height of the 22 unit condominium complex is a
concern. Presently, each townhome in Alpenblick buildings A & C have a
view across town.
B. Tipple Inn Condominiums - 516 S. Dean Street
- Located east of the proposed 22 unit condominium complex on Lot #5.
1. The Association is requesting that the 9 Silver Circle parking spaces, eliminated
in the proposed plan, be redesignated. Suggestions include: additional
parking in the Ritz garage or in the proposed under -ground garage.
2. The 53 foot height comprising the middle section of the proposed 22 unit
condominium complex is an item of concern. I have not been able to
determine the end height of the complex on the corner of Galena and Dean
Streets. Ultimately, the Association does not want existing views
compromised.
3. The Association is unclear if the new 22 unit condominium complex will be
moved closer to the Silver Circle. If plans indicate that the building will be
moved closer, Tipple Inn Association is concerned that the down valley view
will be obstructed.
C. Galena Place Condominiums - 616 S. Galena St.
- Located east of Lot #5
1. Height is a concern for the proposed townhomes and the 22 unit condominium
complex.
2. The Association has concerns over structural cracking and building movement.
They require assurances regarding reparations, as does Alpenblick Townhomes.
D. Durant Condominium Association - 718 S. Galena St.
- Located south east of Lot #5
1. Height of both complexes is a concern to the Association. They do not want
views of town and Shadow Mountain obstructed.
2. They also have concerns regarding structural movement.
Association representatives may bring up other questions and comments regarding Lots #5 & #6
at the April 9th meeting, but I think I have highlighted their greatest concerns.
Pg #3
II. Top of Mill Street - Site Lot #3
A. Fifth Avenue Condominium Association - 800 S. Mill St.
- Located north of the proposed duplexes and east of proposed triplexes.
1. The Fifth Avenue Association will hold its 1996 Annual Meeting on Saturday,
April 13th. At that time I expect to discuss all aspects of the proposed
development. I will forward all items of concern, highlighted at that meeting,
to you.
2. Height of the proposed duplexes, nearest to the Fifth Ave., may be an issue.
B. Summit Place Condominiums - 750 Summit St.
- Located north of proposed triplexes.
1. The Association requests that the entrance to the triplex development be
relocated, entering from Mill St. (between the two triplexes) instead. Summit
Street is very narrow and allows only one lane traffic during the winter
months. The street cannot accommodate additional traffic.
Savannah Partnership should be applauded for addressing many items of concern in the plans.
The Associations we manage look forward to working with the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Savannah Partnership, ensuring a neighborhood we can all live with and enjoy.
If you have questions or comments prior to the April 9th meeting, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING COMPANY
' f / i24� �
L
Douglas L. Nehasil
Vice President
cc: Dave Michaelson
John Sarpa u
i