HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960514
I iG~J
/
l
** ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUll SITE VISIT**
(To review revised story poles and building footprints)
(Meet behind City Hall at 4:00)
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1996,4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
l. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Apsen Mountain PUD, Dave Michaelson
lII.. WORK SESSION
A. ADU Regulations (Information Item), Dave Michaelson
IV. ADJOlJRN
"ASPEN ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD SITE VISIT
(To review revised story poles and building footprints)
(Meet behind City Hall at 4:00)
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMSSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1996, 4:30 PM -
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS -
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Apsen Mountain PUD, Dave '_Michaelson
III.: WORK SESSION
A. ADU Regulations (Information Item), Dave Michaelson
I[TA 0 0 1001101i1Wl
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: May 9, 1996
May 21 - Regular Meeting -
AH Overlay - Pitkin County, Tim Malloy
123 W. Francis, Amy Amidon
Aspen Mountain Improvements, Rick Magill
June 4 - Growth Management Commission
North 40 Subdivision/PUD Conceptual Submission, Rick Magill
June 4 - Regular Meeting
Lot 3, Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD, Dave Michaelson
June 18 - Growth Management Commission (Tentative Specia., Meetingl
Rural/Remote Zone District Code Amendments, Cindy Houben
AH Overlay, Tian Malloy -
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 - Continued Public Meeting
DATE: May 14,1996
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has held two public meetings (04.09.96 and 04.23.96) to review
the conceptual PUD Plan application for Lot 5 ("The Grande Aspen Site") of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
Staff have raised several conceptual issues which have been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission including the proposed use, mass and scale, the general relationship to the existing
neighborhood, and the critical nature of linking the site with the Little Nell and gondola. Lot 3 ("Top of
Mill Site") will be reviewed separately beginning on June 4th, 1996. The project will not be forwarded to
Council until the review for Lot 3 is completed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff does not favor the passage of a Resolution at this time, but would recommend to the Commission that
a joint Resolution summarizing both Lots 3 and 5 be prepared following completion of the review for the
Top of Mill site. This is consistent with the applicant's representation that the sites are linked by the GMQS
allotments previously agreed upon by the City and the applicant. It has also been represented that
significant changes in the conceptual site plan for either lot could conceivably occur based on the review
process for each individual lot. Changes in proposed units, building envelopes or site design would also
alter the proposed conditions that the Commission may propose.
Staff has included a complete packet for the benefit of Commission members that have not been present for
all of the hearings or workshops.
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 I - P & Z LStep2ouncil
Conceptual PUD -�l PUD
Subdivision(1) n (1)
Notes: Italics represent public hearings
(1) Subdivision for only Lot 3
1
Step 3 - P & Z
Step 4 -Council
Final P UD
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Text Amendment
Rezoning
Rezoning
Conditional Use
8040 Greenline
V iewplane
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.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The current proposal calls for the development of 30 multi -family units on
Lot 5. Twenty 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, 10 townhouse units are
clustered into two primary structures of five 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. The maximum FAR allowed on the site per the PUD
agreement is approximately 115,000 square feed . The current proposal calls for approximately 96,000
square feet of FAR on the Lot.
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: The Housing Office has reviewed the project, and Dave Tolen has indicated that no additional
housing will be required for the residential portion of the project. The applicant has provided 198.5 units,
will current employment is 185.
1 Established in Section E. of the Amended PUD/Subdivision Agreement, included within the application.
2
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 and approval
for Lot 5;
• 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 (see comments from the Housing Office).
STAFF CON BENTS
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 conceptual issues, consistent with this stage of the review.
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, several policies appear to be relevant to the project. For example, under
"Design Quality and Historic Preservation" section, a policy is included 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 proposal to abandon prior GMQS allocations for lodge units and develop free-market housing
will reduce the public nature of the site when compared to the development of tourist accommodations.
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 1s
proposed is the private nature of the proposed project, in the context of a very public setting adjacent tc,�'the
Ice Rink, proximity to Ruby Park and the downtown core. The project's public aspect is reduccid 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 was rejected by the
Planning Commission. The applicant and staff have conceptually discussed the potential of modifying the
prior PUD agreement to allow for an expansion of commercial uses or pedestrian amenities on the Ice Rink
site, which in staff s eyes is extremely underutilized. Staff would suggest that these discussions continue,
and any proposed changes to the PUD agreement in regards to the Ice Rink be included within the Final
PUD submittal.
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 earlier, 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: As originally proposed, the highest point of the Dean Street building was approximately 5 5 feet to
the top of the mansard roof, exceeding the maximum height in the underlying zone district by
approximately 27 feet. Both Staff and the Commission felt that this height was excessive, and the applicant
presented modified elevations to the Commission on April 23, 1996. The revised elevation reduced the
height to approximately 42 feet, exceeding underlying zoning be 14 feet. 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. 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.
In short, the only methods of further reducing the vertical impacts of the project are to deviate from the total
number of units proposed in the building, reduce the size and ceiling plate height of individual units, or
compromise the architectural character of the proposed structure. The ability to reduce the number of units
is a legal issue that will be addressed by the City Attorney's Office at the hearing. The applicant has
indicated that the size and ceiling height are a function of the marketability of the units.
The Mill Street/Galena Street Townhomes are proposed for 28 feet in height, following a 1.5 foot reduction
based on comments from staff and the Commission. The structure now complies with underlying zoning.
Story poles will be placed on the site for review by the Commission, delineating the original and modified
height. In addition, computer imagery of the structures should be available at the meeting.
The criteria for granting a variance for height are not the same as those typically applied by the Board of
Adjustment. The criteria for granting such a variance are the same criteria used to review a PUD, which are
summarized on pages 3 - 6 of this staff report. Criteria B (consistency with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area) and Criteria C (impact on the future development of the surrounding area) are
the most germane standards the Commissiolil should use to evaluate the height variance.
V.
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. Allowable height for adjacent underlying zoning in the CC and C-1 zone district is
40 feet. As proposed, the structure would extend the scale and urban design feel of the Ritz Carlton east
along Dean Street.
Staff has repeatedly requested that the applicant submit photographs depicting the proposed front facade of
the Dean Street building superimposed from sensitive viewplanes around the central core, including the
,following:
• 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.
The applicant has agreed to revise the massing model to depict the height revision of the Dean Street
building as well as the additional townhomes to assist staff and the Commission in determining compliance
with this standard. The model should also be available at the meeting.
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.
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, redevelopment will certainly occur over time. Staff would suggest
the proposed height PUD 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 by 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, without further GMQS approvals or allocations.
5
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. The applicant has viewed this issue from the
perspective that these allocations represented an agreement between the City and the applicant. The City
Attorney's Office will provide a clarification at the meeting.
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., and 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
Dean Street, 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 the time of final PUD submission.
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.
1.1
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 RECOMIVVIENDATION: Due to the link between Lots 3 and S, staff does not feel that it is
appropriate to provide a resolution of approval or formal conditions prior to the review of Lot 3 ("Top of
Mill"). The initial review of Lot 3 is scheduled for June 4, 1996.
"A" - Referral Memos
"B" - Alan Richman Memo
"C" - Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines
7
To: Dave Michaelson., Deputy Director
Community Development Department
From: � Nanc MacKe-nzie Environmental H
y Health Department 1
Date March 8, 199.6
Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivi ion/PUD (Lots 3 & 5) Conceptual
Submission, -Rezoning and Text Amendment
Parcel .ID $# 2737-182-85-003 & 005
I
The Aspen%Pitkin Environmental 'Health Department -has reviewed the
Aspen Mountain S.ubdivi-sion (-Grand Aspen *and Top of Mill) land use
submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of :the City of
.Aspeni and has the followingcomments
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND ' COLLECTION : -Section 11L1.7 -"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
t
District (ACSD)meet the requirements of this Department. The
'ability 'of' the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle
the increased flow for the project should be -determined by the
ACSD. The applicant 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 PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS • Section 2 3 - 5 5 "A11 buildings ,
structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city -limit's which use water shall be connected' to the
municipal water utility system.."
The provision of potable water from the City.of Aspen system is
consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply
of safe water. The City.*of Aspen Water Department. shall determine
1
if adequate water is available for
water supply meets all standards
Health for drinking.water quality.
the project. The City of Aspen
of the Colorado. Department of
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1 . 3 "For the purpose of maintaining and
protecting •its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and 1
supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources
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 will 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 possible' by requiring the use of all
available practical methods and techniques 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-requirement,s 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 ' 2 5 o 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 traffic decreased by the control
measures is at least as.great as the traffic increases of the
project without mitigation.
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
2
an -average -annual occupancy rate. The standard ITE trip.
generation rats should be -used. The units will generate trips
from residents., guests,.cleaners, maintenance, etc year round and
especially during winter when PM-10 pollution is a concern.
However, the total number of units is being'reduced. The hotel
w1il1 not be developed. It can be an kcipated that -there will be a
decrease in traffic and that .they -have already mitigated their
impacts.
Page 68 states that according to the Traffic and Parking Study.
prepared by TDA, Inc., the.proposed parking substantially exceeds
the -estimated demand. Based on their analysis, TDA estimates 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 Development agrees with the -applicant's contention that
the parking supply being proposed is actually greater than the
parking demand,- --this Department.. would. recommend reduction in the
number -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..
FIREPLACE/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 log fireplaces or two certified
woodst.oves . (or. 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative ga.s
fireplace appliances per building. New, homes: may NOT have wood
burning fireplaces, nor .may any heating 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
includes, but .is not . limit ed 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 line or causing a nuisance.
ME
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
project, by havingtheir own flusher truck, on the site and
flushing as many times a -day as necessary.
DEMOLITION 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
cont-ractor 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
engineering firm about the design of the underground parking
structure ventilation system to ensure that ventilation is
adequate to prevent carbon ..monoxide from reaching high levels.
inside. the facility or 'in the nearby areas outside - it . 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
significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public
peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors.
Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide- standards for permissible noise levels in various
areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible
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
5
To: Dave Michaelson, Community Development
From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office
Re: Aspen Mountain PUD Housing Requirements
Date: 30 April, 1996
I've reviewed the documents approving various parts of the Aspen Mountain PUD, including approvals of
the Phase I Lodge (Ritz Carlton) and residential projects at Lot 5 (Grand Aspen) and Top of Mill. Based
on my understanding of these documents, I believe that the housing obligations related to the residential
portions of the Top of Mill and Lot 5 projects have been satisfied.
The complexity of this whole projects arises because the housing requirements were developed for the
project as a whole, while various parts of the project have been approved separately. However, I think I
can summarize the situation as follows:
The original approvals, memorialized in the first PUD agreement, contain the housing requirements for
the entire project on all 5 lots. The requirements consist of the following three elements:
Housing requirements related to the lodge and associated commercial and restaurant space.
Housing requirements related to 12 GMP Residential allocations
Housing requirements related to replacement of existing residential units on the 5 lots.
The first element was subject to amendment as the hotel project was refined. The second and third
elements of the requirement remained the same throughout the project.
The attached resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission, under Sunny Vann's memo, provide the
link among the various project approvals and the housing requirements, sufficient to convince me that no
additional housing was to be required for the residential portions of the project.
Exhibit "B % attached, outlines the refined housing requirements attached to the Amended PUD
Agreement. These figures were subject to an audit of employment after two years of operation at the
hotel. The audit was conducted, and found higher than projected employment. However, as a part of the
amended PUD Agreement, the developer had provided more units than were required for the hotel,
residential GMP and replacement housing.
When I recalculate the requirements, based on the audit, I find that the Phase I Hotel and all associated
residential development were subject to a requirement to provide housing for 185 employees. Mitigation
for 198.5 employees was provided, as required under the Amended PUD Agreement.
RITZ_EMP
Ritz/Carlton Emplyee Generation Tables
Actual
Amended PUD
Employment
Phase I
Lodge Operation
New Lodge Rooms
264
New 1 BR Suites
q 26
New 2 BR Suites (2)
4
Total Bedrooms
294
Living Rooms at 25%
7
Total Rooms
301
Employees per Room
0.36
Employee Generation
108.36
316.00
Existing Lodge Rooms
120
Employees per Room
0.20
Employee Credit
24.00
24.00
Net New Employees
84.36
292.00
GMP Employees Housed
60%
Employees to be Housed
50.62
Accessory Food and Beverage
New Restaurant sq. ft. (net)
4,500
New Lounge sq. ft. (net)
3,700
New Kitchen sq. ft. (net)
3,400
Subtotal
11,600
Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
12.80
Employee Generation
148.48
Included Above
Existing F&B and Kitchen sq. ft.
(net 4,900
Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
9.00
Employee Credit
44.10
44.10
Net New Employees
104.38
247.90
GMP Employees Housed
60%
Employees to be Housed
62.63
Accessory Retail
Net Retail sq. ft.
5,770
Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
3.50
Employee Generation
20.20
Included Above
Existing Retail sq. ft.
700
Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
3.50
Employee Credit
2.45
2.45
Net New Employees
17.75
245.45
GMP Employees Housed
60%
60%
Employees to be Housed
10.6
147.3
Page 1
Residential GMP
Population of Unrestricted Units
4-3 BR's @ 3.0/D.U. (58%) 12 12
Employees to be Housed (42%) 8.7 8.7
Employee Housing Replacement
Employees to be Housed 29.0 29.0
Total Commercial Generation 277.0 316.0
Total Commercial Credits 70.6 70.6
Net Commercial Generation 206.5 245.5
Total Residential Generation 12.0 12.0
Commercial Mitigation @ 60% 123.9 147.3
Residential mitigation @ 42% 8.7 8.7
Replacement Requirement 29.0 29.0
Total Requirement 161.6 185.0
Total Provided 198.5 198.5
Page 2
(-�'XH.IBITB-
mox 574 PAGE 856
Employee Generation [or Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summi t Place
and Replacement Housing
1. _Lodge Operation
Phase I
New Lodge Rooms (26 4)
264
New 1-BR Suites (26)
26
New 2-BR Suites (2)
4
Total Bedrooms
294
Living Rooms @ 25 %
7
Total Rooms
301
Employees per room
.36
Employee generation
108.40
Existing Lodge Rooms
120
Employees per room
Employee credit
.20
0
Net new employees
84.4
GMP employees housed
60%
Employees to be housed
50.6
2. Accessory Food & Beverage
New restaurant sq. Et. (net)
41500
New lounge sq. Et. (net)
31700
New kitchen sq. Et. (net)
3, 400
Subtotal
11,600
Employees per 1,000 sq. Et.
12.8
Employee generation
1 8.
Existing F&B and Kitchen sq. Et. (net)
41-900
Employees per 1,000 sq. Et.
9.0
Employee credit
44.1
Net new employees
104.4
GMP employees housed
6 0%
Employees to be moused
62.6
3. Accessory Retail
Net retail sq. Et.
5, 770
Employees per 1,000 sq.Et.
3.5
Employee generation
20. 2
Existing retail sq. Et.
700
Employees per 1,000 sq.Et.
3.5
Employee credit
2.5
Net new employees
17.7
GMP employees housed
6 0%
Employees to be housed
BOU 574 Pau_857
Employee Generation for Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summit Place
.and Replacement Elousing , Cont.
4. Non -Accessory Commercial GMP
New retail
Employees per 11000 sq. ft.
Employee generation
5. Residential GMP ( Lot 4 )
Population of unrestricted units
4 3-BRs @ 3. 0/d u (5 8 % )
Employees to be housed (42%)
6. Em loyee Housing Replacement
Employees to be housed
Summary of Employees to be Housed
1. Lodge Operations
2. Accessory Food & Beverage
3. Accessory Retail
4. Non -Accessory Commercial GMP
5. Residential GMP ( Lot 4 )
6. Replacement Housing
Total, Lot 1 , Lot 2 , Lot 4 and Replacement
Employees to be Housed ---
•Phase I
0
12.0
8.7
29.0
50.6
62.6
10.6
0.0
�8. 7
IN ^
161.5
j
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.
• Parts of this development are within the Holy Cross service area so the electrical plans will
also need to be reviewed by Holy Cross Electric.
DRCM3A96.DOC 3/12/96
MEMO - Aspen Mt. Subdivision / I'M lots 3 &
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. Diywell 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.
• Flood control R-O-W for snow melt/storm drainage must be granted to the City around and
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 appeal s 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.
• Site generated and off -site storm run-off needs to be addressed in the feasibility study phase
of this project given the location at the base of the mountain in a natural drainage basin. This
DRCM3A96.D0C 3/12/96
a
j
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.
DRCN,13A96.DOC 3/12/96
•
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.
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. I
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 31) 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".
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 take, 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 / 8 4 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
Exhibit C
The Base of Aspen Mountain Neighborhood once was
the focus of mining activity in the city and it saw a
variety of building types and forms. Today, it continues
to exhibit diverity in its architectural character and
scale of buildings.
Shadow Mountain Neighborhood
Chapter b
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
Garmisch 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
earlyyears 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
so than historically. Stucco, brick and wood are com-
mon. 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 run 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.
As a 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 street 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
thatbuildings reinforce a streetscape that is 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 buildings seen traditionally.
Buildings should have sloping roof forms. Gable, hip,
and shed roof shapes are appropriate.
Base of Aspen Mountain
Design Guidelinc:s for the
Base of Aspep'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 canbe 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 Guidelines
54. A variety of building forms is
appropriate in this area.
a. However, rectilinear forms are encouraged.
b. Buildings should have slopingroof forms. Gable,
hip, and shed roof forms are appropriate.
Aspen Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines Page 41