Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930907 t.", \. , , , .,. "'- \ <c r (- ( "-L :FA-tV AGENDA ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 7, 1993, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room city Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. COMMENTS commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARING A. 935 E. Hyman Survey Monument Landmark Designation, Amy Amidon (Continued from August 3, 1993) 3()B. Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Review, Kim Johnson (continued from August 24, 1993) C. Souki Conditional Use Review and 8040 Greenline Review, LesJ-ie Lamont ~To be-1:abi:ed to September 21, 1993) .' ,c, I, ,,', ,( ,~/(' J-,-~,I ~-I IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 103 Park Stream Margin Amendment, Kim Johnson I V. OLD BUSINESS J>. A. Aspen Highlands village Referral, Leslie Lamont VI. ADJOURN '"""'- / TO: FROM: _ RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer 935 E. Hyman, Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4 September 7, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission are to make a recommendation on the proposed Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4. This monument, which is not included on Aspen's "Inventory of Historic Structures and Sites" is potentially threatened with demolition. APPLICANTS: The application has been initiated by. the Aspen Planning Department, at the direction of the Historic Preservation Committee. LOCATION: 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Proposed Lot l.of the Sund Lot Split, also known as lots D and E, Block 35, East Aspen Addition. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three -step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. OTHER BOARD ACTION: On June 9, 1993 HPC made a motion directing the Historic Preservation Officer to begin research on the historic significance of this monument. On July 28, the board opened the public hearing on the proposed Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4. HPC unanimously found that the Monument has sufficient historic significance to be declared an Aspen Landmark, but continued the public hearing twice to allow the property owner an opportunity to work out conceptual plans for the building to be constructed on the site. HPC intends to landmark the entire parcel so that they can protect not only the monument but also a certain area around it to ensure that it remains visible to the public. A landmarked parcel is eligible for some preservation incentives which HPC has the ability to grant. As of August 25, 1993 the owner of this property has agreed to support the designation in the hopes of accessing some of these incentives. Staff and HPC are working with the applicant to accomodate his proposed design and to limit any potential hardship caused by designation. If the designation application is successful, the owner will submit a more finalized building design for HPC review. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado -or the United States. Response: In the summer of 1879, a party of prospectors crossed the Continental Divide from Leadville into the Roaring Fork Valley. They established a silver mining camp, first known as "Ute City," and began staking mineral claims. As word of their, find travelled back to Leadville, more settlers began to come into the valley. Some of them stayed in the camp through the winter, under threat of Ute Indian attack, to protect their interests. In order to establish a post office, receive the benefits given an officially recognized town and attract investors, the mining camp had to become a surveyed townsite. The first step in this process was accomplished in the early spring of 1880, when B. Clark Wheeler laid out the town boundaries. Over the summer, new residents interested in mining poured in rapidly. U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4 was established during this period, in September of 1880. The monument is a Bureau of Land Management Marker, which are generally established when there is no official survey point within two miles. Ute No. 4 became the siting point used to locate a great number of mineral claims that were laid out on Aspen and Smuggler Mountains. Mining had a short "heyday" of only 14 years (1879-1893) in Aspen, but the extraction of mineral wealth was obviously essential to the founding of -this town. Many of the structures and artifacts associated with this period and with the mining process have been lost. No other such monument is known to exist now in Aspen. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: This standard is not applicable. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not applicable. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not applicable. E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The monument is important to the character of this neighborhood in that it has been the scene of various activities related to Aspen's mining history. Drill holes on the west face of the rock suggest the sort of miner's drilling competitions which have been documented in other towns occurred here. F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: Although this monument will no longer function as a surveying point, it is important to preserve its "integrity of location. " This site was chosen for survey work presumably because of it was visible and provided expansive views of the valley. It is a geographic landmark which is clearly connected to the early history of this community's development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends P & Z approve Landmark Designation of U.S.L.M., Ute No. 4, finding it meets standards A (historic significance), E (neighborhood character) and F (community character). PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Landmark Designation of 935 E. Hyman Avenue., Lot 1 of the Sund Lot Split, also known as Lot D, Block 35, East Aspen Addition, finding that it meets three of the six required standards." Additional Comments: PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 935 E. HYMAN AVENUE LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, August 23, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:OO pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by the City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen requesting Landmark Designation of Proposed Lot 1 of the Sund Lot Split Application, 935 East Hyman Avenue. The property is described as Lots D. E, F, & G. Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/Mayor John Bennett Aspen City Council ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Published in the Aspen Times on August 6, 1993. City of Aspen Account. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU:, Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: September 7, 1993 RE: 1993 Review of Amendments to the Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan - public hearing continued from August 24, 1993 SUMMARY: As required by the June, 1991 Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA) approvals, the Planning staff has joined other departments and agencies to review the provisions of the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan (Plan) . This is the first official biennial review as outlined in'the Plan. Groups who submitted information to staff were the Aspen Institute, the Music Associates of Aspen and Savanah Limited Partnership. Planning staff seeks the Commission's support of the proposed additions / changes to the Plan. This list is incorporated into the Insubstantial SPA Amendment (Exhibit "A") to be signed by the Planning -Director. BACKGROUND: The Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan was approved by City Council on June 10, 1991. Included in the Aspen Meadows review was a Traffic Mitigation Plan worked out by the Meadows Consortium (MAA, Aspen Institute, Savanah Limited Partnership, and the Physics Institute), City Staff, RFTA, and several West End residents. The SPA Development Agreement was recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and included the Plan as an exhibit. A copy of the Plan is attached to your memo as. Exhibit "B". The Plan establishes performance goals- and responsibilities for each user group at the Meadows. The Plan requires a review of the components every two years. This is the first official staff review since the 1991 approval. Last summer, City staff and representatives from MAA and RFTA met several times with three neighborhood households to try and respond to specific traffic problems. The Final SPA Development Plan Agreement requires that any modifications to the Plan must be approved by P&Z at.a public hearing. CURRENT ISSUES:' In early April of this year, Planning staff asked the Aspen Institute, the MAA, Savanah Limited Partnership, and RFTA to address the elements of the Plan in which each were involved. Attached as Exhibit "C" are the response letters. Staff believes 1 that the general intentions of the Plan have been met, given that the entire build -out of the Meadows has not been reached. Based in the input from the three neighbors, staff is aware that there are a few instances where some elements of the Plan have not been adequately or regularly addressed, or eliminated altogether. A list of concerns from these neighbors is attached as Exhibit I'D". (Please note that many items mentioned in this list are not specific to the Plan, but are general concerns or enforcement issues related to other Municipal Code requirements.) The following are highlights for the 1993 review. A map of identified pedestrian and bus routes is attached for your reference, Exhibit "Ell. A. MAA Enhanced Transit Service: Fourth Street is identified in the Plan as a pedestrian/bus route for concerts during the MAA season. It is supposed to be closed to private auto traffic from Main Street to Gillespie. The City makes available any signage needed by MAA to accomplish the street closure for concert days. Streets Director. Jack Reid mentioned in staff discussions that at times, multiple cross - street "pedestrian route" signs had been stolen. He is willing to replace missing signs upon request from MAA. He also stated that no contact was with his office by MAA either prior to or during the concert season (as of mid July) to secure signs and barricades. B. Pedestrian Z Bicycle Ways: Lake Avenue is designated as the "walking experience" to/from the music tent and downtown. Rubber street markers are placed by the Streets Department at the beginning of the season, and provides a "street closed" sign and barricade for the Gillespie St. intersection for use after the concerts to route auto traffic from Lake Ave. MAA is responsible to place the barricade in the intersection after the concerts and provide traffic control persons to guide vehicles. Failure to accomplish these tasks poses a hazard to pedestrians to whom the roadway is temporarily dedicated. The City has installed a street light at the Gillespie/Lake intersection, but some neighbors want at least two more. The City is currently evaluating streetlights on a city-wide basis, so this issue is not considered relevant to the Plan review. C. Buses: A small bus powered by compressed natural gas was identified as a regular shuttle along a Third and Fifth Street loop from Main to the music tent. According to RFTA correspondence, this shuttle system was tried during the 1991 season but was eliminated because of low ridership and budget considerations for the 1992 and 1993 seasons. Staff believes that the concept of a natural gas shuttle should not be permanently dropped, but left open for future consideration. Because of technology changes and/or ridership needs, staff 2 recommends that the next review of the Plan in 1995 reconsider this shuttle or other uses of natural gas vehicles. The regular bus routes to the tent have experience relatively high ridership levels. However, Paul Hilts of RFTA reports that in general_ transit terms, decreases in scheduling or routing result in decreased ridership as patrons find alternatives to the bus system. This situation would be an undesirable downward spiral for the MAA's transit program. The regular bus routes from Ruby Park and the Music School are currently routed into the music tent on Fifth and Third Streets. Buses then follow Bleeker eastward to the Aspen Street stoplight on Main on their way back to Ruby Park. This has been done since the late 19701s. Staff and RFTA have responded to the neighbor's concern about bus speeds. RFTA has instructed its drivers to observe 15 MPH speeds through the West End and apparently this has quelled much neighborhood concern. Neighborhood concerns: Staff has had numerous phone calls and meetings with a trio of neighbors consisting of George Vicenzi, Jan Collins, and Anne Ibbotson. This year they have noted that the Fourth St. barricades/signs are not in place to restrict traffic on the bus/pedestrian route. Also they claim that barricades and signs are not placed regularly at the Gillespie Street intersection. They believe that even when barricading and signs are placed, they do not succeed in preventing traffic from speeding down Lake Ave. The three neighbors also express dissatisfaction with the signage provided by the City. They request better looking signs (wood, painted) to be used along with planted f lower barrels or something similar. Although the Parks Department has typically provided two barrels and soil, they cannot provide plants or maintenance during the summer, nor are they required to do so. The neighbors believe that the lack of more numerous and better looking signs does not meet their vision of an "enhanced pedestrian/bicycle ways. Regarding the bus route from the tent to Ruby Park, the three neighbors believe that this is excessive bus traffic for the four blocks along Bleeker. Ultimately, they want all bus traffic serving the MAA to occur only on the block at the Forest Service property (Seventh and Eighth Streets) and drop off riders, most of whom are MAA students with instruments, for a four block walk to the tent. Staff does not agree with these proposals, believing that bus ridership would be severely reduced, and increased private vehicle traffic would result. 3 Summary and Recommendation: Staff's primary goal is to use the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan as an effective transportation tool for the benefit of the entire community, including the guests and students of the MAA. We believe that at this time the Plan's elements are sound. However, it appears that the implementation of the MAA's traffic control elements have not been regularly accomplished. Staff proposes a few changes to the current Plan to overcome weaknesses in self -enforcement by the MAA: 1) The MAA shall appoint a Transportation Co-ordinator who will be responsible for (including but not limited to): a. the procurement of barricades, signs and other traffic control items as provided by the City Streets Department; b. daily supervision of traffic control personnel (including training), barricades and signage; c. "front line" contact to the. general public, RFTA, other Meadows users, and City Departments regarding all elements of the MAA's role in the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan; d. implementation of the required dust control measures for the gravel parking lot prior to the start of any events each spring and as necessary through the summer. e. plowing and clearing of snow for. all wintertime performances or functions at MAA facilities; and f. organization and conducting of an end -of -season "debriefing" meeting with interested neighbors, RFTA, and pertinent City department representatives for immediate feedback on the preceding season's operations and to recommend changes for yearly implementation outside of the required biennial reviews. 2. Implementation of a natural gas shuttle bus for the Fourth Street loop or other Meadows routes shall be reconsidered in the 1995 review of the Traffic Mitigation Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Dozens of staff hours spread among several departments have been spent working with the three west end neighbors. The proposed MAA Traffic Manager is envisioned to be the main contact person for any discussions with neighbors or staff, thus removing staff from the primary information / enforcement loop. The request for new signage, barrels and flowers has been frequently made to the Parks Department. This item has not been budgeted in'the past. Staff believes that the City should not be 4 placed in the position of providing this type of neighborhood amenity for the beautification of a few specific blocks. This was not required by the Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the following amendments to the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan which will be documented by an Insubstantial SPA Amendment memo signed by the Planning Director. 1) The MAA shall appoint a Transportation Co-ordinator who will be responsible for (including but not limited to): a. the procurement of barricades, signs and other traffic control items as provided by the City Streets Department; b. daily supervision of traffic control personnel (including training), barricades and signage; c. "front line" contact to the general public, RFTA, other Meadows users, and City Departments regarding all elements `of the MAA's role in the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan; d. implementation of the required dust control measures for the gravel parking - lot prior to the start of any events each spring and as necessary through the summer. e. plowing and clearing of snow for all wintertime performances or functions at MAA facilities; and f. organization and conducting of an end -of -season "debriefing" meeting with interested neighbors, RFTA,-and pertinent City department representatives for immediate feedback on the preceding season's operations and to recommend changes for yearly implementation outside of the required biennial reviews. 2. Implementation of a natural gas shuttle bus for the Fourth Street loop or other Meadows routes shall be reconsidered in the 1995 review of the Traffic Mitigation Plan. RECOMMENDED MOTION:. "I move that the Planning Commission approve Planning staff s proposed changes to the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan, and direct the City Planning Director to sign the Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan." 5 Exhibits: "A" - Draft Insubstantial SPA Amendment Memo "B" - 1991 Approved Traffic Mitigation Plan "C" - Response Information from Meadows Participants "D" - Information from West End Neighbors "E" - Map of Pedestrian and Bus Routes to MAA "F" - July 8, 1993 Planning Office Update to Staff 0 PLANNING & ZONING COMI\.;ISSION EXHIBIT %- , APPROVED _ 19 BY RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: September 8, 1993 RE: Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan - Insubstantial SPA Amendment Summary: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Planning Director sign the Insubstantial SPA Amendment for changes to the Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan. Background: On June*10, 1991, the City Council approved the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan. Subsequently, the SPA Agreement, including the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan (the "Plan"), was recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk's Office in Book 667, Pages 731-809.- The Final SPA and recorded Agreement require that the Plan be reviewed by staff on a biennial basis beginning in 1993. If any changes are recommended, the SPA Agreement stipulates that such changes must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. The P&Z met on September 71 1993 and did approve the below listed changes at a public hearing. Staff Comments: The Planning Director may grant approval to insubstantial SPA Amendments pursuant to Section 24-7-804 E.1. When considering a project, the following criteria shall not be considered insubstantial: 1. A change in use or character; 2. An increase in greater than.3% on the overall coverage of structures on the land; 3. Any substantial increase in trips generation or demand on public facilities; 4. Reduction by greater than 3% of approved open space; 5. More than 1% reduction in parking; 6. A reduction of required pavement widths or r.o.w. for streets; 7. Greater than 2% increase of gross leasable floor area; 8. Greater than 1% increase of residential density; and 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the- original approval, or which requires granting further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements. The approved uses and the site plan for the Aspen Meadows properties are not being changed by this amendment. The only criteria from the above list which are applicable to this Traffic Mitigation Plan revision are numbers 1 and 9. These criteria however are not affected by the specific changes proposed. Staff recommends the list of changes provided below in order to make the Plan operate more efficiently as a self -enforcing mechanism for the high intensity MAA uses on the property. During the last two years, city staff has found itself overly involved in the day-to- day requirements of the Plan and the Plan's participants. Recommendation:, The Planning Commission supports staff's recommended changes to the Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Update via this Insubstantial SPA Amendment. The changes are: 1) The MAA shall appoint a Transportation Coordinator who will be responsible for (including but not limited to): a. the procurement of barricades, signs and other traffic control items necessary for street closures, as provided by the City Streets Department, at least two weeks prior to the start of the summer concert season; b. daily supervision of traffic control personnel (including training), barricades and signage; c. "front line" contact to the general public, RFTA, other Meadows users, and City Departments regarding all elements of the MAA's role in the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan; d. implementation of the required dust control measures for the gravel parking lot at least two weeks prior to the start of any events at the MAA property each spring and as necessary through the summer; e. plowing and clearing of snow for all wintertime performances or functions at MAA facilities; and f. organization and conducting of an end -of -season "debriefing" meeting with interested neighbors, RFTA, and pertinent City department representatives for immediate feedback on the preceding season's operations and to recommend changes for yearly implementation outside of the required biennial reviews. 2) Implementation of the natural gas shuttle bus for the Fourth St. loop or other Meadows routes shall be reconsidered in the 1995 review of the Traffic Mitigation Plan. I approve an Insubstantial SPA Amendment for the above changes to the Traffic Mitigation Plan of the Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan as supported by the Aspen Planning and zoning Commission on September 7, 1993. Diane Moore, Planning Director Date 2 -�-, o l /^4/9^ 16: 13 $400. 00 F-4K 667 PG .781 43409•- � Doc $ . 00 Silvia Davis, F'it}-:in Cnty Clerk, EXHIBIT "B" ?=NING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT �, APPROVED , 19 BY RESOLUTION THE ASPEN MEADOWS TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN February, 1991 C- - - t ` 67 PG 782 16. 13 Rec $4s,c) . 0o F F. 6 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in City Clerk:, Doc . THE ASPEN MEADOWS TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN This plan has been prepared by the following individuals: Committee Members: King Woodward, The Aspen Institute Kim Johnson, Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office Dan Blankenship, Roaring Fork Transit Agency George Vicenzi, West End Resident Robert Harth, Ed Sweeney, Music Associates of Aspen Don Swales, West End Resident Roger Hunt, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and West End Resident Perry Harvey, R.J. Gallagher, Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. Bob Felsburg, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Other Particioants:- John Goodwin, Aspen Police Chief Chuck. Roth, Aspen Public Works Department Jan Collins, West End Resident Amy Margerum, Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office #341)93 i C! 1 / 724 /9:_' 16. 1 "3 i ec d>q.Gc_y , c is i DF:: 667 FG 783 Silvi.:?. DaviE, Pitk:in Cnty Cler-l<, Dac I. Introduction During the late summer of 1989 the City of Aspen began the preparation of a Master Plan for the Aspen Meadows property. This plan, completed in January 1990, was formulated within the framework of four goals. Two of the goals, which are directly related to -'the traffic and transportation aspects of the plan, were stated as follows: Goal 3: Mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the effects of the devel- opment on neighboring properties. Goal 4: Mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the project's impacts on the overall community. From a transportation standpoint, the Master Plan included a number of physical elements in the site plan which were directed at achieving these goals. These included creating a new primary access point to the West Meadows via Seventh Street, constructing a new trail system linking both the East Meadows and the West Meadows to the City's trail system, and improving the MAA parking lots to better serve automobiles and transit interface. However, the Master Plan went even further and identified a number of mitigation measures, many of which are operational in nature, which should be explored. These included such measures as controls on delivery vehicles; plans for smaller, non -diesel transit vehicles; shuttle service to/from the Meadows; parking controls; and emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle access. To respond to this concern, in October 1990 the Consortium formed a committee to further evaluate mitigation measures and to develop a traffic mitigation plan for the Aspen Meadows project. This committee was comprised of representatives of the owners and users of the property, West End residents, the manager of the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA), representatives of the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office, a member of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, and a professional transportation consul- tant. The committee held seven meetings between October 30, 1990 and February 5, 1991 to discuss mitigation measures and to prepare this plan. In addition to committee mem- bers, other residents and City employees participated in these meetings. Early in the process, the committee formulated the following goal statement which directed the committee's efforts: "To develop mitigation measures for the Aspen Meadows facilities to reduce automobile use and it's impact on the West End neighborhood and the community at large, and to make the Meadows facilities more accessible to residents and guests in environmentally sound ways." The resulting plan has been developed in two components. Because the characteristics associated with the lodge, restaurant, and health club facilities on the western portion of the property differ significantly from those of the MAA facilities on the eastern portion, the mitigation measures appropriate to each portion also differ. Therefore, the following sections provide a series of mitigation measures for each of the areas of the property. With each measure are provided a brief description of the action, the suggested phasing for implementation of the measure, and identification of the responsible party. `. #3540937 01 / 24 / 92 16 : 13 Cc $400 . 00 E{K 667 FtD 784 Silvia Davis., Pitk:in Cnty-ClerJ-.:, Doc $.Oo I In developing and implementing this or any mitigation plan, it is important to understand that the plan must be evolutionary. While the goal of the plan must remain steadfast, the mitigation measures and the details of their implementation must be flexible, requiring monitoring and fine tuning over the years. -It is recommended that the City undertake a program to review the effectiveness of the mitigation measures on a regular basis and to work with the Consortium to modify the details of the measures to ensure effective; yet efficient, implementation. 2 1/24/92 16:13 F:ec Dk* 667 F'r 785 Silvia Davis, F-itl.=:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc .0ci ll. Mitigation Plan for West Meadows Facilities A. Background Currently, the residential units on the western portion of the Aspen Meadows property include 60 lodge units and eight townhouses. The conceptual SPA approval included the addition of four single family residences, ten new three - bedroom townhomes, and 50 lodge units. The purpose of these additional facilities is primarily to better serve the group activities sponsored by the members of the Consortium. During the summer months, use will be almost exclusively by these groups. During the winter season, it is anticipated that the lodge may be operated for public use. Furthermore, the restaurant will be renovated, but will not be expanded. Finally, the health club, used primarily by guests of the West Meadows, will be enlarged slightly. In developing the mitigation plan, the committee considered measures that ad- dressed each of the primary user groups of the West Meadows facilities: guests, employees, and users of the restaurant or health club who are not staying on the grounds. Furthermore, a mitigation plan usually includes auto disincentives and incentives to use other modes of transportation. Auto disincentives are restrictive measures that discourage individuals from using their automobiles. The second element is comprised of measures that make it attractive and convenient to use alternatives to the automobile. As will be highlighted by the list of measures described in the following section, this mitigation plan includes a wide range of both auto disincentives and alternative mode incentives. How effective will this plan be? While it is very difficult to project exactly how much trip reduction will occur as a result of this plan, the committee believes that it has the potential to significantly mitigate the effects of additional traffic due to the new development. The following table presents a summary of trip generation which might be expected from the West Meadows based on trip rates typical of the Aspen area if no specific mitigation program is implemented. As shown, the existing residential and restaurant facilities could generate about 750 vehicle trips per day. The proposed additional residential units could generate another 340 trips per day, bringing the total trip estimate to nearly 1,100 vehicles per day. Thus, a 30 percent trip reduction would result in total traffic generation -with the expanded facilities equal to that which could be generated by the existing facilities without a mitigation plan. Because of the nature of the users of the West Meadows and the broad -based character of the mitigation plan, it is believed that, when properly implemented, the proposed plan will achieve these results. f 34093- <-�1 /^4/9^ 16. 13 ReC( 100- c_)C) 667 F--G' e(36 ' 6ilvia Davis) Pitk:in Cnty Cler-F:, Doc $.oO an c Cq 0 -v Cd a� U 4, to • tn ko M to '_'� `D v'1 Nr O� O O C C; cd O o 0 C •" �o o � o U • rV a C a� fl. Cq Nr Cn O� Cn C 'p w C N Ol •0 .�. r.+ � a •� 00 o 0 0, r -y > •vy E.. N ch �T C C .x W O O E O •0 U 00 0 0 0' 00 v •-• CO a' Q C � 00 .-. \ 0 v O ^ (� f/i U Q O ^ cn a cd Q Q «� C 4. 0 a Cd N4-4 �.00 cv v' .� oo U a� V) on N 0 �U+ 4 340937 C 1 /^4/9^ - - - - .._ 16 : 1 _ Fiec �,4c �� � . c �c a B f: 667 PG 787 Silvia Davis, F'itl in Cnty C1.er•1r-., Doc �i B. Elements of Mitigation Plan The following elements of a traffic mitigation plan directed at West Meadows related traffic have been identified. 1. Airport Van Service Description: A free van service to and from the airport will be provided for guests and residents of the West Meadows. Because it is antici- pated that most of the guest visits will be prearranged, the lodge will dispatch the van (a vehicle with an approximate capacity of 12 -16 passengers) to pick up guests based on their flight schedule. Similarly, departures will also be able to be prearranged. All guests will be encouraged to use this convenient, yet efficient, service. Phasing: This service will be initiated upon opening of the renovated lodge. Responsible Party: Lodge operator through agreement with Aspen Institute. 2. Van Service to/from Town Description: A free van service will be operated between the West Meadows and downtown Aspen. This service will be available to all guests, residents, and employees of the West Meadows, including users of the restaurant, tennis courts, and health center. The ser- vice will utilize a relatively small vehicle, seating approximately 12- 16 passengers. The service will be a regularly scheduled service with frequent headways. During the high season, this route will run from early morning to late evening on one-half hour headways. The'schedule will be adjusted for applicability to each season, and may be provided on an on demand" basis during certain seasons. Phasing: The basic service described above will be initiated with the opening of the renovated lodge. Its usage will be monitored, and the service will be adjusted as necessary to meet the demand of the patrons. Responsible Party: Lodge operator through agreement with Aspen Institute. 3. Chartered Vehicles for Croup Activities Description: When appropriate, group activities either leaving or coming to the West Meadows will be served by chartered vehicles arranged by the management of the West Meadows. By providing this service, management will be better able to control the number and/or size of vehicles serving the participants in such activities. Furthermore, encouragement of the use of this service will discourage the use of private automobiles by participants. E C�J./ 4/S' 16. 1 Fiec #�4 667 PG 7eO Silvia. Davis, F'itkin Cnty Cler•{::, Doc Phasing: This service will be provided with the first organized groups using the West Meadows. Responsible Party. Lodge operator. 4. Guest Parking Description: No parking for the lodge units will be provided adjacent to the units. Instead, parking for these units will be located in a parking structure under the tennis courts. Thus, even if guests bring vehi- cles to the campus, their vehicles will not be immediately available to them. Furthermore, guests will need to walk past the van service in order to get to their vehicles. It is hoped that this concept will encourage guests to use the van service rather than their private automobiles. Phasing: See construction schedule. Responsible Party: Aspen Institute 5. Trail System Description: Site planning has provided for on -campus trails that connect to the extensive city-wide pedestrian and bike trail system adjacent to the Meadows property. Thus, the Meadows trail system has been designed to complement the City's efforts in developing pedestrian and bicycle trails, thus encouraging guests of the Meadows to use these modes of transportation. Phasing: The on -site trail systems will be phased through the City's trail construction program. Responsible Party: City and the Consortium. 6. Bicycle Facilities Description: Bicycles will be made available for use by guests of the lodge at a minimal fee designed to cover maintenance, replacement, and administrative costs. Furthermore, bicycle racks will be provided at those facilities which may be used by persons not lodged at the West Meadows (for example, at the health center and at the tennis courts). Phasing: It is expected that this program will begin with 25-30 bicycles available. The program will be monitored and the supply of bicy- cles will be increased accordingly. Responsible Party: Lodge operator. C: #-_14(-)93 ca1/24/92 16: 13 Rec $40 DF: 667 PG 789 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty_ Cler-k:, Do r 7.- Promotional Materials Description: All promotional materials for the West Meadows lodge will emphasize the availability of the van service, will encourage walk- ing and bicycle use, and will discourage the need for personal automobiles. The focus of this mitigation measure is to precondi- tion the guest so that he or she chooses not to even rent a car upon arrival in Aspen. Phasing: This message will be included in all promotional materials published for the renovated lodge. Responsible Party: Lodge operator and Aspen Institute. 8. Employee Parking Description: Limited employee parking will be provided on -site. This parking will be available only for employees for whom vehicles are essential for the execution- of their jobs and for employee carpools of 3 or more persons. A ride matching service will be available through management to encourage the formation of carpools. Furthermore, employees will be provided with their choice of subsidized transit passes or subsidized parking at the Rio Grande parking garage. A shuttle service will be provided for employees from the Rio Grande garage either in conjunction with the regular- ly scheduled van service to Town or as a separate operation. Phasing: This measure will be implemented with the opening of the renovated lodge. Responsible Party: Lodge operator and Aspen Institute. 9. Coordination with Potential Rail Service Description: If passenger -rail service does materialize on the Rio Grande right-of-way, a transit stop will be encouraged in a location which would allow access to the Meadows via the pedestrian bridge on the Roaring Fork River. Phasing: To be implemented with the initiation of rail service. Responsible Party: Applicant and Rail Service Operator N C' C 4/921 16: 13 F;ec ?4c-.,. c�c� DF:: 667 PG 790 - Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc .C)C-> 10. Delivery Truck Restrictions Description: Because of the expected infrequency of large vehicle deliveries to the West Meadows property (approximately 4 to 5 per day), it is recommended that truck restrictions be focused on time of day and route restrictions. It is recommended that deliveries will be limited to the hours of 9:00 - 11:00 A.M. and 2:00 - 4:00 P.M. Thus, the noise impacts of delivery vehicles will not occur during the most sensitive time periods. Furthermore, all deliveries to the West Meadows will be restricted to use of Seventh Street only between the Meadows and SH 82. These restrictions will be implemented through operator agreements. Phasing: The time of day and route restrictions will be implemented upon opening of the renovated lodge. Responsible Party: Lodge operator and Aspen Institute. 1 �4C937 -)1 /24/y2' 16: 1.5 Rec $4(-)i-. ()( D[::: 667 PG 791 Silvi_� Davis F'it�:i.n Cnty C].eri:y Doc I11. Mitigation Plan for MAA Facilities A. Background The MAA facilities, located on the eastern portion of the property, will include rearranged seating in the tent and a new rehearsal facility to accommodate rehears- als and small performances. It is important to note that the modifications to the performance tent will not increase the size of the audiences; they will simply improve the seating conditions for the audiences. Although there are students and faculty associated with traffic related to the MAA facilities, the majority of concerns expressed by neighbors are related to the impacts created by concert -goers. Therefore, most of the mitigation measures included in this plan are focused on these users. Principally, these measures are directed at encouraging concert -goers to walk, bike, or ride the transit system rather than driving their automobiles to the concert. This part of the plan particularly will be evolutionary in nature. Efforts to reduce auto use have already been undertaken in recent years by the MAA in conjunction with West End residents. The elements discussed in the following section are a further expansion of these earlier efforts. As the program is implemented and evaluated, it is expected that even further refinements will be appropriate. B. Elements of Mitigation Plan In developing a mitigation plan to address MAA traffic, the program focuses on .several measures. 1. Promotional Materials Description: Promotional materials (including maps distributed by MAA will encourage use of transit, bicycles, or walkways to access the concert site. Phasing: These efforts have already been initiated and will be continued. Responsible Party: MAA 2. Pedestrian/Bicycle Ways Description: An enhanced system of routes exclusively designated for use by pedestrians and bicyclists to access the concert area will be implemented. This system will include: o Continued designation of the Lake Avenue pedestrian/bicycle way. 0 (7' Cjo. 00 Dt::' 667 PG Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty C1er-kj Doc o Fourth Street will be closed to automobile traffic from Gillespie Street to Main Street for approximately one hour before and one hour after major concerts. Prior to concerts, the street will be for pedestrian/bicycle use only. After the concerts, it will used for pedestrian/bicycle traffic and for buses leaving the MAA grounds. Allowing buses to use this route after concerts will separate the buses from automobile traffic, thereby decreasing the delay experienced by the buses and thus providing an incentive for using the transit service. This closure will include barricades and appropriate signing at both ends of Fourth Street and will require tem- porary warning signs at each cross street to ensure the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, the proposed design of the MAA parking lot provides for a continuation of the pedestrianway from Fourth Street to the music tent. o Facilities for bicycle storage during concerts will be pro- vided in the vicinity of the tent. Implementation: It is anticipated that the Fourth Street closure will be implemented during the next concert season. The bicycle storage facilities will be provided with the improvements to the MAA parking lot. Responsible Party: MAA and City. 3. Enhanced Transit Service Description: Transit service to the MAA grounds will. continue to be improved and emphasized. This includes elements affecting the city-wide system, circulation through the neighborhood, and on -site operation: o All city-wide RFTA bus routes serving the West End, as well as the special MAA bus runs, will continue to provide service. Enhanced .signing and bus service information will be provided at the Rio Grande parking garage to direct patrons to the bus stop on Main Street. o Prior to a scheduled concert, large buses (unless carrying a greater number of passengers than can be accommodated by the circulating shuttle or during inclement weather) will unload all passengers at the intersection of Fourth/Main. Concert goers will then be en- couraged to walk on Fourth Street to the tent or to use the smaller vehicle shuttle which will be circulating on Main, Fifth, Gillespie, and Third Streets. This vehicle will be a compressed natural gas powered vehicle and will operate for approximately one-half to one hour before the concert. Following concerts, buses will stand by on Fourth Street or at the transit stop in the parking lot to transport concert goers back to the center of town. 10 • • 1 C4093( 01/24/92ib: 1:3 Fzec $400. 0o LcF: 667 PG 793 Silvia Davis, Pi tE i n Cnty Clerk., Doc $. 00 r o The MAA parking lot has been designed to provide a location for buses to load and unload passengers while removed from Gillespie Street. This location is on the south end of the parking lot and would allow good clockwise circulation of the buses from Fifth Street into the parking lot and back out onto the street system at Fourth and Gillespie. Phasing: It is anticipated that this improved transit service will be provided during the next concert season. The program will be monitored and the service will be adjusted accordingly. Responsible Party: The transit service will be the responsibility of RFTA. The transit improvements in the parking lot will be the responsibility of the MAA. 4. Truck Restrictions Description: Although the number of large vehicle deliveries to the MAA facilities is very limited, it is recommended that all such vehicles will be restricted to using Third Street only between the MAA grounds and Main Street. MAA will enforce this limitation with their vehicle drivers. Phasing: These restrictions witl be implemented during the next concert season. Responsible Party: MAA 5. .Residential Parking Permit Program Description: A residential parking permit program is still under consideration. This program would prohibit all parking on streets from Mill Street to Eighth Street and from Main Street to the Roaring Fork River other than for residents or their guests during the concert season. The MAA would institute paid parking in their lots in connection with this plan. Permit parking may require issuance of vehicle stickers for a fee, installation of appropriate signage, and City enforcement. Phasing: It is recommended that the -residential parking permit program be instituted after the effectiveness of the remainder of the mitigation plan has been evaluated. Because of the significant impacts of such a program on the residents of the West End, further input from the residents should be incorporated into an implementation plan for this program. Responsible Party: MAA, City and West End residents. 11. _ �, <� 1 /^4i 9^ 16: 1 F;ec . 667 PG 794 �-�4c� ,.,;� Silvia Davis, Pi tk:i n Cnty Clerk: j Doc EXHIBIT C ASPEN MEAOM SLUIVISION/S.P.A. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS December 5, 1991 This estimate of probable construction costs is based on preliminary design and represents Leonard Rice Consulting Uter Engineers best professional Judge it does not, however, constitute a warranty or representation that actual bids will not vary from this estimate no matter how carefully prepared. ! ' hater ; Sanitary { Gas ; Electric {Telephone 1 Cable TV ' Lines 1 t Mains; Sewer { Lines , Lines { t 000 { $10,000 { $10,000 ! { LOT 1 - PH I * ! 5133,0W 1 5168.000 1 $40.000 t 05, ! { LOT 1 -PH 11 "` { 567,000 { $131.000 1 $17.000 1 S35.000 1 510,000 { $10-000 1 t��--_»_------------ { i {— LOT 2 - i PH 11 { PH II = PH II { PH II { PH I { PH I { _ K/A ! ' LOT 3 ; WA 1 $123.000 1 WA 1 WA { WA LOT N/A { WA {~ WA { WA ' !PHI 1 PHI PHI { PHI ! 530.000 { PHI t t { LOT 5 S _ — LOT 6 { ^PH i ; $38 000 { PH I 1 PHI = PH 1 ! PH 1 { LOT 7 - 10 { $43,000 { $40,E { E6,000 it $12,000 { 55,E { $5,000 t t t CASTLE CR. LINE it WA it WA ! WA { WA WA { $230 � {rresatacr=ncrr{nasrxm,s=s{a=ssazrraalsssa;c== a{rsaaaesass�ssr=c-�:n{r.rrazsz:�1 { TOTAL { $243,000 { $780,000 = M,000 1,$142,000 { $25,000 1 $25,000 i { as�ssscszzatr..a[ � •s�ar�r: { saass=�= j ��� { rsc-�`�3 � sasc�sz� { acsc=ca==:' PH i - Infrastructure Installation generally defined as west of the existing i6" water line. PH ii - Infrastructure Installation generally defined as east of the existing 160 water line. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT C , APPROVED , 19 BY RESOLUTION The Aspen Institute Aspen Meadows 12 May 1993 ViA Ms. Kim Johnson Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office - 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado .81611 Dear Ms. Johnson: As General Manager of The Aspen ' Institute, Aspen Meadows, I am submitting the enclosed traffic mitigation plan for your review. Please advise us of your comment and/or approval at your earliest convenience. Thank you and regards, ZA Cleve Johnson General Manager 845 Meadows Road • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925-4240 • FAX (303) 925-7790 Traffic Mitigation Plan for The Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows January 1993 The trip generation figures for the West Meadows discussed herein are from the Traffic Mitigation Plan of February 1991 as extracted from the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element, Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office and Roaring Fork Transit Agency, 1987. The intent of the committee's plan was to reduce the expected trip increases by 30%, resulting in a trip count equal to that expected at the property prior to any increase in the number of units. n Mitigation due to fewer Lodge units The figures for daily trips after thie intended. increase in units were a) for Lodge Rooms - 451, and for the Restaurant - 440, for a total of 842 per day due to Lodge and Restaurant operation. At that time 50 additional lodge units were intended to be built. At 4.1 trips per room this would' have resulted in a daily trip increase of 205. Only 38 units will be added by 1993 resulting in an increase of 156. This reduction of expected daily trips due to less rooms being constructed (by 49 per day) achieves a 5.8% reduction in expected traffic increase. 11) Airport Van Service The Aspen Institute; Aspen Meadows will offer complimentary van sen-ice to and from the airport to all guests arriving and departing. One seven passenger van and one 14 passenger van will be available for this service. Guests will be advised of this service at the time of reservation and specifically advised that they do not need to rent a car while is Aspen because of this and other transportation services provided. M) 'Van Service toifrorn 'i^own Complimentary van service will be provided by The Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows to all guests by schedule and on demand as available between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. daily. The Meadows will additionally be served by the Aspen Skiing Company shuttles operating between The Little Nell and The Snowmass Lodge and Club. IV) Chartered vehicles for Croup Activities Chartered vehicles will be used for any group movement beyond the capacity or availability of the two vans operated by the property. V) Guest Parking No parking is provided at the lodge units. Any guests arriving by automobile will have their cars unloaded upon arrival and parked by attendant in the covered parking structure. Meadows staff will maintain possession of the keys and no guests will be allowed to .park or retrieve their own cars. At the parking structure will be located the "Activity Center", Bike Rentals and Ski Concierge in the winter. This will also be the departure and arrival point for the van and shuttle service, encouraging use of these alternates to automobile transportation. Vl) Trail System Completion of the footbridge over the- Roaring Fork .will connect the property. to the Rio Grande the esVErid: at both : Seventh and Eighth Streets to- Meadows Road -and from Third Street .and Gillespie 'Street. via. the Music ' , Tent -and The Boettcher .Center. VII) Bicycle Facility -A variety of bicycles will be available. for use by guests at a nominal charge. The rental facility and storage areas will be built- in to the parking stricture adjacent to the departure point for motorized transportation, encouraging use of bicycles for town trips. Bicycle racks will be placed throughout the property. Guests will be asked to reserve a bike at the time of reservation. NWO Promotional Materials All promotional collateral will emphasize the availability of complimentary transportation, bicycles, the ease of walking and discourage the need for personal automobiles. The focus will be to- precondition the guests so that they will choose not to rent a car upon arrival in Aspen. IX) Employee Parking I;imited empl ►y parking: w%I 'ice p►ruvideci: a die I p y- plQyees-for%vhorn :u vehicle is essential in performance of theif job. and for those employees. in carpools of three or more persons. Transit passes and parking at the Rio Grande parking garage will be subsidized. Employees will be provided shuttle service to and from the center of town and from the parking structure as partof our regular guest ' shuttle service. X) Delivery Truck Restrictions Truck restrictions will focus on time of .day and route restrictions. Vendors will be advised that delivery times at the Meadows will be limited to the hours of 9 to 11 a.m. and 2 to 4 p.m. to avoid the most noise sensitive time periods. All vehicles will use Seventh Street from Highway 82. SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Ferdinand L. Belr III April 20, 1993 Ms. Kin Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept. 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: The Biennial Review of the Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Dear _Kim, The following is Savanah Limited Partnership's (SLP) response to your letter of April 5, 1993 on the referenced subject. Since the transfer of the land to the non -profits, SLP only retains ownership and rights at the West Meadows. Thus, SLP needs only address the Elements of Mitigation Plan for the West Meadows (Section B). This section contains ten (10) elements. Of these, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have as the Responsible Party, the lodge operator or the Aspen Institute. Item 9 has as the Responsible Party, the Applicant and Rail Service Operator to be implemented with the initiation of rail service. Item 5 has as the Responsible Party, City and the Consortium. Thus, given the above, SLP needs only address item 5 at this time. With regard to item 5, the Trail System provides for on -campus trails and the Meadows trail system designed to complement the City's efforts in developing pedestrian and bike trails. SLP has built trails in conjunction with the new Meadows Road consistent with this system. The remainder are on -campus and are part of the non -profits' efforts. Beyond this, as a Meadows user, SLP and myself would be . pleased to assist you in evaluating the successes and shortcomings that have been experienced since the summer of 1991. Also, in the future, please direct all inquires and correspondence for SLP on this and other matters to myself. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, 120\1KJ 1202.7L (300 L. (-OOl)er St. - SLOW 200 • Ashen. C-0 81GII - 30 3/925-42 7 2 FAX 303; 925-4387 ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY "ASPEN, COLORADO April 14, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 Dear Kim, Regarding your request for information Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan, there are like to address. APR 1 61993 relating to the Aspen several points I would 1) As part of the plan Fourth Street was to be reserved for pedestrian, bicycle and bus after concerts) use. To accomplish this the intersection at Fourth and Gillespie Streets was to be barricaded, and manned, before and after concerts. After concerts, the persons) manning this post was to remove the barricade to allow buses to access Main Street via Fourth Street. More often than not this did not happen. I recently talked with Edward Sweeney, of the MAA, and he acknowledged that they had experienced some difficulty in making this work with student workers. However, he did say they were going to be trying a different approach this summer, so perhaps this will be more successful. 2) RFTA continues to run regular service to the Tent, both before, and after rehearsals and concerts. We add extra, direct, service from Rubey Park for major events. We also divert regular City route buses to the tent when necessary, for these events. During the 1991 concert season, as suggested by the plan, we provided a shuttle, from Main Street to the Tent, to transport people getting -off other buses at Fourth and Main Streets. This approach proved to be inconvenient. enough that only a.relatively small number of people chose to use it. Because of the additional cost incurred, and the low ridership, this service was not budgeted for, nor provided, during the 1992 season. Because of continuing budgetary constraints it was not budgeted for again this year and will not be in operation. Once again this year we have worked closely with the MAA, and particularly Edward Sweeney, in scheduling service to the Tent in an economical, convenient, and sensitive way. As you may or may not know trying to make everyone completely happy on this is next to impossible. Nonetheless, we've tried to meet the needs of the people who want to use the bus, while taking into serious 51 Service Center Drive • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 920-1905 • FAX: (303) 920-2864 consideration the impact this service has on local homeowners and residents. Based on these criteria I think we've done the best job possible. If you have any other questions if I can be of any further assistance, me at your convenience. Sincerely, :F Paul Hilts Director of Operations relating to this subject, or please feel free to contact Music Associates of Aspen May 20, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Kim, In advance .of the bi-annual review of the Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan, I would like to take the opportunity to address each component of the plan as it relates to M.A.A. activities at the Aspen Meadows. Item 1: Promotional Materials. Music Associates of Aspen incorporates auto -disincentives in all our promotional materials. The description of the Walling Tour and the map of the pedestrian/bicycle routes are printed on our calendar, our ticket inserts, our weekly tear sheets (distributed to merchants and lodges throughout town), and the weekly supplement to the Aspen Times Daily. In our Student Handbook, we encourage students to. either utilize the. City Bus System or bicycles as their means of transportation while in Aspen. We also loan donated bicycles and helmets to students. This program has been tremendously successful. We have also incorporated a clause in the Facility Sublease Agreement for the Music Tent which requires outside groups to adhere to the Traffic Mitigation Plan. I am enclosing copies of -all materials relating the Traffic Mitigation Plan. Item 2: Pedestrian/Bicycle Ways. The Traffic Mitigation Plan requires "continued designation of the Lake Avenue pedestrian/bicycle way," and closure of Fourth Street using "barricades and appropriate signing at both ends." We have actively supported this program, both through our Walking Tour literature and our staff enforcement of the Fourth Street closure. During the past two summers, we have used barricades provided by the City Streets Department, the Police Department, and the School District. Our staff has ensured that those barricades are in place during our major concerts. The Fourth Street Walkway does not work ideally as it does intersect five or six cross streets open to automobile traffic. All in all, this program has grown in acceptance. During the past summer, our staff incurred fewer problems with cars using the closed streets, indicating greater awareness among our patrons. The reconfiguration of the Gillespie Street lots is scheduled to be completed in the Fall of this year. These improvements will link the Fourth Street and Lake Avenue walkways to the internal walkways of the Aspen Meadows, enabling a concert -goer to walk or ride from the Commercial Core to the Tent with minimal interaction with automobile traffic. Post Office Box AA, Aspen, Colorado 81612 303/925-3254 Fax: 303/925-3802 Music Associates of Aspen, Inc. - Aspen Music Festival & School Item 3: Enhanced Transit Service With the support and expertise of Dan Blankenship and Paul Hilts at R.F.T.A., we have continually improved the transit service to the Music Tent. Ridership figures testify to the success of this component of the program. Patrons and students alike use the City bus service to get to and from the Music Tent. The transit stop at Fourth and Main Streets has been improved by the City's addition or a pedestrian crosswalk. However, the small circulating shuttle never achieved significant ridership. Since the majority of our patrons arrive at the Tent at approximately the same time, most buses going towards the Tent are nearly full, making a transfer to a small shuttle impractical. Those patrons that arrive before the rush often choose to walk down Fourth Street. Item 4: Truck Restrictions. We have instructed our drivers to use Third Street to access the Tent. This component has been easy to implement and enforce. Item 5: Residential Parking Permit Program. A residential parking permit program has been discussed for areas surrounding the Commercial Core during peak business hours. Our impact on residential parking is primarily during evenings and weekends. A restriction on parking in the residential areas surrounding the Tent would mandate that we further enhance mass transit alternatives. In summary, we feel that the programs outlined in the Traffic Mitigation Plan have met with success. The increases in Walking Tour participation and R.F.T.A. ridership figures substantiate that success. I would be happy to meet with Planning Department Staff and/or City Council to review the Plan and seek ways to increase its effectiveness. Sincerely, ! i j�lb_ P. n / ward . Sweeney ey Director of Operations cc: Robert Harth Enclosures: 1993 Season Calendar Excerpt from 1992 Student Handbook 1991 & 1992 Ticket Insert 1991 Aspen Daily News Supplement 1992 Tear Sheet Excerpt from Facility Sublease Agreement 1991 & 1992 Walking Tour Statistics Excerpt from Facility Sublease Agreement: 19. MISCELLANEOUS Lessee acknowledges that there is city -mandated auto -disincentive program in operation for events at the Music Tent. Lessee will mitigate impacts of automobile traffic related to Lessee's event(s) by contracting with R.F.T.A. or other bus operators to provide transit .alternatives to the Music Tent. Lessee will also encourage use of city -designated pedestrian and bicycle routes by including a map of those routes and accompanying text in all promotional materials related to Lessee's event(s). PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT P 'I APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION MAY 1 2 ASPEN MEADOWS TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN The following a neighborhood concerns regarding the existing Meadows Traffic� and proposed solutions: I. PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL 1. More promotional materials need to. be distributed at the airport, hotels and lodges, Ruby Park and at the parking garage, encouraging locals and visitors to walk to the tent. 2. More materials should be distributed at special events i.e., I-.D.C.A. Conference, Windstar and at student registration and in all student mailers. II. PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE WAYS 1. Street lighting is needed on Lake Avenue to encourage night use. 2. Planters with better signs are needed .along Lake Avenue. 3. Adequate signage and closure of Gillespie Street and the 4th Street exit from the parking lot. 4th Street closure with buses staging on 4th Street after concert: per plan. - 3. The shuttle bus/4th Street closure per the Traffic Mitigation Plant to be discussed before the 1994 season to coincide with the proposed improvements of the MAA parking lots. III. SPECIAL EVENTS (Tent and Performance Hall) MAA's contracts with any users i.e., I.D.C.A.r Institute, Windstart Jazz, of the above facilities shall incorporate specifications regarding the following:. 1. Transportation - same as MAA plan 2. Frequency of buses 3. Bus noise - same specs as RFTA with regard to noise and pollution - No Aspen Limos or heavy polluting buses 4. Walking incentives 5.. Educational materials distributed to attendees 6. Hours of operation - buses will only run 9 A.M. - 1 P..7 5 P.m. - 7 P.M. - 10 P.M., (cut off service after this time) 0 7. Previous observance of late night operation of the tent warrants restriction of all events to no later than 10 P.M. and they must conform to the city noise ordinance. IV. SOLUTIONS 1. Implement West End 15 MPH North South streets (first choice is limit for,all traffic, second choice limits buses only) . 2. No idle time for any buses. 3. Implement city wide bicycle program. 4. Close all intersections along north 7th Street from Main to North Street to eliminate Meadows traffic racing through the West End to and from the commercial core. 5. 1 No storage of vehicles on any parking lots or any MAA, Physics or Institute grounds year around. Question.: What will be the availability of small,, quiet, non-polluting buses for the 199 3 season? V. PROPOSED CHANGE OF MAA BUS ROUTE THROUGH WEST END 1. Originally, in an effort to adequately mitigate the negative impacts of the. MAA buses in the residential West End, we proposed dropping students and patrons on Main Street and encouraging them to walk the six blocks to the tent. However, considering the new traffic patterns generated by the new Meadows Road and the new, required trail system, we propose an alternate bus route, which would lessen the impacts and keep a reasonable walking distance for students and patrons from the bus drop .off. This alternate plan is as follows: Buses traveling from the Music School to the tent via north 8th Street - drop students at 7th and Smuggler where they can walk on the designated trail to the Music Tent. Then buses would exit 7th Street to Main & Ruby Park. Buses going from Ruby Park to the tent via north 7th Street - drop students and patrons at 7th and Smuggler and then exit via north 8th Street. This would lessen the negative impacts of noisy polluting buses through the residential neighborhood from 15 blocks to 5 blocks, most of which is along Forest Service property. 3. VI. REVIEW SCHEDULE The recent announcement by the MAA that the new Joan and Irving Harris Concert Hall "will be used all year for smaller, more intimate summer events, winter concerts, expanding the Festival's Outreach and Educational programs, as well as providing an alternative space for other organizations", is of great concern to the neighborhood. This additional traffic and parking will be of significant impact and will need careful evaluation. An annual February monitoring of the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan should be scheduled with the neighbors and any other affected parties, as well as any other government offices deemed necessary. THE BLOCK EIGHT NEIGHBORS Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611. RE: ANNUAL REVIEW THE ASPEN MEADOWS, TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN Dear Kim, This letter is in response to your request for comments related to the first annual review of The Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan. Our comments are as follows: SECTION B: Our general .concerns relate to the speed of traffic traveling on North 7th Street and the New Meadows Road. Various members of the City staff have observed the traffic in this area and have agreed that on the average, vehicles are traveling at excessive speeds through the neighborhood. We believe that part of the problem is that the Meadows Hotel guests have no understanding that they are traveling through a residential area. The transitory nature of the guests at the hotel (average stay a few days) makes meaningful education a virtual impossibility. This is especially true when. many of these visitors come from urban areas where they may not be able to relate to a reduced 20mph speed limit. Seventh Street, in particular, accesses directly off of Highway 82, which has significantly higher vehicular speeds and traffic densities. In our neighborhood, there is only one stop sign in an eight block travel distance from Highway 82 to the Meadows Lodge. Else where throughout the West End, there are stop signs at least every other block. Because of these factors, we strongly suggest that four way stop signs be placed along North 7th Street at both Francis and Smuggler Streets, in order to slow traffic on 7th Street.. Because 7th Street is the primary access to both the Music Tent/Physics Institute areas as well as to the Meadows Lodge (now 110 hotel rooms with a public restaurant), there is very significant traffic on this street. Area residents often comment that 7th has become a "Drag Strip "from Main Street to North Street. We consider this a very serious situation which must be rectified immediately. Relative to the New Meadows Road, there is currently a speed bump at the Meadows Tennis House. However, from that point to the stop sign at 7th Street, there is a four block distance where there is no interceding stop sign or other means of slowing the traffic down. There are also curves involved within this area. We therefore strongly suggest that a stop sign, be placed at the intersection of 8th Street, with a speed bump/dip placed ha vay between there and North 7th Street. We would frankly also like to see a speed dip located at the corner of 7th and Smuggler in order to slow the traffic prior to its reaching the "T" intersection at 7th and North. Page 2 We feel that this would greatly slow the traffic on 7th and reduce both traffic speeds and potential hazards at the "T " intersection. It should be noted that the stop sign at 7th Street North is virtually ingnored by drivers, thus the speed dip requests. It should also be noted that the children's school bus pickup location is at the corner of North 7th and Smuggler. There is also a church located at the corner of North 7th and Francis which has significant weekend activity including children. Without these stop signs and speed bumps/dips, we fear that the traffic will continue to travel at excessive speeds in the area. Unless the City is prepared to permanently place a police vehicle on North 7th Street, the stopsign/speed bump -dip combination appears to be the only practical alternative for slowing down the traffic on a year round basis. SECTION B5: Relative to the trail system, we feel that the trail system is an integral part of the Meadows Plan. To date, no user friendly paved trail has been constructed as an extension of North 7th Street (per the Plan). This paved trail was to serve as a pedestrian/bicycle access to the Meadows Lodge and was to divert people off of the New Meadows Road. Because the Meadows open space is a significant magnet for the surrounding neighborhood and because the new Roaring Fork bridge connecting the Meadows and the Rio Grand trail is scheduled. to be completed this. Spring, we would hope that the paved extension of the Meadows Trail could be completed this summer on the 7th Street alignment through the race track, as is shown on the Meadows master plan. Per the Plan, this trail crosses the race track and connects with the 8th Street pathway, traveling then through the Meadows to the Rio Grande Trail on the north side of the Roaring Fork River. As neighbors of the Meadows, we want to reaffirm our appreciation for all of the efforts which have been made to reduce the impact of the increased density, traffic and public/tourist use of this portion of the West End. With both the expansion of the Meadows and the Music Tent/Rehearsal Hall areas, there have been very significant changes to this part of town in the past year. We are just beginning to see the impact of this increased usage. We therefore hope that during the review process, our comments will be implemented as a positive addition to the improvements which have already been made. Sincerely, The, Block Eight Neighbors 521NORTHMOCK8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT r , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION TO: Randy Ready Bill Efting Diane Moore Tom Dunlop FROM: Kim Johnson DATE: July 8, 1993 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED _ 19 BY RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM Chuck Roth Jack Reid George Robinson RE: Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Review On July 26, 1993, Planning staff will present to Council our findings on the status of the mitigation plan approved in 1991 as part of the Aspen Meadows SPA. I anticipate that the information will be in the form of a consent agenda item for their acceptance, with an opportunity for further discussion if they wish. The following information is a brief overview of the elements of the Plan and how they have worked during the past two years. Aspen Institute - The West Meadows lodging facilities. are only partially complete (38 of 50 units) . This -produces fewer daily vehicle trips than final buildout will generate. Construction traffic has been fairly high, but has ebbed for the summer Institute season, and will probably be less next year because the bulk of the project is complete. - Airport/In Town Shuttle Van Service: Two vans will be provided for all lodge guests by schedule and on -demand. (The limited lodge operations have just come on-line this past month.) - Charter vehicles: When need exceeds the shuttle van capacity, larger vehicles will be contracted. - When the parking structure comes on-line (anticipated for 1994), valet -style parking will reduce easy access to private vehicles by guests who brought cars. Employee parking is limited to essential uses. Bus passes and city garage parking are subsidized. Employees may ride the in -town shuttle provided for guests. - Old Meadows road has been converted to a paved trail. The trail link down to the river bottom will be built by the City (1994?) to connect the upper trail section to the pedestrian bridge which is already installed across the Roaring Fork to the Rio Grande Trail (the approaches are not complete at this time however). The Grindlay Bridge is also installed and is fully accessible for pedestrians only. - The Institute must provide promotional materials for auto- 1 alternatives to its lodge guests, but did not include any examples. - Rail service is not -in the immediate future. - Delivery truck restrictions: According to the Institute, delivery restrictions limit hours to 9-11am and 2-4pm, and only to Seventh St. from Hwy.82. RM - Promotional Materials: The MAA has sent a package of printed materials from 1991, 1992 and 1993 which show the availability of walking routes and bus routes. This packet includes programs, ticket inserts, student information and newspaper spreads. Loaners bikes and helmets are available to music students. - Pedestrian/bike ways: The Lake Ave. walking experience has been used since the Meadows approval. The City has provided barricades and signs to close the route to pedestrians only. Some problems have arisen when drivers ignore the student traffic guides. Better training of traffic, guides has been used, but some drivers are still evading the barriers. Fourth St. is the pedestrian route from Main St. and is used regularly by walkers. - Revamped parking lot: The MAA parking lot will be reconstructed this fall and includes the improved bus loading/unloading area. - Transit improvements: General ridership of buses to the Tent are up, but the shuttle from Main St. along Fourth did not meet ridership goals and has been eliminated by RFTA because of cost. Truck routes: Third Street is the directed route to the tent, and the MAA states that this has been successful. - Residential Parking Permits: Permit parking is a City responsibility and will be implemented this year in various neighborhoods. - Sub -Lessee Agreement: For other users of the MAA facilities, the MAA includes a statement in their lease which presents the auto - disincentive goals/requirements of the City and MAA. Neighborhood Concerns Several household s 2 iturday-Sunday, August 7-8, 1993 21-C PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN MEADOWS SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 24, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meet- Ing Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application requesting review of amendments to the Traffic Mitigation Plan as h required by the 1991 Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area Development and Subdivision Agreement. The Aspen Meadows Includes proper- ty owned by the Aspen Instituie, the Music Asso- c lates of Aspen, the Aspen Center for Physics, and Savanah Limited Partnership. The Aspen Mead- ows property is bounded by Meadows Road, Gille- sple Street, Roaring Fork Road and the Roaring Fork River, In Aspen, CO. For further Information, contact idm Johnson at the Aspen/Pitldn Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5100. s/John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times August 6, 1993. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: 315-317 Park Avenue Stream Margin Amendment (property formerly known as the Whitcomb property, 103 Park Avenue) DATE: September 7, 1993. SUMMARY: This project is before the Commission in order to ratify an amended plan concerning riverbank changes which have been made contrary to the 1990 stream margin approval. The Planning Office recommends approval of the amended Stream Margin plan with conditions. APPLICANT: 103 Park Avenue Partnership (Larry Winnerman and Lorrie Moss) LOCATION: 315-317 Park Avenue, formerly known as the Whitcomb ;property, 103 Park Avenue ( S . half of Lots 9 , 10 and 11 and .part of Lot 12, Block 1, Townsite of Aspen) ZONING: R-6 PUD APPLICANT'S -REQUEST: The applicant seeks Amended Stream Margin approval for the riverbank and culvert changes which vary from the original 1990 approval. Specifically the applicant added large boulders as rip -rap along the steep river bank. Also without Commission approval, the design of the irrigation culvert had been amended by the previous owner which in effect steepened the bank. Included is an amended landscaping plan. Please, refer to Exhibit "A" for the .plan approved in 1990. Exhibit "B" is the application information for amendment to the 1990 Stream Margin review. The revised culvert plan from the Whitcomb's 1991 building permit application will be presented at the P&Z meeting. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineering: Chuck Roth comments that there needs to be more replacement vegetation to. lessen the visual impacts of the boulder rip -rap. STAFF COMMENTS: On June 1; 1993, The project received a red tag for non-compliance with the 1990 stream margin/PUD approval. On July 7, 1993, Engineering and Planning staff met with Mike Claffey of the Army Corps of Engineers and Alan Czenkusch of the Division of Wildlife at -the site to determine the extent of the impacts to the. river. and vegetation. It was determined by staff and Messrs. Claffey and Czenkusch that the least impactive solution was to leave the boulders' in place and take aggressive erosion control, sedimentation removal and landscaping measures to ameliorate the problems created by the boulder "wall". This consensus was reached because of the size and location of the boulders, the steepness of the slope, and the reality that the new structure was already framed on.its foundation. Staff sent a letter to the applicant on July 16, 1993 ( Exhibit "C" ) outlining the measures necessary for compliance with our immediate concerns regarding erosion, sedimentation and revegetation. Because of the extent of the changes, staff also made the decision to bring this project back to the Commission for official approval of a revised stream margin plan. Staff believes that additional visual relief is needed to reduce the visual impact of the large expanse of boulders. To restore the lost riparian habitat, the D.O.W. representative prescribed a mix of native plant materials as a requirement for this revised project. On August 23, 1993, Planning and Engineering staff inspected the property for compliance with the requirements of the July 16 correspondence. Staff noted that the culvert had been contained within a low rock wall, a micro -spray irrigation system had been installed, topsoil had replaced the unacceptable fill dirt, grass seed was sprouting,. and five shrubs had been planted in pockets between the boulders. Staff's only outstanding concerns are that the irrigation system appeared to be leaking (potentially over - watering the unstablized topsoil) and that five shrubs will not adequately provide for visual buffering of the boulder rip -rap. The landscape plan submitted in the amendment application called for six shrubs, but staff believes that a total of twelve shrubs should be planted among the boulders. Section 7-504 outlines the criteria for Stream Margin Review as follows: Criteria 1: It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site. which compensate for any. base flood elevation increase caused by the development. Response: Per Mike Claffey of the Army Corp of Engineers, the boulders themselves are not within the 100 year flood boundary. However, sedimentation of fine sand and gravel in the river bottom eroded from unstable backfill must be removed or it will be considered a violation of 404 Permit regulations. Criteria 2: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: No pedestrian trail has been designated across the parcel However, a 5' wide fisherman's easement was obtained through the 1990 approval. Criteria 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Response: The .Plan makes no specific. recommendations for this site. However, staff is very concerned that 'more shrub type vegetation be incorporated among the boulders to soften the visual impact of the bank reconstruction and to recreate native riparian habitat. Criteria 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. Response: The applicant asserts that when they purchased the property - from the Whitcombs, the bank had already . been cleared of most existing trees and shrubs. A photographic record of the property from 1990 or' before is not available. However, a condition of the 1990 approval required relocation of several small clumps of ;aspens prior to construction, so some identifiable vegetation was evidently on the parcel. As mentioned in the July 16 1993 letter from staff to the applicant, certain '.requirements for sediment removal and revegetation will help to correct the -erosion problems which have occurred due to date due to the bank work. Based on the .requirements' of Division of Wildlife representative, revegetation with native willow, serviceberry and chokecherry species is being proposed and required. The letter also allows removal of existing dead willow debris. It is important that the revegetation effort be successful in order to prevent future erosion problems. Criteria 5: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and. interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. Response: The work required by staff's July 16, 1993 letter must be accomplished by hand to limit further sediment problems. The construction of the.duplex itself has not specifically caused any visible pollution or interference problems. According to Mike Claffey of the Army Corps of Engineers, the boulders do not affect any natural changes to the river. Criteria 6: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Response: Not Applicable Criteria 7: A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. Response: Not applicable.'' - no impacts on the f lood plain occur with this plan if the removal of sediment is done per the July 16 letter. Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal -and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. Response: Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Engineering recommends approval of the - 315/317 Park Avenue Stream Margin Amendment with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall install a total of 12 serviceberry or chokecherry shrubs amongst the boulders. 2) The 'applicant shall confirm to the Planning office the specie(s) of the grass currently seeded on the slope. 3) The applicant shall complete all of the above requirements and the requirements contained in the .July 16,. 1993 Planning Office letter and shall contact the Planning office for a compliance inspection. This shall be accomplished no later than October 29, 1993. Exhibits: "All - 1990 Approved Plans for 103 Park Ave. "B" - Application Information for Stream Margin Amendment 11C11 - July 16, 1993 Correction Letter to Applicants .�•-., PLANNING & ONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT APPROVED , 1.9 BY RESOLUTION ORDINANCE NO.& 4 ( SERIES OF 19 9 0 ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL.PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE WHITCOMB DUPLEX AT 103 PARR AVE. (LOTS 9,10111 AND PT. OF 12, BLOCK 11 RIVERSIDE ADDITION) WHEREAS, Harold Whitcomb Jr. submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final PUD Development Plan to' construct a duplex, replacing a duplex at 103 Park Ave; and WHEREAS, on. August 7, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Stream Margin Review for the project by a 5-1 vote; and -WHEREAS, on August 21, 1990 at a' -public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a vote of the Final PUD Development Plan with conditions, and recommended to Council the approval of the Final PUD with conditions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7-903 of the Aspen Land Use Code (revision date August 14, 1989,) the City Council may grant approval to Final PUD Development Plans; and WHEP.EAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, does wish to grant the. Final PUD Development Plan request for the Whitcomb Duplex redevelopment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant Final PUD Approva-1 with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to 1 the Whitcomb Duplex. Section 2. The con,itions of approval which apply to this project are: 1. A mesh barrier fence must be erected immediately below the location of the relocated culvert during all phases of demolition and construction. This shall prevent any construction debris, soil, rock, or vegetation from falling down the slope. 2. The demolition process shall occur "inside out" from within the existing building envelope. No heavy equipment shall work outside of the existing envelope. -3 . - Re -locate at -least 6 clumps -of single or multi-trunked young trees from the disturbed areas to other locations along the bank below the new structure. These shall be moved by professional landscaping personnel knowledgeable in moving trees. This vegetation must be watered and maintained until well - established, at least two growing seasons. 4. The disturbed areas of the bank shall be reestablished with a mix of native grasses and wildflowers. Urban -type. turfs (bluegrass sod, etc.) and flower plantings shall not be located downslope of the building envelope -and patio. Wildflower "sod", in conjunction with grass seeding, shall be planted for immediate erosion control if seasonally available at the time of completion of the exterior construction work.. 5. Erosion control (spread hay, hay bales and rock waterbreaks) along the front and sides of the new structure and along disturbed slopes must be in place as soon as the new groundform 2 has been graded. These efforts will be monitored by Planning staff during and after construction. 6. Any outdoor lighting on the rear half of the lot be downcast, low wattage fixtures. If detached from the structure, light fixtures shall not exceed four feet in height. This will limit light intrusion to adjacent and cross -river properties. Prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permit: 7. The applicant shall have a detailed inspection of the existing structure(s) done by the Zoning Official to verify. square footage to be used when- calculating the affordable housing impact fee required by Section 5-702 of Ordinance 1 (1990). As per the information submitted in the application, the net 'gain of square footage from. the existing to proposed structure is'2,325 s.f. This would compute to an impact fee of $15,508.00. 8. The applicant shall make payment of the affordable housing impact fee, as calculated based on the Zoning inspection, to the City Finance Director for deposit in the Affordable Housing Fund. If the applicant chooses to satisfy .the housing mitigation requirement by providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit as per Ordinance 1 (1990) options, a Conditional Use Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission is required. Approval by the Commission must be granted. prior to issuance of any building permit (s) . 9. A fisherman's easement must be filed.with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder. This easement shall include the land area 3 under the Roaring Fork River, and on land, a 5' distance measured horizontally from the high water line. 10. Any changes to the existing ditch must be designed by a professional engineer and reviewed by the Engineering Department. 11. The drainage system / dry well must be redesigned and/or relocated out of the water table. 12. The parking space in front of Unit A must be extended in order for the required 18' length dimension to be beyond the entry gate to the residence. Within 180 days of City. Council's approval ofthis plan the ..following must occur : - 13. A Final PUD Plan and PUD agreement must be filed with the County Glerk as required by Section 7-907 of the Land Use Code. Section 3: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the _ day of .0 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15 ) days prior to wh cry a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 1041, day of l 1990. 4 William L. Stirling, MAY A S/xa T: ; Kath1'ryn Koch, City Clerk F ALLY, adopted, passed and approved this da y . of _ 1990. William.L. Stirling, Mayor R1T E'S. T : A z V-Llk.t- IKathryT. S " Koch, City Clerk j tkvj /Whitcomb. ord E FOR WHITCOMB. DUPLEX ICA 66 •�,TL. •.iEL 1 ram... , \� � i� • /,710 � � r �v �) , - 11 ` -� fit- .�r„�'_. .- _ _ _ '� _ ♦ ~ hM1AK. fZ4-cw ' � ltio, "'y.�-'+a-• � / ��c.• tom+._ k-�.r. '4 st1E.: f.Gix'M1+r 3? n G I wti - _ �2 ' — .� • � • % Flo k A"�•^�v-T Ar• IJKL><7T S of IJ� t " Limr.• a, JNIT 500 J y, tie.e,s' IE�RC.•1.1 fStt.JII.G� � •� i 1 •�♦ , (JtN,(Kw1cr+I�:Pt Gw+./KtT..r+U�+ ' Ar ENTRY 1 .]]r3% GHGe.6E 1 lassr4uE • �� EXISTMlGr ©O x` \w� �C �1t.6K� _. __ - _rE ` L.4 t`' . •�•�p. FC74JFaC ftx•E /• ,,>Ke '�r ..�� ,\ I�'♦E♦/TJ'Y' . fir"'' J C b I � r,'Jf �y �.'!'� G�/ .. - (. �"` - {' /. • .• _ 41 4 'fin 441, ,`ate' �• _ . - � ri'; � / � ro..,e IN _p - R k its �' k.71 r`'• - z -. \ - 3 9 ma ID PLANNING & XNING COMMISSION EXHIBIT APPROVED , 19 BY RESOLUTION July 29, 1993 Aspen/Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Amendment of Stream Margin Revue Plan Dear Sirs, My name is Lawrence J. Winnerman. I reside at 154 East Lupine Drive in Aspen, Colorado, 81611. My telephone number is (303)920-1851. I am a general partner in 103 Park Partnership which owns 315-317 Park Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. 315-317 consists of the south half - of lots 9, 10 and 11, and part of lot 12, Block 1, Townsite of Aspen. . I am proposing a revised stream margin plan as is shown in Exhibit #1, enclosed herein, which is in accordance with the letter dated July 16th, 1993 from Diane Moore regarding Stream Margin Corrections at 103 Park Avenue. This plan is in compliance with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. This plan does not cause any interference with the course of the river or the hundred year flood. This plan is acceptable to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Army Corp of Engineers, and will be an asset to our property as well as the property of our neighbors on both sides of the river. This plan will keep the river bank stable and will allow all the little riparians and fishes to live happily ever after. Sincerely, Encl: Exhibit #1 LJW/akh �•z� �rsrx�rr 1 IAM) USE AM-TUM_O N V01,1 1) Project Kama K Project Iocatim(ind 1caLt- stet addcess, iC1t & block mmber, legal de sc:6Ptian Vnere appmc-Fr-i ate) 3) Present 2�ng -- q) �r1t Size• 5) AppliCarrt's Haire, Address & £'ham 6) popresentative•s Name, lS1- 7) Type of AMjjCatiact (please te. athat apply) His- Dev. C3omaiti�ona3. Use ______ �- SPA � Final rer_ � SPevIew Flral SPA H]l.S"taZ1C 8040 Greenli.ne t FM Minor Historic, Dev. ,/Z ► Stmam Matgin _ Final FM �bdivi,sio t l tiM Mumatalin View PIMP- Qpndaminiumizaticn jle t � Amer Mien t GK ruk Allotment of ent lot spl_1' y-Ot liter Adjust of EZLst" ng U eOf exi stiDg S�Z � 8) D�s�r �iaxt (ms and typePr riatr; ,-- grantedto the to sc�. ft• � ii.m�r of Ze 9) Des.criptim of Develcpaurit Appl caticai 1() Have ycu attached the followi"P- Ml ni man SLA)Mi.ssion Ocxtt IAts s to Attac hm, 2 , RE� tQ Att.actmsent 3, Specific S 7i1t1.SsXG[1 (�D� , �c to Attachmel& 4, Review Star'J s for your 1�p-1icatio;i Sune. 29, 1993 `Co WkomOf AAny concern) jAs tlwe owner and caretaker of fke Aspen Ditch and Water Riekt, No. 451, Pe ority No. 6401 0 am entirely satisfied with fke realignmeh� and ciAlverting clone on t%e Aspen Ditck by Carmichael construction (963-1436) tllrot4ek the property locatecl at 315 and 317 Park AvenHe. 4-7 Dave inspected the work, and it has 'been very well clone. `Che ditch leas been fully tested, there -ape no leaks, and 0 am very satisfied with �1�� iaroj��-.t. ,�►�11 l�n�=lac��ai�i+�� c,r��i �c���.ri��� c�� I�a. �.-�,Iv��� r�,���aina ��� �a done by the construction company.. ZIf tlIere are any other questions or concerns abotit this, please contact me at 9rr.:5-7117 or 1Pd Box 1962, ,Aspen, CO 81612. Ernst Kappeli PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT (.i , APPROVED r 19 BY RESOLUTION ASPEN • PITKIN ' PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Lorrie Moss / Larry Winnerman 154 E. Lupine - - - Aspen, Co. .81611 July 16., 1993' RE:-stream,Margin•Corrections at 103 Park Avenue Dear Ms: Moss -and Mr. Winnerman, Thank our group at your -property on -July hank you for meeting wit 7, 1993. As was pointed out, the deposit of boulders, gravel, and soil fill on the bank violates the Planning Commissions 1990 .11 stream.margin approval for this parcel. This letter is a follow up to our discussions for' the . rectification of the river bank . . - ''disturbance-, ..The following items are -required: 1. Mike Claffey made the determination that to avoid having to go through the Corps' 404 Permit process for placing fill in a river, you must 'remove the sar}d -and . gravel which . has washed -down and settled on the river bottom. You must also remove the dirt/gravel material at..the base -of the slope -up to the bottoms of the ;lowest row of boulders in order to prevent additional material from washing. into the river. These removals must be done by -hand and shovel in the autumn during lowest water level in the river channel_ 2. The fill dirt among the boulders on the slope from -the • water level -up to the culvert. is not suitable to support plant growth.. This material needs.to•be replaced with a loamy top the to soil. Where necessary, p soil "pockets" may nee •additional retaining with rocks to prevent slumping -and erosion down the hill. _ 3. Re plantings shall consist of native`willows• at the water' s edgeup to the middle of the first row of boulders.. Above that level, plant chokecherry shrubs and serviceberry shrubs among the boulders. Pockets of native grasses and wild flowers may. also be tucked in amongst the shrub plantings. For optimum survival, the willows should be plante n October. The existing dead willows at the river's edg be removed. Cfa "f 6 ` 4. Irrigation�aimited to use of low-water fixtures ; such as "micro emitters'' placed at the -base of _ etch shrub_ 130 SOUTIi GALENA Sucr:T •. Asrr•.N, COLORA00 81611 NOW. 101.920.5090 FAx 303.921.5197 ' 1`ilnl r nr'11 f`aMt I The use conventional overhead spray equipment' could easily .-lead to over -watering, soil erosion, and destabilization of 'the steep slope. , 5. Except for the. October planting allowance for the willows and removal of -sediment in the river, all ' of the above work - shall be completed within 20 days of the date of this letter. If this cannot be accomplished, please contact me. Staff has determined that the Manning and Zoning Commission must be presented with an amendment to the approved stream margin. Attached -is a copy of the application form. Also.include in your. submission a landscape plan and an accurate section drawing of the slope / river area. Three_copie.s of your application are needed. The fee Vhich must accompany your application is $.207.00. -.We must receive your application packet no later than.Monday.. August 2 in order to keen your item on -the August 17 Planning commission agenda: - If.4 have any about the stream margin -process -or the application, please call Kim Johnson at 920-5090. , Sincerely; Pie Diane Diane Moore City -Planning Director , cc:. Mike Claf f ey, U . S . ' Army Corps of Engineers Alan Czenkusch, Colorado Division of Wildlife 'Jed Caswall, CityAttorney 'Chuck Roth, City Engineer MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: September 7, 1993 RE: Referral — Aspen Highlands Village General Submission --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Commission first reviewed the Highlands proposal at the August 171 1993,. meeting. Review of the Aspen Highlands Village proposal is based upon it's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). At the August meeting. sections of the AACP that were reviewed were Housing, Commercial/Retail, and Open Space/Recreation/Environment. For this meeting the. Growth section of the AACP is being reviewed. Unfortunately, there were outstanding issues surrounding transportation and the necessary information was not available in time for this meeting. Staff will review the transportation aspects of this proposal with the Commission at a special meeting September 14, 1993. The purpose of your review is contained within Section 6-3.4 B.2A of the County Land Use Code and Colorado State Statutes, which provides that any proposal within two miles of a municipality shall be referred to that jurisdiction for review. Aspen Highlands Village is approximately 1.5 miles from the City of Aspen boundary, and the Aspen Highlands Village (AHV) General Submission application is being forwarded to the Commission for review. The County review process divides project review for significant developments into two categories, general submission and detailed submission. General submission is designed to address threshold issues such as affordable housing requirements, infrastructure capacity, density, compatibility with existing land use code, etc. Detailed submission would include information regarding the number of sale verses rental affordable housing units, the mix and income categories, number of shuttle vans to operate the transit system, etc. This first level of review is also intended to identify missing elements that must be included in detailed submission. This type of review could be compared to the City's conceptual verses final PUD development review. Staff's goal in the review of the application for referral to the County is to provide constructive comments. The intent is to enable the applicant to make adjustments, during the County review process, and design and build a project that meets our community goals. Staff believes that the most efficient way to review the proposal is .to consider the application based upon it's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Our reasoning is twofold. It does not make sense to recite the County Land Use Code standards or base our review upon the City Land Use Code standards. The AACP was adopted for the metro area and was intended to make recommendations regarding growth and land use issues that are metro in scope., It is also the policy document that guides our land use reviews and legislation. Secondly, if the applicant requests City water, the water policy of 1993 requires Council approval and their review entails consideration of the project's consistency with the AACP. APPLICANT: Gerald D. Hines Interests Limited Partnership LOCATION: Aspen Highlands Ski Area and Base of Highlands ZONING: AF-1 (agricultural/forest), AR-1 (accommodations/recreation), and R-30 (residential) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval for: 77 single-family detached dwelling units; 85 lodge rooms; 105 tourist accommodations condominium units located in four separate buildings; 138 affordable housing units located in four separate buildings to accommodate 264 local residents; 37,440 square feet of retail space; and 14,385 square feet of restaurant space. Site Description: According to the application, the site is bordered by the Aspen Highlands Subdivision, metes and bounds single-family lots, and the Moore family property to the east. The USFS-(ski area) is to the south, and the Heatherbed Lodge and the Le Chamonix Condominiums are to the west and north. The site is 188.6 acres and is improved with the Maroon Creek Lodge, three ski lifts, and the Aspen Highlands Ski Area base area facilities which include four tennis courts. According to the application, there are approximately 780 off- street parking spaces in the existing lot and the Highlands RFTA bus route terminates -in the same -parking area. Currently, there is a total of 39,194 square feet of commercial space (22,890 sq. ft. retail/office space, 1,970 sq. ft. skier services, and 14,334 sq. ft. maintenance/storage) . This space will be demolished and replaced with 37,440 sq. ft. of retail space and 14,385 sq. ft. of'restaurant space, which includes hotel accessory commercial space. Over the past seven years Pitkin County has awarded general submission land use approval to the Aspen Highlands Resort and the Lodge at Aspen Highlands. The Highlands Resort previously received 200 tourist accommodation GMQS allotments and obtained credit for 18 existing on -site tourist accommodation units for an existing total credit of 218 lodge GMQS allotments. The Lodge at Aspen Highlands previously received BOCC approval for 49 tourist accommodation units (replacing the 49 units that were demolished) , 8 affordable housing units and 6,300 square feet of accessory space. The total lodge units available today for development are 267 units. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AACP Growth - The intent of the Growth Action Plan is to encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and tourist base. The philosophy of the Growth Action Plan promotes a balanced community, supports a peak population'of 30,000 people (including tourists and locals), and reduces the adopted annual growth rate quotas to 2% for the combined City of Aspen/Metro Area. The Growth Action Plan philosophy also recommends modifications to the growth management system with an emphasis on the character of the community. The Plan does not suggest that the current system, which includes three growth categories: residential, lodge, and commercial, should be changed or that mitigation of growth impacts should be ignored. The Plan suggests that our system should be based not only just on numbers and types of impacts but that the character and balance of the community are just as important and - the system should steer growth toward a better balance between second homes and permanent residential. The permanent residential aspect of the Plan was always considered affordable housing for locals. The Plan concluded that the second home, which is an ingredient in community balance, is in strong supply. In order to achieve the necessary community balance, the Plan recommends '..a significant reduction of newly subdivided free market residences. Growth To estimate buildout in the metro area and establish the appropriate balance of permanent vs. visitor at peak buildout, an analysis was performed during the AACP process that documented the number of visitor/seasonal units, lodge units and resident dwelling units which could be produced based upon current zoning. The Aspen Highlands Village application contends that the projected population of the village is within estimated AACP buildout of the Castle/Maroon Neighborhood Planning Area (NPA). 3 According to the AACP analysis for the Castle/Maroon NPA,, the likely maximum buildout of new units is as follows: lodge = 350-650 permanent resident = 110-155 visitor/seasonal = 45-60 The Aspen Highlands Village application proposes the following units: lodge & tourist condo units = 190 permanent resident = 125 ( 2 5 % of single-family homes & AH units minus dorm units) visitor/seasonal = 58 (75% of single-family homes) Although the Hines proposal is within the estimated buildout of the Castle/Maroon NPA, the proposal uses all the estimated units for the permanent resident and visitor/ seasonal, categories for this planning area. The AACP recommendation to reduce the adopted -annual -growth rate from 3.4% to 2% for new development recommends 84 units per year for the City of Aspen/Metro Area to be allocated between lodge (24),, free market residential (7),, and affordable housing (53). This allocation is based upon the estimated buildout in the community with an eventual peak population cap of 30,000 and the goals expressed in the AACP. The community vision of the AACP sought to revitalize the permanent community by increasing resident housing in the metro area and encouraging a more balanced permanent community. Clearly,, the imbalance was identified as a shrinking permanent community due to the growth of the second home market and escalating free market home prices. Hence, the severe reduction in the free market residential quota for new subdivisions compared to the quota for affordable residential units is an attempt to increase the permanent resident community in the metro area. Over the past 7 years, two separate lodge development proposals for the Highlands area have accrued a total of 267 tourist accommodation units. The Hines application proposes to convert 77 of those units to single-family residential units while keeping 190 units as tourist accommodation units, a 1 for 1 conversion, and preserve the ability to compete for those converted lodge units in the future. the applicant offers a variety of reasons for the conversion such as employee impacts and traffic impacts are comparable because seasonal homes are occupied 25% of the time during ski seasons while lodge units are occupied 85% of the time. Another justification is the AACP Growth Action Plan which recommends to "study how to convert the existing residential unit quota to a living unit equivalent." This recommendation is based 4