HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Little Nell.21A85Little Nell SPA conclusive 2' A-85
sc,CZ V1 vud //.2 q/c-0
Ep
0
d
MEMO
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning
FROM: Bill Kane
DATE: January 21, 1986
RE: Response to Planning Office Scoring of Little Nell GMP
Application
In response to the Planning Office's scoring of our GMP
application, I have the following comments to clarify what
appears to be a misunderstanding of the application. Comments
are organized by category and reflect the Planning Office scoring
compared to our anticipated score.
1) STORM DRAINAGE
A comprehesive storm water run-off plan for the
proposed Little Nell base area has been developed. Not only
does this plan define the drainage area of the anticipated
run-off, and determine the detention storage requirements of
the anticipated storm run-off to the existing storm sewer
system, but the proposal enables us to accommodate a worst
case scenario for the drainage on the site. This involves a
100% of the Vallejo Gulch water flowing to the Little Nell
base site. Even in this worst case scenario, we have
provided for the construction of adequate detention
facilities to delay the flow of storm water to the City's
storm sewer system. Our plan clearly improves the present
situation, and therefore, we should receive two points as
originally indicated by the City Engineer. The installation
of a storm water system such as our anticipates the negative
impact that a 100 year storm would have on the City system.
While the actual final plan cannot be completed at this time
because of additional mapping and the need for a grading
plan, our commitments justify a 2. We have provided for
more design and commitment than the GMP process calls for.
Planning Office Score = 1
Requested Score = 2
2. FIRE DEPARTMENT
The application is criticized for not providing a 12"
line to service the proposed new hydrant in Spring St. We
were told by the Fire Department that a 6" line should be
built. We were never advised of the need for a 12" line.
The only reference to a 12" line is a Jim Markalunas memo to
Alan Richman of December 23, 1986. We were never advised of
this recommendation. We thought vie were in full compliance
with all wishes of the A.V.F.D. and in fact have agreed to
add a 12" line from Hunter to Galena at the Water
Department's request which is clearly a system upgrade.
Planning Office Score = 1.5
Requested Score = 2
3. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Our application is significantly downgraded due to:
a) Drawings are too schematic
b) Shading of Durant St.
c) Shading of Spring St.
- The detail of design exceeds that required by the GMP
process. More importantly, the submission requirements
for SPA and GMP were carefully reviewed in a pre -
application conference. We were never led to believe
that the detail proposed was inadequate for GMP review
purposes. This is a patently unfair comment. (If too
schematic the application should not have been
complete).
The shading of Durant St. is not a significant problem
in that with the set back of the building,, the majority
of the street receives the noonday sun which will
contribute to snowmelt. The impacts are far less than
North of Nell due to the set back and sloped roof.
Spring Street is not shaded at all during noon hours
even on the winter solstice, Dec. 21. The building
will not significantly affect snowmelt on Spring St.
The building with its street front set backs as well as
set backs of the upper stories, especially around
Hunter Street, along with sloped roofs and dormers
already being praised for its improvements over the
North of Nell and Aspen Square "block" look. This
building clearly surpasses the "existing neighborhood
developments" in those areas in which it is to be
graded - namely "size, height, location and building
materials."
Planning Office Score = 1.5 (Below Standard)
Requested Score = 2.5 (Standard - Excellent)
4. SITE DESIGN
The application is downgraded due to:
a) the Aspen Skiing Co. failure to pay for entirety
of Hunter and Dean Street malls
b) skier drop-off design
ASC will pay for 100% of Hunter and the eastern 120' of
Dean or roughly 65% of the access devoted to malls. ASC
should not be required to design and pay for the western end
of Dean Street due to its proprietary use by the Tippler and
North of Nell. ASC has volunteered to participate in the
city sponsored street improvement district to improve Dean
Street. The district is a much more appropriate political
and legal forum for the design of the western (Zone B) end
of Dean St. The Skiing Company is not "leaving the cost to
neighbors" any more than the city is leaving the cost to
neighbors with the formation of an improvement district. In
addition, the Skiing Co. is paying a pro rata share in
addition to the'100% cost for the balance of the streets.
All businesses will benefit from the upgrading of the area.
The parking and drop-off is specifically designed to
avoid back-up and traffic interruption. We were also
advised by the City Council that drop-off parking could
substitute for open space. Also no set -back is required in
the CC zone. No surrounding buildings provided open space
on the street.
Considering the present site design/uses, we believe
the design to be a significant improvement due to 1)
relocation of the maintenance facility off the site, 2)
significantly improved and expanded pedestrian/skier access
and milling space on the site, 3) utilities all underground,
4) bike and pedestrian paths. Clearly when one reads the
criteria for site design one must realize the applicant
meets or exceeds all of those criteria.
Planning Office Score = 1 (Major Design Flaw)
Requested Score = 2.5 (Standard - Excellent)
5. PARKING AND CIRCULATION
The application is downgraded due to:
a) inadequate parking (unusually low demand rates)
b) removal of public parking
c) traffic problems due to drop-off design (also used
as an argument to do%4ngrade the project under
"SITE DESIGN")
d) problems created by mall 60sicn for Tipple Inn
The parking demand ratios were prepared by TDA of
Seattle, Washington. These numbers correspond to the
numbers that were accepted by the community in the Aspen
Mountain Lodge (.7 spaces per lodge room). lie do riot see
how the Planning Office would accept those figures for the
Aspen Mountain Lodge, and find ours deficient. The retail
and restaurant parking ratios were evaluated as ski
accessories in the CC Zone district. In the CC Zone
district, there is no off-street parking required based on
long established planning reasons.
The plans for the west end of Dean Street are not part
of the application (see Landscape Design Plan) and should
not be a basis for downgrading`.
Drop-off issue should be used` in either section "b" or
"d" but not both. It is unfair to' take points away under
multiple categories due to one issue.
We acknowledge the' -'skier drop-off in front of the
building, while mostly on our property, is not the perfect
solution. However, we'do not believe either the Durant
Street circulation, the parking proposed for the project or
the service vehicle access are -at all inadequate and in fact
they are big improvements. At the very least the "quality
or improvement to design" is acceptable if not excellent.
Planning Office Score— 1 (Major Flaw)
Requested Score =2 (Acceptable)
6. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (refers to Section 3b)
If there is any area in which full points should be
given it is here. It is clear from the plans the Little
Nell base area bar will be rebuilt in about the same
location with better facilities and views. A look at the
plans leads one to the�easy conclusion that there will be
significant improvement and additions to the dining
facilities, restaurants, bars and banquet facilities.
Planning Office Score = 2 (Acceptable)
Requested Score =3(Excellent)
7. BONUS POINTS
We request that bonus points be granted to the project
due to the following.
a) relocation of currently inappropriate land use
b) improvement of skier and pedestrian arrival
experience to Aspen Mountain due to the off -site
construction of Hunter Street
c) Improvement of skier services
1) Ticketing
2) Ski School
3) Restrooms
4) Formalized drop-off
5) Lift service to upper mountain
6) Improved pool service
d) excellent building design
e) reconstruction and improvment of utilities to
include water, sewer, drainage, electric, fire
protection
0
RAIMINK-3d"1660M W"-'
D I
JAN 131986
CRILWFORD PETROLEUM COMPANY
3401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD 0 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90803
TELEPHONE 433-7484 AREA CODE 213
January 9, 1986
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Problems with Pedestrian Mall on Dean Street and
Funding of Same
Gentlemen:
I own condominiums in the Tipple Inn, 505 Dean Street. I have
reviewed the Aspen Skiing Company's SPA plan, its application
for encroachment into Dean Street and Peter Forsch's December 18,
1985 modification letter to Alan Richmond, and attended the Aspen
Lodge Improvement District Task Force meeting on December 27th.
I will be out of state on January 21 and request that copies of
this letter be distributed to each Commissioner prior to that
meeting.
At the aforesaid Task Force meeting, I expressed concern with the
ASC plan and renderings, showing the Tipple Inn's private property
as well as access to same, along Dean Street, completely "malled-
over". Peter Forsch said he had sent a letter to Alan Richmond
which solved this (December 18) but was unwilling to make any
changes in the ASC plan at this time. His letter is appreciated
but does not address the complete problem.
The Tipple Inn's parking along the north side of our building is
on our private property and is the only parking available to Tipple
Inn residents, as parking on the south side of the building is
shared on a complicated basis with the Tippler/Copper Kettle,
Tipple Wood subdivision and Tipple Lodge. We must park perpendicular
to Dean Street in order to accommodate the necessary number of cars,
necessitating driving in on Dean Street, with a different turning
radius for each parking space. Furthermore, Dean Street is utilized
for access to our dumpster for trash removal and potential fire and
emergency vehicle use. The Tippler/Copper Kettle also uses Dean
Aspen Planning & Zonio Commission
January 9, 1986
Page 2 go
Street for their deliveries and trash removal from their dumpster
and has informed me they cannot move this operation to the south
side of their building, but I will let Sirus address this.
To prohibit ingress and egress to our private property would be
tantamount to inverse condemnation and would leave the Tipple Inn
owners no recourse but to take appropriate legal action to pro-
tect our rights.
I request that the plan be corrected immediately in a manner
acceptable to the Tipple Inn Board of Governors, and suggest:
1) one lane pedestrian mall on the north side of Dean
Street;
2) full width mall but with trees, etc. spaced such that
condo occupants and necessary vehicles still have
access;
3) if all else fails, a shorter mall ---the west end of
same terminating at the Tippler/Copper Kettle delivery
entrance.
At the aforesaid Task Force meeting, I asked the ASC representa-
tive who was going to pay for the proposed pedestrian mall on
Dean Street, and was surprised to learn that the ASC does not
plan to do so, considering it is something desired by the
community in general and the commercial sector. This appears
to be contrary to its plan application wherein it views Dean
Street as an entrance way to its property and as "a pedestrian
access and drop-off for Aspen Mountain". In further conversation
with Jeffrey Winston, President of Winston Associates, hired by
the City at the Task Force meeting, he enumerated the various
alternatives for funding, most of which included a heavy alloca-
tion to the property fronting the improvement, which means that
the North of Nell and Tipple Inn owners would be paying the lion's
share of the Dean Street mall. In most improvement districts,
the improvements fronting a property greatly benefit that property,
but here this is not true. The Tipple Inn owners will be faced
with increased pedestrian traffic in front of their property and
the resulting noise, littering and possible vandalism cannot be
construed as desirable. I anticipate great resistance from the
Tipple Inn owners to paying a disproportionate share of the cost
and urge that the expense of the pedestrian mall be borne by those
requesting and benefiting from same.
Aincerely,
Jack B. Crawford
JBC:fm
cc: Alan Richmond, Peter Forsche, Jay Hammond, Gideon Kaufman,
Lee Miller, J. D. Muller
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE • AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER 9 BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925-1220
September 16, 1985
City Council
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Council Members,
Attached for your review prior to our meeting on September 23rd,
are the following:
1. The application for S.P.A. Conceptual Plan Approval as sub-
mitted to P & Z.
2. A background piece that explains the submission, the issues
and our goals.
3. A press release, fact sheet, illustrative site plan, and
rendering.
Together, I believe they explain the goals and intentions of the
Aspen Skiing Company for the Little Nell base. We look forward
to a productive series of meetings to determine the future of the
base of Aspen Mountain.
PF:dm
R ectfully su it ed,
Peter Forsch
Project Manager
ASPEN MOUNTAIN • BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN
SNOWMASS
BRECKENRIDGE
•
0
BACKGROUND
2} years ago the Aspen Skiing Company began planning for a hotel at the
base of Little Nell. That hotel was conceived principly using some economic
parameters and, as initially planned, was too big for the site. Sensing
neighborhood and community objections, that plan was never submitted and the
whole concept lay dormant for a couple of years while we assessed the
possibilities for that area especially in light of the capital infusion that is
taking place up on the mountain.
The current project before Council has been designed from the outside in.
That is, we looked at the area; the surrounding uses and size of buildings;
community needs, desires, perceptions and views. The result was a building
that fit the site. From there we worked on the functions within that building.
Even though other projects have recently received approvals we feel there
remains a need for a small, luxury hotel in conjunction with a whole base area
redevelopment. In addition to the hotel, the goals for the base include:
1. Moving the maintenance facility out of the base and up the hill.
2. Cleaning up the entire Little Nell site by rebuilding the base facilities
and adding to those facilities such new or improved services as ski
school and guest service offices, public restrooms, public lockers and
ski storage.
3. Provide for ski area administration, ticket, and adjustment offices.
4. Create a grand entrance plaza that is an appropriate arrival
experience to the mountain.
5. Create/maintain the base area vitality and excitement with improved
food and beverage service.
6. Build either a detachable quad chairlift or a gondola to eliminate
congestion and create better access to the mountain for all levels of
skiers.
The
Aspen Skiing
Company can bring
to this project
its considerable
resources
to insure a
timely and quality
development not
subject to the
financing uncertainties.
CITY OF ASPEN LAND•SE PROCESS •
The application to the City for conceptual approval and S.P.A. boundary
change is unique because of the adoption of a new Specially Planned Area
(S.P.A.) ordinance. S.P.A. is an overlay zoning applicable only to three sites
in Aspen (Little Nell base, Rio Grande property, and the Aspen Meadows
property). All these sites are deemed sensitive and critical to the community.
The S.P.A. conceptual plan review process affords the community the
opportunity, through its City Council and the P & Z, to review the submission
to determine if it should be given the go-ahead to proceed to the next steps in
the process which is precise plan and G.M.P. allocation.
We are now seeking conceptual approval. This step in the process is to
determine whether there is anything in this submission that should not be
conceptually approved, or any impacts that cannot be mitigated. The Planning
and Zoning Commission has reviewed this application, and, at its meeting on
September 3, 1985, recommended to the City Council that it approve the
conceptual plan subject to certain conditions that P & Z also recommends the
City Council adopt. We expect City Council to review thoroughly P & Z's
recommendations and add to, delete or amend them. With these conditions
attached, City Council will then decide whether to approve or deny the
conceptual plan as submitted.
CONCEPTUAL PLAN - WHAT WE PROPOSE
At the September 23rd Council meeting we will have a formal slide
presentation of our plans, however, I have attached a copy of our press
release, fact sheet, illustrative site plan and rendering for your information.
The hotel will occupy most of the eastern part of the site with ground
floor commercial and skier services fronting Durant Street and wrapping around
the building to the west fronting what will be the Hunter and Dean Street
pedestrian plazas. The area under the lift terminal will be part of the
commercial/skier services/ski area administrative spaces.
- 2-
Our application al•asks for a boundary adjustme•to the S.P.A. overlay
to include the flat area at the base of the hill. This is an order to create a
unified parcel for planning and development purposes that can be taken through
the land use processes as one piece, and which will contain the total base area
proposed for redevelopment including the lift terminals at the base.
Technically, the purpose of the hearing scheduled for September 23, 1985,
is for City Council to determine whether the conceptual plan as submitted
complies with the requirements set forth in the newly adopted S.P.A. ordinance
that allows approval for a conceptual plan. Basically, this is a planning
determination as to whether the uses and structures, from a conceptual
standpoint, proposed for the site are appropriate. We are confident that most
everyone would agree that the nature of the uses and structures we propose
are extremely appropriate for the site, and in keeping with its historic usage.
There is, however, another element that will be considered at this
hearing. While it is not technically a part of this stage of the S. P.A. review
process, it is most critical to our ability to proceed with our plans for the
area. For this project to be built, we have to receive a G.M.P. quota
allocation under the G.M.P. lodge competition for the number of units proposed
for the hotel. We will be asking the City to borrow from future quotas so that
we may have our quota all at once and know we will be able to build the
project. This is the critical issue because the City Council must determine and
give us some feedback on the public policy question of whether it wants to
grant future year allocations.
The Growth management Plan (B.M.P.) was developed in the mid 70's to
control the boomtown type growth that could be so harmful to our valley and
resort. To date, it has worked relatively well, as we have not experienced the
rapid, sometime shoddy overdevelopment that has occurred in other
communities. However, one of the drawbacks is that because of the highly
controlled and limited development, especially in the lodging sector, there has
- 3 -
been little competition incentive to upgrade lodging Wities. With an annual
quota of 35 units per year, unless the developer plans a very small project, the
developer has had to come back in year after year to compete for enough units
to begin a project. This simply does not work from a development or economic
perspective. The City Council realized this, and in 1983, awarded future year
allocations to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project which in essence awarded the
quotas for the years 1983 through 1987. In determining that the quota through
1987 was utilized, the City decided that even though the developers of the
Aspen Mountain Lodge were going to eliminate two lodges, containing a total of
44 units, from the lodging inventory by deed restricting them for us as
employee housing, this number of units was not credited back to the lodge
inventory. The Planning Office had recommended that the lodge units lost from
the lodging pool should have been credited to available lodge quota. If this
were done, there would be quota available right now in 1985.
Even if we must assume that the City Council will continue to adhere to
this position and, therefore, quota will not be available until 1987, awarding
quotas for these future years would be appropriate under the circumstances of
our proposed project. We anticipate 1987 as the most optimistic date for
groundbreaking for the Little Nell hotel, and a two year construction period.
This means the doors would open some time in 1989. The hotel has 96 rooms.
Thus, if we utilize a quota of 35 units per year for 1987, 1988, and 1989 there
is a total of 105 units available which is more than we need for a 96-room hotel.
The awarding of the quota is consistent with when that growth will come on
line. But no matter how the quota is computed, and whether it is future
quota to 1987, 1989 or 1991; the fort of the matter is that there are significant
community benefits to this project. We feel that the City Council would not be
borrowing from the City's future, but instead insuring its future.
- 4 -
C1IkAkAeov • •
This overview is not able to cover all of the technical issues, myriad
details and other opinions involved with our proposed Little Nell project. It is,
I hope, a fair representation of the basic facts and issues.
- 5 -
ASPEN
AMERICA'S N 1 SKI RESORT
SNOWMASS
11
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
Post Office Box 1248
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303/925-1220
Aspen Mountain
Buttermilk Mountain
Snowmass
NEWS
RELEASE
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY INTRODUCES PLANS FOR BASE
REDEVELOPMENT
Aspen Skiing Company has initiated planning for
redevelopment of facilities at Little Nell at the base of Aspen
Mountain. The redevelopment is one of the most significant
in -town projects the Company has embarked upon in its history
due to the impact it will have on the visitor to the Aspen
community. Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain serves as
a gateway for skiers and summer visitors and with the proposed
improvement will showcase the quality of both the resort and the
mountain through careful and innovative planning and integration
of land use elements.
Proposed for the site is a 96 room luxury hotel, restaurant
and commercial space and improved skier services facilities. In
addition to the overall base area improvement one of the more
significant details of the redevelopment include relocation of
heavy equipment and grooming vehicle maintenance shop to an
on -mountain location. This will reduce noise and unsightly
operations in the heart of the tourist environment.
Considerable landscaping to create attractive and functional
pedestrian access to lifts and base area activities are planned for
Hunter, Dean and Durant Street areas. Additionally, Aspen
Skiing Company plans to build either a detachable quad (four
passenger) chairlift or six passenger gondola on the Little Nell
site to upgrade and increase lift capacity out of the area.
Easier and more attractive access to retail and commercial
shops will result from careful design that will facilitate pedestrian
traffic flow. Among the services that will be located in the base
area are lockers and ski storage, ski rentals and repairs, ski
school and skier services offices, special events areas, and
public restrooms. The popular Little Nell restaurant and deck
area will be expanded and vastly improved.
The hotel at Little Nell is conceived to be the ultimate in
accommodations and service, ranking it among the best in North
America. Aspen Skiing Company plans to take advantage of the
expertise and experience its owners bring to the project in
designing the hotel and its operation with the highest quality
guest experience in mind.
The entire base area redevelopment and hotel will ultimately
enhance both the efficiency and image of the area and reduce
impacts on land use while creating an attractive, modern, high
quality gateway to the premier resort in the United States.
L
0
LITTLE NELL BASE AREA AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
Fact Sheet
Location: Little Nell at the Base of Aspen Mountain, Specially
Planned Area (S.P.A.) Commercial Core zoning.
Description: 4 story building at the base of Little Nell, Aspen
Mountain which will include a hotel and hotel accessory
spaces along with commercial, food and beverage, and
ski area operations facilities.
- 77,718 sq. ft. hotel and common space
- 15,668 sq. ft. hotel subgrade space
- 16,078 sq. ft. commercial (replacing existing 13,396
sq. ft. commercial)
- 9,976 sq. ft. ski area facilities
- 77 subgrade parking spaces
Improvement will require relocation of maintenance shop
to an on -mountain site.
Proposed uses: Hotel lodging in 96 luxury rooms
Commercial retail space
Restaurant and deck space
Skier facilities
ski school
skier services offices
food and beverage
special events accommodations
child care center
lockers and ski storage
rentals and repair
public restrooms
Architect: Larry Yaw, Hagman Yaw Architects Ltd.
Site Planners: Design Workshop Inc.
Legal Council: Gideon Kaufman
Project Manager: Peter Forsch, Aspen Skiing Company
Proposed start date: Optimum - Spring 1987
Proposed construction
period: 20 month construction
0
C.
rKqz�
A
[CJ/, W
v 5 '
~2 LO
� c Q o
S J H
'!VIA
4A-
0
0
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD O F PROCEEDINGS
the site rezoned. In the event that The Little Annie Ski Corpora-
tion, fails to obtain a buiding permit or begin construction or
alternatively if the corporation loses its lease on the property by
voluntary or involuntary action the property described in Exhibits
"A" and "B" shall be rezoned to the R-15/PUD zone district auto-
matically and without a further act by the City Council of the City
of Aspen.
Section 4
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por-
tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti-
tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
co t; n q
That a public hearing be held on this ordinance on the
day o f {/LA ,�Y , 1980, at 5 : 00 P.M. in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fif-
teen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be
published once within a newspaper of general circulation within the
City.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by
City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado,/ at its regular meet -
VA
my held on the %Q -) day of %%%J� �`� 1980.
H. Michael Behrendt
Mayor Pro Tem
MIILREAS, I*
Planning and Zoning
Comr*ion
has con!,l
zoning amendment
and has recommended
to the City
Council that t
property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto should be rezarr
RR-PUD and that the property described in Exhibit "B" attached
hereto should be rezoned R-6-PUD;
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen shall be
amended such that from and after the effective date of this ordin-
ance the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto shall be
zoned RR-PUD, and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to
said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen -
Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be amended).
Section 2
That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen shall be
amended such that from and after the effective date of this ordin-
ance the property described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto shall be
i
zoned R-6-PUD, and subject to those zoning regulations applicable
to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be amended).
This zoning amendment is conditioned upon the applicant, The
Little Annie Ski Corporation, commencing, on or before December 31,
1983, the construction of a ski area with a base lift facility on
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this t% day of ! ///r
19& , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing
was deDcsited in the United States mail, first-class nostacle n_ rPnai d.
to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of
adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by
the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice.
Nancy_ Crelli
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL SPA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before
the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado on September 23, 1985
at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M., in Aspen City Council Chambers,
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by the Aspen Skiing Company. The applicant reouests
Conceptual SPA approval for the re -development of The Little Nell Base
Area. The SPA Plan includes a 96 room hotel, reconstruction of the
commercial space at the base area, ski area administrative spaces,
skier support services, and new base lifts. Also included in the
application is a reconfiguration of the SPA overlay boundary on the
base area.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020,
ext. 225.
B/Wig, Stjrl�n-g --- __
Mayor, City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado
Published in the Aspen Times on September 5, 1985
City of Aspen Account.
0 0
hereby certify that on this k day of
Y Y -Y ►
198e, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, fir -class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the aforementioned public notice.
Jan v
Lynn &czak
•
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: LITTLE NELL SPA BOUNDARY CHAIN E
NOTICE IS HEREBY G IV EN that a public hearing will be held on
August 20, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen,
Colorado, to consider a proposal by the Aspen Skiing Company to
expand the area at the base of the Little Nell Ski Run which is
designated with an SPA overlay. The SPA area is proposed to be
extended over approximately one (1) acre of land zoned C-
Conservation.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 225.
s/Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 1, 1985.
City of Aspen Account.
Pitkin County Title, Inc. hereby certifies that a search of the records
in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, reveals
that the names and addresses of the owners of real property within three
hundred (300) feet of the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto are as follows, to wit:
1. North of Nell Condominium Association 517 C)nrFs
555 E. Durant St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
2. City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ij3 3. Aspen Square Condominium Association ✓ 109
617 E. Cooper Ave.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
4. Aspen Alps Condominium Association
700 Ute AVe.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
/5. City Market, Inc.
P.O. Box 729
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502
q2 ''6. Durant Mall Condominium Association ' 753 Uni-k
710 E. Durant
Aspen, Colorado 81611
4Z 7. Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association " �2 4- Oyifs
731 E. Durant
Aspen, Colorado 81611
V 8. Ajax Mountain Associates, Ltd., a Colorado LImited Partnership
c/o Stephen J. Marcus
Box 1709
Aspen, Colorado 81612
9. Tipple Lodge Condominium Association
747 S. Galena
V Aspen, Colorado 8161i
10. Aspen Skiing Company
Box 1248
Aspen, Colorado 81612
"+,.ss 11. Woodstone Assoc., a Colorado General Partnership
709 E. Durant
Aspen, Colorado 81611
S 12. Ronald M. Popeil
s 1292 Monte Cielo Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
13. Kettle Corporation
Box 8080
Aspen, Colorado 81612
0
14. Ceorge T. Anderman and E 1n A. Donaldson •
506 Denver Center Bldg.
1776 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colorado 80203
15. William Joseph Yarbrough
#1001
1010 Wilder Ave.
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
f16. Aspen Grove Associates
P.O. Box 3421
Aspen, Colorado 81612
17. Stein Eriksen
Box 1245
Aspen, Colorado 81612
✓18. Perry Pollock
P.O. Box 950
Aspen, Colorado 81612
M137. 19. William C. Randall
2625 Towndale Ct.��
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
rlf'�3' 20. John H. Roberts, Jr.
114 West Commerce
3rd Floor
San Antonio, Texas 78205
f ,5 21. Aspen Mountain Joint Venture, a Colorado Joint Venture
c/o Holland & Hart
600 East Main St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
22. Tipple Inn Condominium Association
23. Chateau Dumont Condominium Association
24. Durant Galena Condominium Association
25. Park Trust
26. Aspen Alps West Condominium Association
EXHIBIT "A"
A parcel of land situated in the City of Aspen, being more fully
described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Block 102 in said City of
Aspen;
thence S 75009'loint 100000feet tEast noftthe r1°
Northwest corner of
Block 102 to a p
Lot H of said Block 102;
thence S 14050'49" W 263.26 feet to a point on the Northeasterly
on to
aid City of
line NL38o35'40"tWe53.53Ute Afeet lto the sNorAspen;
o21 of Northwest corner of said
thencee
Lot 21;
thence S 45021'00" W 124.28 feet along the Northwesterly line o
said Lot 21 to a point on Line 1-9 of the original Aspen Townsite;
thence N 39057'22" W 231.18 feet along said Line 1-9;
thence S 14050149" W 66.78 feet;
thence N 75009'11" W 143.00 feet;
thence N 14050149" E 112.00 feet;
thence S 75009111" E 82.76 feet;
thence N 14050149" E 10.00 feet to a point on the South line of
Dean Avenue;
thence S 75009111" E 60.24 feet along said South line to a point
on the West line of vacated Hunter Street;
thence N 14050'49" E 50.00 feet along said West line;
thence S 75009111" E 37.50 feet to a point on the center line of
said vacated Hunter Street;
thence N 14050149 E 100.00 feet along said center line;
the Point of Beginning.
thence S 75009111" E 37.50 feet to
EXCEPTING:
A tract of land more particularly described as follows:
The Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacate Hunter Street,of Westerly
of and adjacent to Block 102, City
and Townsite
)CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
i
•
between the Southerly line of Durant Avenue and the Northerly
line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly
one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street va-
cated by the City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947,
recorded in the Public records of Pitkin County on March 17,
1959 under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at Page 101.
PRESENTATION NOTES: MULTI -YEAR ALLOCATION ISSUE
Note: The five planners in the Planning Office met to discuss the
Planning Office's position on this project. There was
unanimous agreement that the redevelopment of Little
Nell is a good idea but that the timing of the hotel project
is contrary to the concept of the GMP and should be denied.
We felt that the project could be approved within the system
but should not and that if we do, we should face facts and
eliminate the lodge quota system.
1. I don't think it is appropriate to turn this issue into a numbers
game, and yet this is what I think will happen if we follow the
direction identified by Al at the last meeting.
2. The issue of whether or not to go further into the future with
allocations shouldn't be decided on the basis of whether indivi-
dual residential or lodge owners have removed units from the
tourist inventory.
The issue shouldn't be decided on whether the applicants are
requesting units from the 1987 quota or the 1989 quota and when
the facility is projected to open relative to those years.
3. In the opinion of the Planning Office, the real issue we are
deciding has to do with what is the basic reason f or having a
growth management system and how does this project affect that
rationale.
4. As noted in the GMPP, "growth management would be a meaningless
exercise in the manipulation of sterile numbers if some higher
goal were not in mind. " The goal of the plan was system balance
-- to avoid the boom and bust cycles that take us across maj or
thresholds where the government has to intervene to make up
service deficiencies in a time frame in which it cannot respond.
5. The real reason for setting quotas is to establish a growth
phasing mechanism which insures that projects do not happen at
the same time which would profoundly change the community before
the public sector can intervene and respond to the service
problems the growth has caused.
6. Despite this philosophy, we know that there are problems in this
community right now which we are not yet solving. Rather than
present an endless list, we can simply look at a couple of the
biggest :
o Highway entrance to town;
o Parking -- intercept lots vs. downtown structures;
0 Air quality; and
o Bus terminal.
7. Accelerating our growth rate will do nothing to solve these
problems. This application certainly doesn't provide solutions
in any of these areas. yet will clearly accelerate the need to
solve the problems. Furthermore, if we haven't answered these
problems in an era of moderate growth, it will likely be even
more complex to find solutions after a boom.
8. The decision to implement a phasing mechanism represented a
conscious choice by the community that growth or approval of new
development would not be the method to solve the community's
problems. Since that time, we have found that growth can solve
some of our problems, particularly the renovation of facilities
which have fallen into disrepair. This project certainly offers
us the chance to repair our mountain base, just as the Aspen
Mountain PUD allowed us to fix our lodge district and the Hotel
Jerome our historical hotel.
9. The question the community must
decide is whether in the name of
this renovation
or renaissance
as it has been called by some, we
also want
to grow as quickly
as the market seems to want, and
what this
will mean to all of
us. Many in town seem to have
forgotten
what it is like to
live in a boom growth period and
have been
lulled into a false
sense of security about growth.
This summer
we have seen several
large reconstruction projects
downtown.
These projects will be dwarfed by the potential
impacts of
the PUD, Jerome Addition and Little Nell proposal.
10. You have just approved the
largest tourist
project in the history
of the town and we are in
the process
of
occupying the largest
residential complex in our
history, and
we
have yet to experience
the impacts of either. If you don't take
this opportunity to
pause and see what this
project will
do,
when will you pause?
What will you say to the proponents of
the
Aspen Meadows develop-
ment who are watching this
process and
who
are sure to follow on
its heels?
11. The GMPP recognized the interdependent and cyclical nature of
growth, how lodge growth begets commercial and ski area develop-
ment, which influence residential development, and so on. Do you
really believe that once this project is built, the current cycle
will end? Or will you have only compressed the time frame for
bringing on the next cycle of growth, further affecting our
environment and leaving the government even further behind in its
response to that growth?
12. One of the arguments I have heard is that since this project is
coming on line in 1988 and will be using the 1987-89 quota, it is
essentially right on target. The thing to remember is that while
in the early years of the quota system no lodging was built, we
used that trend to justify excess allocations to commercial
projects and the construction of Castle Ridge and Centennial.
You should remember that overall, the City of Aspen and its
surrounding area have grown at the rate expected by the quotas,
despite having virtually no lodge growth. Therefore, it is
suspect to use the lack of lodge growth as a justification for
accelerating its rate today.
13. GMPP noted that "growth is composed of a variety of elements with
connections that are only poorly understood." Since we recognize
that we can't accurately predict the effects of growth on the
town, we have chosen to grow at a regulated rate so that the
mistakes we make will not be compounded. Having three major
projects going on downtown, the Aspen Mountain Lodge, the Hotel
Jerome and now, the Little Nell Hotel will not give us the chance
to monitor what the effect of that growth rate will be. It also
means that we will be adding to congestion and to our problems in
that portion of town with the most problems already. Finally, it
means that we may move ahead so quickly with new projects that we
don't have the time to identify the solutions which we are
foregoing on these sites (i.e., a public/private parking struc-
ture at Little Nell).
14. Some have argued that when a project like this is proposed, the
system has to bend to it because of the opportunities it presents
to improve the town. We do not want to be the villain, but we do
continue to see value in the concept of phased growth. When we
were presented with the opportunity to improve the heart of our
lodge district, the system accommodated that project. To have
the next project follow so closely seems to us to be the wrong
timing. We know that our GMP is intended to provide for growth.,
but it doesn't yet address the ultimate size of the community.
Until we can feel comfortable that GMP is taking us to some end
point, we have to see an acceleration of the growth rate as
taking us closer to the time when the town is built out and
rezonings for increased density are required. Therefore, we feel
it is reasonable to approach build -out at a managed rate so we
can learn how to cope with this end state problem. Furthermore,
we hope at some point to be able to implement a decreasing growth
rate so that we don't keep developing a construction development
industry which will be a lobbyist for future growth acid infini-
tum.
15. I can make all types of numbers -oriented arguments about why we
shouldn't approve the hotel at this time. I can identify the
•
projects coming on line and the 350 rebuilt and 300 new units of
which they are comprised. I can talk about how we changed the
lodge quota from 18 to 35 units in 1982, in part to deal with the
attrition of lodge units of the early 1970s, and how this
discounts the argument posed by Al. I can point to the fact that
with the Blue Spruce and Aspen Inn having been closed for some
time, the real impact of the new lodge on the town will be 285
and not 172 new units. I can refer you to the pending develop-
ment at Aspen Highlands, where 180 units are already approved at
the Highlands Inn, and 300 more are being proposed by the Aspen
Highlands Skiing Corporation.
16. Despite all of this data, I just don't think any of it is what
this issue is really about. The issue is really one of rate of
change, the effects of that change and the ability of the town to
accommodate it. You have in your hands the tool to insure that
the decisions of this community for the past 15 years to control
its rate of growth are respected and retained. I think you
should use it and not give away the future any more quickly than
necessary. The quotas are the only way we have to address the
quality of life issues which are of such importance to this town,
and once we give this tool away, we no longer have control over
what has made Aspen the special place it is.
SUMMARY
The basic questions which P&Z should answer in reading its decision
are as follows:
1. Does the government have the ability to solve community problems
(especially transportation and air quality) at an accelerated
rate to address an accelerated growth rate?
2. How do you properly handle the next big development proposal
(Aspen Meadows) when you have just gown__ your of
tLh Vs, on e ?
3. What is the effect of this project on growth in other sections,
such as commercial and ski area development? What will be the
effect of the other major projects now underway (Centennial,
Aspen Mountain PUD) on these sectors and future growth cycles?
b \.!1 ,�k \ , a.tj� �`(CQ
4. Can you still have a growth management system when you have major
projects that are exempt from the system (Centennial and Hotel
Jerome) and others which get allocations that take us so far into
the future that we no longer are truly phasing growth (Aspen
Mountain PUD, Little Nell) ?
AR.5
0
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 11, 1985
TO: Planning Office
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Little Nell SPA Conceptual Submission
Since this is an application for "conceptual" SPA approval, we do
not have significant comments at this time. However, with regard
to the representation set forth on Page 4, Paragraph 3, pertaining
to the Hunter and Dean Street access, you should be advised that
the City's easements on the Stan Johnson property are being chal-
lenged in the context of a quiet title action brought by Stan
Johnson. You may review the complaint in my office at your con-
venience.
PJT/mc
5C
cc: Barry Edwards
Recorded 3:35 PIi March 26, 1979 Reception # ziz f'%
Loretta Banner Reco
w065 pc:352
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this oZvk) day of
1979, between THE CITY OF
AP N, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred
togas "Grantor"), and THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION, a Colorado
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee").
R E C I T A L S
I. Grantors are the owners of the following described
real estate in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado:
A tract of land, comprising 0.14 acres, more
or less, more particularly described as follows:
The Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacated Hunter
Street, westerly of and adjacent to Block 102,
City and Townsite of Aspen, between the southerly
line of Durant Avenue and the northerly line of
Lot 22, Ute Subdivision. Said tract being the
Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of
said Hunter Street vacated by City of Aspen
Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947 recorded in
the public records of Pitkin County on March 17,
1959, under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at
Page 101.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to
be derived hereby, and other good and valuable consideration, it
is agreed by the parties as follows:
A G R E E M E N T
1. Grantors do hereby grant and convey to Grantee a
perpetual non-exclusive easement for purposes of ingress and egress
over and across Grantor's property to and from Durant Avenue and
Aspen Mountain, the right to park vehicles upon the parking area
existing on Grantor's Dropprty PnA tl.n --1-t t- i
_ _6,., L: L,ui� and maintain
ski corrals and related facilities utilized in connection with
Grantee's skiing operations; PROVIDED, 0WEVER, that Grantee's
right to utilization and enjoyment of the above-Iescribed easement
shall be restricted so as not to interfere with Grantor's right
of utilization and enjoyment contained in that deed recorded in
Book 192, Page 296, in the records of the Pitkin County, Colorado,
and reserved in Ordinance #53, Series of 1947, of the City of Aspen,
Colorado.
=365 Pg:353
2. There is reserved to Grantor the right to utilization
and enjoyment of the above -described easement provided the same
shall not interfere or be inconsistent with the rights herein
granted.
3. Lxcept as otherwise specifically provided herein,
all of the provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon
the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of
the parties hereto and shall inure to the benefit of the successors
and assigns of the Grantee.
Dated: By
ATTEST:
1=athryn Koc
City Cle
THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION
Dated: March 21 , 1979 By
Its Vice President -General Manager
e_kTTESTa =�
u��,-,�
A,tp$t $i�cretary-Treasurer
L n•,
-2-
W 365 sac: 3$4
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss.:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before
me this'L day of 1979 by Stacy Standley III,
as Mayor of THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, and by Kathryn
S• Koch, as City Clerk of THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
Witness my hand and official seal.
'1 -
My commission expires:
Or
i �
Notary lic
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss.:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before
me this 21st day of March , 1979 by Tom Richardson
Assistant
as Vice President and Luetta Whitson as Secretary/ -,of THE
ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION. Treasurer
%,. Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: October 27, 1979
Notary Public
neceNi'+un No. y {j
Rc;corded at 2:51PM Dec 29, 197'
Loretta Banner Recor •� _....
FEE
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED U E v 2- PA 0
THIS DEED made this 29th day of December, 1978!0,
between DON HORWITZ of the first part and the CITY OF ASPEN 3r T'v
COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the second part.
W I T N E S S E T H:
That the said party of the first part, for ancl•,«in,i, R
consideration of the sum of TEN and no/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) v�p .¢� 4A
and other good and valuable consideration to the said party ss"
of the first part, in hand paid by the said party of the2SQoc o
� DA
second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and
acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed and
by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and F
confirm unto the said party of the second part, its successors
and assigns forever, all the following described lot or
parcel of land, siutate, lying and being in the County of
Pitkin and State of Colorado, to -wit:
A tract of land, comprising 0.14
acres, more or less, more particularly
described as follows:
The Easterly one-half (El/2) of
vacated Hunter Street, westerly of
and adjacent to Block 102, City and
Townsite of Aspen, between the
southerly line of Durant Avenue and
the northerly line of Lot 22, Ute
Subdivision. Said tract being the
Easterly one-half (E1/2) of all
that portion of said Hunter Street
vacated by City of Aspen Ordinance
No. B-53, Series of 1947 recorded
in the public records of Pitkin
County on March 17, 1959 under
Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at
Page 101.
Together with all and singular the hereditaments and
appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining,
and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders,
rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right,
title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of the said party
of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the
above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances;
t •
1
•
'i"'l
�vl�
rJL ;J a
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said
premises above bargained
and
described with the appurtenances, unto the CITY OF ASPEN, the
said party of the second part, its successors and assigns
forever.
And the said party of the first part, for himself,
and his heirs and assigns covenants and agrees to and with the
said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the
above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of
the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns
against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or
to claim the whole or any part thereof, by, through or under the
said party of the first part, to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND,
except general taxes for 1978, due and payable January 1, 1979,
and subject to United States Patent reservations of record,
reservations and exceptions as set forth in Ordinance No. B-53,
Series of 1947, recorded March 17, 1959, in Book 187 at page 101
of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, easement recorded in
Book 192 at page 296 of said records and the interests of the
Aspen Skiing Corporation, a Colorado corporation, with respect
to (i) access over and across the above described real property
to and from Durant Avenue and Aspen Mountain, (ii) the right to
park vehicles upon the existing parking area, and, further,
(iii) the right to install and maintain ski corrals and related
facilities utilized in connection with its skiing operations as
the same have existed on a portion of said real property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party of the first part
has caused this Special Warranty Deed to be executed the day and
year first above written.
-2-
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this 2y--day of December, 1978, by Don Horwitz.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public 1' • ;� �J
The foregoing gift of real property is hereby
accepted for and on behalf of the City of As en, Colorado.
f/
Stacy S'tandley,c III
Mayor`
Kathtyn S. Koch
City Clerk
-3-
MEMORANDUM
city Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Dept.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Little Nell SPA Conceptual Submission
DATE: July 5, 1985
Attached for your review is the Little Nell SPA Conceptual Submis-
sion submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client the Aspen
Skiing Company.
This application is being processed under the new SPA regulations
established by the recently adopted Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1985.
We suggest that you familiarize yourselves with this ordinance,
particularly Section 24-7(3) which addresses the processing of
conceptual SPA applications. A conceptual SPA submission is princi-
pally processed for the purpose of identifying whether or not the use
is appropriate in the proposed location. This type of a submission is
much more general than a conceptual :ul)division or PUD application,
and will be followed later by the Precise Plan and GMP submission, if
the concept is approved.
The proposal consists of a 96 room hotel, with commercial, office and
ski area supf:ort facilities, at the base of Aspen Mountain where
Little Nell's currently exists.
This application is scheduled to go before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on August 6, 3.985. Please return your referral comments to
this office no later than July 19, 1985. If you have any question or
problems, please contact this office.
Thank you.
S /4►-A01 A 1"J /-/A�►��� T/{i S
r14P_ 5P3 A-/.r 14AS TNr? [ APAcTU /-IA.-fit,?
6 A
/"/ 14 ti A ._ r^ 2—
EXH I IT A
CONDITIONS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. Parking/Transit/Circulation
The following conditions are intended to address the mitigation
of parking/transit/circulation impacts created by the 1,300
skiers -at -one - time capacity increase of Aspen Mountain, and not
to address lodge/commercial development at Little Mell. The
incremental impacts of lodge/commercial base area development at
Little dell should be addressed by the City of Aspen upon receipt
of an application for base area development. Similarly, the ASC
should not be asked by the City of Aspen to mitigate parking/-
transit/circulation impacts resulting from the capacity increase
because those impacts have been addressed by Pitkin County.
-A. ASC will work cooperatively with the community to reasonably
accommodate transit at the base of Lift #1.A.
B. ASC shall agree to maintain the existing parking lot (of- at
least 30 automobile parking spaces) located on Aspen Street
within the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit
related uses. The agreement shall be in the form oil a
recorded covenant on the property to the t,en(:1 i r_ of r'i t.ki n
County and the City of Aspen.
C. ASC shall continue the taxi -limo -automobile drop-off facility
at Little l?e l l .
D. ASC shall institute a to i-limo-automobile drop-off facility
at Lift lA within the tim_ frame of the three year improvement
program for "sper
E. It has been found during the Pitkin County land use review
process that ASC must provide an additional 46 off-street,
skier automobile parking spaces to mitigate the effects of
the 1,300 daily skiers -at -one-time skiing capacity increase
on Aspen Mountain. This requirement may be met by providing
on -site automobile parking, off -site automobile parking,
cash contributions to the City of Aspen as described herein
or a combination of the above. If future studies undertaken
or approved by the City of Aspen, and/or Pitkin County
indicate that the proposed skiing area expansion (1,300
skiers at one time) generates a need for fewer than 46 off-
street skier automobile parking spaces, the ASC's automobile
parking requirement or contribution to alternative progr ms
hereunder will be decreased accordingly. Under no circum-
stances will the automobile parking requirement of Pitkin
County be increased unless ASC proposes additional daily
capacity increases on Aspen Piountain in the future.
1. ASC may, at its discretion, provide the required off-
street automobile parking on -site, at the base of
Little Nell, subject to appropriate land use approvals
by the City of Aspen.
2. In lieu of providing_ off-street skier automobile
parking, as required by this ASAh.P, upon the rec_,uest of
the City of Aspen, .he ASC will pay for the pre-rata
share of constructi. 46 off-street, automobile parking
spaces within an .:utomobile parking structure or
structures. Such an off-street, automobile, parking
structure may be developed ,solely by the public sector,
the private sector or by a joint public/private venture.
3. In the event that the City of Aspen and/or Pitkin
County, and/or Roaring Fork Transit Authority seeks to
3
Y
% I %
develop or participate in an intercept parking program,
an upgraded mass transit program or combination of the
above, the City of Aspen and/or Pitkin County, and/or
the Roaring Fork Transit Authority may request a
contribution to such a program from the ASC in lieu of
providing the forementioned 46 skier off-street,
parking spaces. If requested, ASC will promptly make
such a contribution in an amount no less than $460,000
(based upon $10,000 per off-street automobile parking
spaces) and no more than $6 90 , 000 (based upon $15 , 000
per off-street automobile parking spaces) .
II. Visual Vulnerability
In the event that a gondola is
gondola cars will be stored on
the base . Plans presented to
process for the base of Lift
in the appendix of the Mast
lift structure will be design(
with the plans.
III. Aspen Mountain Road
constructed on Aspen Mountain, the
top of the mountain rather than at
the Commission during the planning
4A or the gondola will be included
Plan. The base of the proposed
and built generally in accordance
ASC shall obtain encroachment permits for use of Aspen Mountain
Road as per Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications.
IV. Revisions to Master Plan
The ASC shall revise
the draft of the
Plaster Plan to
reflect
minor changes made in
the review process
and Tom Blake,
Hoard
Chairperson shall be authorized to review
and approve the
revised
plan prior to signing
the resolution of
approval. Such
changes
include without limitation the following:
a. 14ithdrawal of the
I�SC's request for
the generic night-time
and summer use of
restaurants.
V. United States Forest Service Approval
The County approval of the AMSAi'P is subject to approval of the
Plan by the United States Forest Service as documented in AP^.SAMP
Environmental Assessment Decision Notice.
4
i
EXHIBIT B
RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN
I. Geologic Hazards
The Board recommends that the Aspen Skiing Company continue to
study geologic hazards on Aspen Mountain as recommended by the
Colorado Geologic: Survey Office and mitigate impacts as necessary.
II. Access to Bell Mountain Lift
1. The Board recommends that, if possible, there should continue
to be direct lift access from the base of Little Nell to the
Bell Mountain Lift (Lift 5) . In the event that the ASC
chooses not to construct a midway station on Little Nell to
serve Bell Mountain, the Board proposes that the ASC be
given the following option:
a. Lift #4 or a similar lift system will remain a part of
Aspen Mountain. Tho lift will be designed primarily to
serve racing events ski school or other activities on
Little Nell and as a back up system in the event that
alternative lift systems breakdown.
b. Lift #4 will not be operated during the two initial
hours of mountain operations except in the event of :
o Special racing events on Aspen rountain such as
World Cup or Nastar racing.
o Breakdown of Alternative lift system.
5
00
w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Available Lodge Qu( a
DATE: December 29, 1983
Introduction
At your direction, I have performed a detailed review of the status
of the Lodge Development Quota since its inception. I have found
a basic error in the calculation methodology which changes the number
of units currently available. In sum, the status is as follows:
Quota Allowed 1977-1981 18 units per year = 90 units
1982-1983 35 units per year = 70 units
Total 160 units
Allocations 1978 - Aspen Inn 36 units
Awarded 1981 - Lodge at Aspen 31 units
1982 - Carriage House 26 units
Total 93 units
Quota currently available 160-93 = 67 units (32 previous plus
35 current)
Following is a detailed review of the above summary
Analysis
On May 8, 1978, City Council dopted Resolution No. 8, Series of
1978, awarding development allotments to Lodge competitors. Council
awarded the following allotments:
Aspen Inn - 36 Lodge units, 24 employee units
Mountain Chalet - 8 Lodge units, 8 employee units
The above total of 44 lodge units and 32 employee units was
authorized to be deducted from the Lodge quota for the next several
years. In fact, the quota was used for 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980
and 4 units of 1981
The next pertinent action with respect to the lodge quota was the
expiration in 1980 of the 16 units allocated to the Mountain Chalet.
As a result of this action, the quota available in 1980 was 12 units.
It is important to note that Ron Stock, the City Attorney at that
time, erroneously wrote you a memo identifying the quota as 30
units in 1980. This error is the source of the continuing mistake
in the calculation of the lodge quota, which has persisted to this
time. No applications for lodge allotments were made in either
1979 or 1980.
Two lodge applications were received by the Planning Office in
1981, these being The Lodge at Aspen and the Aspen Inn. During the
course of reviewing these applications, City Council decided that
ft
so
the deduction of 24 employee units at the Aspen Inn by the
former Council was a mistake. These 24 units were added back to
the lodge quota. The 24 units, plus the 18 available in that year,
plus the 12 from the prior year, meant that the total available
was 54 units. A 31 unit quota was allocated to The Lodge At Aspen
during that year, leaving 23 units unallocated.
Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, changed the lodge quota to 35 units
per year. Therefore, the total number of lodge units available
in 1982 was 58. The only applicant last year, The Carriage House,
successfully applied for a 26 unit allocation. Therefore, 32 lodge
units remain from prior years. When we add these units to the 35
available in 1983, there are 67 units available for allocation.
Conclusion
This memorandum corrects a ma..iematical error first made by Ron
Stock in his memo to you dated April 10, 1980, which has been
compounded in my memos to the file dated July 21, 1981, September 15,
1982 and'August 9, 1983. The mistake lies in the fact that we have
been calling the competition by the year subsequent to the one in
which it is actually held. From now on, it should be obvious that
the 1983 competition takes place in 1983, the 1984 in 1984 and so on.
This error has no effect on the residential or commercial quotas,
since these have not been carried over as were the lodge quotas.
The error also has not adversely affected any applicant, since an
adequate number of units has been available to cover the awards
we have made, and no applicant has been turned down for lack of
allotments. Hopefully, this analysis should clear the record for any
action to be taken with respect to the 1983 allocation to The Lodge
at Aspen.
ft
ft
DERIVATION OF MULTI -YEAR QUOTA ALLOCATION
Aspen riountain Lodge
UNITS
1. Proposed number of lodge units in the Aspen 447
Mountain Lodge.
2. Existing lodge units verified to date. - 233
214
3. Additional existing lodge units to be verified.- - 42
4. New lodge units for which an allocation is required. 172
5. Unallocated lodge units from prior years' quotas. - 32_
140
6. 1983 T,-1, L-2, CC and CL lodge quota.
105
7. 1984 L-1, L-2, CC and CL lodge quota. - 35
70
8. 1985 L-1, L-2.- CC and CL lodge quota.?- - 35
35
9. 1986 L-1, L-2, CC and CL lodge quota.? =___3
0
1The thirty-six. (36) lodge units awarded to the Aspen Lnn in 1978
which are presently under construction plus six (6) additional units
in the Aspen Inn basement, subject to settlement of the Cantrup .litiga-
tion, final PUD approval and the transfer of title to the Aspen Inn
site to the applcants.
2Upon deed- restriction and conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to
employee housing, forty-four (44) units will be cre6ited to the L-
1, L-2, CC and CL lodge quota thereby effectively eliminating the
need for the 1986 quota allocati and reducing the 1.985 allocation
to 26 units.
4^
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Sunny Vann
Alan Richman
Lodging Inventory Analysis
December 8, 1983
I have reviewed and updated the data included in our Short -Term
Accommodations Report (April, 1982) so as to respond to various
questions posed by the Planning Commission in recent weeks. Follow-
ing is a summary of my approach and findings.
I reviewed the entire list of short term accommodations in the Aspen
Metro Area from the prior survey and identified approximately 54
facilities which could be considered to be traditional lodging faci-
lities. The remaining accommodations include condominium complexes
and single-family or duplex houses.
I found that the 54 lodges contain approximately 1727 units, including
1380 lodge rooms (no kitchen), 259 lodge apartments (1 or more rooms
with kitchen) and 88 dorm units. The condominium complexes and
houses contain 1041 units, for a total short term accommodations in-
ventory in the Aspen Metro Area of 2768 units. The total pillow
count in these units is approximately 10,750.
I focused on the 1727 units in lodges as being most pertinent to
any questions with respect to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. First, I
categorized these units as to whether they were rented at economy,
moerate or expensive rates. I based this analysis on information pro-
vided by ARA, supplemented by calls to individual lodges, when necessary.
I was able to obtain information from lodges accounting for 1684 total
units. Following is the breakdown among these facilities.
Economy = 291 un;,s = 17%
Moderate = 773 L _ts = 46%
Expensive = 620 sits = 37%
The facilities within the Aspen Mountain Lodge project represent a
considerable proportion of the inventory. The Continental Inn includes
172 units, or almost 28% of all expensive units in the Aspen Metro
Area. The Aspen Inn includes 65 units, or about 8.5% of all the
moderately priced units in the inventory. The Alpina Haus, Blue
Spruce and Copper Horse collectively include 86 units, or almost 30%
of all economy units in the inventory.
The total lodge inventory includes only 88 dorm units. Of these,
14 are found in the Copper Horse and 7 in the Continental Inn for
a total of 21 dorm units within the project, almost 25% of the entire
inventory. Other lodges with dorm units are as follows:
Snowflake Lodge
2
dorms
Mountain Chalet
3
dorms
Holland House
8
dorms
Highlands Inn
9
dorms
Endeavor Lodge
8
dorms
St. Moritz
12
dorms
Little Red Ski Haus
5
dorms
Boomerang Lodge
1
dorm
Snow Queen Lodge
4
dorms
Heatherbed Lodge
15
dorms
All of the dorm units are located in lodges rated as economy or moderate.
00
Another important
percentage of our
structed. I find
have been totally
question we can
lodge units have
that within the
reconstructec
answer from our inventory is what
been or are about to be recon-
past 5 years, the following lodges
Woodstone Inn
92
units
Red Roof Inn
50
units
Applejack Inn
35
units
Aspen Ski Lodge
33
units
Ullr Lodge
24
units
Prospector Lodge
23
units
Hotel Lenado
17
units
Coachlight Chalet
11
units
TOTAL 285 units
The 285 units which have already been upgraded represent 16.5% (1/6)
of the traditional lodge inventory or just over 10% of the total
short term accommodations inventory.
Projects currently under review would considerably augment the number
of units we have upgraded. These projects are as follows:
UNITS TO NEW
PROJECT BE REBUILT UNITS TOTAL
Aspen Mountain Lodge 269 211 480
Highlands Inn 37 132 169
Holiday Inn 120 -0- 120
Hotel Jerome 31 67 106
Carriage House 20 26
Endeavor Lodge 4 -0- 4
TOTAL 475 430 905
Should these projects be constructed, the 475 units which would be
upgraded would constitute an additional 27.5% of the traditional
lodge inventory. The total number of units which the community
would have upgraded in about a decade would be 760 units or 440
of the lodge inventory. The 760 units also represent slightly
more than 1/4 of the total Metro Area short term accommodations
inventory.
We should also take into account the degree to which projects now
being considered would increase the inventory. The 430 new units
plus the 31 units allocated to the Lodge at Aspen in 1982 would
increase the inventory of lodge rooms by 33% (1/3) and the entire
accommodations inventory by 16.5% (1/6). At that point, 1190 of
our lodge rooms would be new or recently rebuilt fully 65% of the
1810 total lodge units and 370 of the total accommodations inventory.
Obviously, this analysis does not take into account any attrition of
facilities which may take place during this time, nor any other addi-
tions which may take place among lodges, condominiums and houses.
As a last point, it is worth noting that with the exception of the
Continental Inn and Holiday Inn, all of the units within projects
we are now considering fall in ie economy or moderate price
ranges. I would expect that fo owing the reconstruction of these
facilities, the total profile o. Aspen's Lodging might shift more
toward the expensive end of the price spectrum. However, once again,
it is very difficult to estimate whether any existing units will drop
into the lower price categories as a result of the growth in the
lodge inventory.
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
TH RU: Hal Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Dates for 1985 GMP Submissions
DATE: July 8, 1985
SUMMARY: Council should choose among the alternatives listed below
regarding the dates for 1985 GMP submission,,,
BACKGROUND: The Municipal Code provides the following annual dates
for the submission of applications for growth management allocations:
August 1 - Commercial
October 1 - Lodge
December 1 - Residential
The Planning Office has been approached by representatives of the
Little Nell and Aspen Meadows projects seeking changes in these dates
for 1985 only. The Little Nell representatives would like to see both
the commercial and lodge dates changed to December 1, while the Aspen
Meadows representatives have asked that the dates for all categories
be changed to March 1 of 1986.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The recently adopted SPA Ordinance (#20 of 1985)
provides that submissions for growth management allocations on sites
with an SPA overlay must be made in conjunction with precise plan
submissions. Due to the length of the process of adopting Ordinance
20, applicants do not have adequate time to process their conceptual
submissions prior to the annual submission dates. Therefore, unless
the dates are changed for 1985, these projects will be delayed until
the fall of 1986 for their precise plan/GMP review.
Since this issue surf -aced, the Plz=ing Office has been contacted by
another individual in the CC/C-1 zone who may apply for a commercial
allotment on August 1. Therefore, any change contemplated for this
date could adversely affect the plans of at least one other property
owner.
ALTERNATIVES: Choices available to the City Council include the
following:
1. Move the dates for the CC/C-1 commercial competition and the
lodge competition for all zones except the L-3 zone district
to December 1.
2. Move the dates for the CC/C-1 commercial competition, the
lodge competition for all zones except the L-3 and the
residential competition to March 1.
3. Waive the requirement that G MP allotment applications must
be accompanied by a precise plan for lands within an SPA
overlay.
4. No action.
Factors to be considered by Council in taking any action should
include the following:
1. We have already placed a notice in the paper that we are
accepting applications for the August 1 date, since we
routinely provide such notice 30 days in advance of the
due date for applications.
2. Changing the dates will certainly add to the confusion of
our application process, particularly if we change them only
for certain zones.
3. It could be argued that waiving the requirement for concur-
rent submission of GMP and precise plan applications is
warranted for this year only, since this provision has only
recently been placed into the Code. However, all of the
benefits associated with this rule (particularly the need to
review the precise plan before deciding on a multi -year
growth allocation) would then be lost for the two most
important parcels with an SPA overlay.
4. If we do not change the dates for this year, we will lose
valuable time in dealing with two critical parcels in the
City. On the other hand, since Council has already allo-
cated lodge units into the future, this delay may only help
to bring us into better conformance with our planned rate of
growth. '
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office has no preference whatsoever with
respect to this issue. We are prepared to process this year's
applications under any alternative which Council may choose.
AR. 2 8
2
E
•
MMt° US € VVeLLS
an association of land planners
June 24, 1985
Alan Richman
Director .Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Alan:
As you know, through the settlement of the Cantrup bankruptcy,
John Roberts' joint venture has acquired the Aspen Meadows parcel
in the blest End. On behalf of the owners, we have for some time
been following the City's consideration of new regulations for
sites designated with an SPA overlay.
It has been anticipated that following adoption, the owner can
begin the process of developing a proposal for the Meadows site
that will incldue all of the affected parties, even though the
new regulations obviously do not resolve all of the outstanding
land -use issues regarding the site.
One unresolved issue is the manner in which growth management
procedures will be applied to the proposal. As we have discuss-
ed, in the past the question of whether the Institute would be
required to obtain a GMP allotment in order to proceed with
development at the Meadows was left unresolved. It is clear,
however, that the City allowed the Institute to proceed through
the approval process nearly to final approval without requiring
the filing of a GMP application and this may be an indication
that the City at the time was leaning toward an exemption under
certain conditions.
In the event that the City requires the current owners to obtain
GMP allotments, it certainly is not possible to complete the
Conceptual SPA step of the new regulation and then file a GMP
submission by the current deadline for GMP. We therefore agree
that it will be necessary to extend the GMP submission
deadlines.
Alan Richman
June 24, 1985
Page TWO
We disagree that an extension to December 1 is adequate however,
in light of the requirement under the new regulation that the
i'recise SPA Plan, which requires a level of detail similar to
1'rel indnary PUD and Subdivision, be filed with the GMP
submission.
we believe that a period of at least 6 to 7 months will be
requiresl. to prepare and process a Conceptual SPA Plan and that
t.h« preparation of a GMP/Precise Plan will require an additional
10 to 12 weeks. Therefore, we do not believe that an adequate
precise Plan for the Meadows could be filed prior to March 1 of
next year.
We request, then, that the City either extend the GMP submission
deadlines for all categories to March 1 or, in the alternative,
grant applicants for SPA sites the option of filing GMP Submis-
sions separate from the Precise Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
- Sincerel ,
b eph Wells, AICP
JW/b
cc: Aspen City Council
John Roberts
Robert Callaway
Alan Novak
Mike Holbrook
Art Daily
•
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
HAND -DELIVERED
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
BOX 10001
315 EAST HUMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
July 3, 1985
Mr. Alan Richman, AICP
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Skiing Company -- Application for
S.P.A. Conceptual Plan Approval
Dear Alan:
Enclosed please find the following:
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
1. Four copies of revised Application for S.P.A.
Conceptual Plan Approval for the Aspen Skiing Company that
has been revised in response to your June 26, 1985, letter to
US.
2. One copy of the revised Application that has been
redlined to indicate the changes we have made to the
application. This copy is for you for your reference
purposes.
3. Copy of Transamerica Title Insurance Company,
Owner's Title Insurance Policy No. 7301704, dated September
18, 1981, which verifies that the Aspen Skiing Company owns
the entire area for which it seeks S.P.A. designation.
Pursuant to the zoning code, the Aspen Skiing Company is
therefore legally entitled to apply for S.P.A. designation on
all areas shown in the enclosed title policy to be under its
ownership.
If you have any questions on the enclosed, please let us
know. Thank you for your help and cooperation in these
matters.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDE N I. I�UFMAN,
a Pr si.(01 rati*
By
avid Eisenstein
DGE/bw
Enclosures
cc: Peter Forsch
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE • AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925-1220
APPLICATION FOR S.P.A. CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR
THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Skiing Company/Application for Conceptual
Plan Approval for Specially Planned Area at
Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain
Dear Planning Commission Members:
The Aspen Skiing Company hereby submits this Application
for its Conceptual Plan for the Specially Planned Area
(S.P.A.) at Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain. The
attached drawings, maps, and plans are submitted herewith
in accordance with the newly enacted Ordinace 20, Series of
1985 which repealed and re-enacted Article VII, Chapter 24,
of the Municipal Code pertaining to Specially Planned Areas.
Attached please find:
1. a vicinity and existing conditions map,
2. a Conceptual S.P.A. Plan, and
3. cross sections.
The vicinity map submitted herewith depicts the property
which is the subject of this Conceptual Plan Appliction. The
uses in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property are
mixed and varied including short-term residential, long-term
residential, lodging, commercial, and office uses.
A. INTRODUCTION
In February of 1983, the Aspen Skiing Company submitted
an application for an adjustment to the boundary for this
Specially Planned Area. The application met with controversy
due to the large amount of area submitted for S.P.A.
designation and the then unclear S.P.A. language and adoption
ASPEN MOUNTAIN • BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN 0 SNOWMASS 0 BRECKENRIDGE
Members of the Planning Commission
June 21, 1985
Page 2
procedures. As a result of this previous application, the
provisions of the Municipal Code pertaining to Specially
Planned Areas have been repealed and re-enacted.
Furthermore, the Aspen Skiing Company, sensitive to the
community needs and input from the Planning Office, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council has completely
rethought and redesigned its concept for development in the
area. The result is this current submission which is fully
50% smaller than what was contemplated in 1983.
This submission constitutes the Aspen Skiing Company's
statement of intent and conceptual description of the type of
development which is proposed to take place on the subject
property. This Conceptual Plan should be considered in
context with and as part of the Aspen Skiing Company's
overall plan for the improvement of ski terrain and lifts on
Aspen Mountain, and its intent to improve the skier access to
and experience on Aspen Mountain for residents and tourists
alike.
With this Conceptual Plan Application, pursuant to
Section 24-7.2 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Skiing
Company seeks an adjustment to the boundary of its property
already designated with an S.P.A. pursuant to the procedures
and requirements for amendments to the zoning map described
in Article XII of the Municipal Code and as part of this
Conceptual Plan submission. The unique characteristics of
the property to be encompassed within the S.P.A. designation
justify its designation with an S.P.A. overlay and comply
with the intents and purposes of the Specially Planned Area
concept. The purpose of a Specially Planned Area is to
"provide design flexibility for parcels which require
innovative consideration in those circumstances where
traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address their
historic significance, there is a potential for community
benefit from the parcel's development and the parcel has
unique attributes." The City has always felt that the Little
Nell area at the base of Aspen Mountain has all these unique
characteristics. Further, consistent with the purposes of a
Specially Planned Area, the S.P.A. designation will allow the
integration of mixed use projects on a single parcel of land
through the encouragement of innovative design practices.
The S.P.A. will allow the establishment of a precise plan
which provides a detailed land use plan for the entire parcel
in question, and establishes a mechanism by which the subject
property upon which there has historically been a variety of
uses, can be planned and developed in a manner which provides
the greatest public benefit. This is all consistent with the
purpose of a Specially Planned Area as is set forth in
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220
Members of the Planning Commission
June 21, 1985
Page 3
Section 24-7.1 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) , and (4) of the Municipal
Code.
B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
In general, the Aspen Skiing Company's Conceptual Plan
consists of the following elements:
1. Construction of a 96 room hotel containing a total
of 77,718 sq. ft. of rooms and circulation areas, including
hotel accessory space plus 15,668 sq. ft. subgrade.
2. 16,078 sq. ft. of commercial space of which
approximately 13,396 sq. ft. is already existing on the site.
3> 9,976 sq. ft. of improved and expanded ski area
facilities.
4� 77 si_zhgrariP i,a.rk rag st�%�.`Ps
The floor area calculatiions do not .include those spaces
excluded from F.A.R calculations by the zoning code.
Thus the use categories proposed for the parcel are as
follows:
1. Hotel - Lodging
2. Commercial
3. Ski Facilities
4. Parking
C. INTENT AND PURPOSE
The construction of the facilities proposed by this
Conceptual Plan will provide significant improvements for ski
operations at Aspen Mountain to the benefit of local and
visitor alike, and will greatly enhance the tourist
accomodations available at the base of Aspen Mountain. The
Plan accomplishes the following:
1. The relocation of grooming vehicle maintenance and
parking to an on -mountain location removes unsightly, noisy,
and heavy equipment functions which currently exist
incompatibly at the base of the mountain in the hear of the
tourist environment. The snow cat shop and all of its
clutter will be removed from the base which will
significantly improve the area, creating a visually more
attractive site and eliminating an annoying source of noise
to the neighborhood which currently exists.
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220
Members of the Planning Commission
June 21, 1985
Page 4
2. The plan also relocates and consolidates restaurant
snow cat service functions. These will be provided from a
new building, with a new loading dock consolidating these
activities, which places them in a location less offensive
and less noisy to all neighbors in the vicinity.
3. Hunter and Dean Street access will be landscaped and
significantly improved to provide attractive and easy
pedestrian and skier access to the lifts and other base area
activities.
4. The base area plan upgrades service on and up the
mountain by the construction of either a detachable quad
chair lift or a six place gondola. In either case, lift
service will be provided on Litle Nell to serve special
events, ski instructions and secondary access to the number 5
lift. This will be accomplished via a midway unloading
station or a relocated number 4 lift.
5 , ThP plan ma1:F s available to this community the
highest quality hotel accomodations. As conceived this will
be the finest hotel in Aspen and one of the best in the
state. The Aspen Skiing Company and its owners will bring to
this project and the community the financial wherewithall and
development expertise needed to make the project a success.
The redevelopment also makes available renovated and improved
commercial space for the provision of quality ski -oriented
retail services at the base of Aspen Mountain solving some of
the current problems of unsightliness, overcrowding, and poor
skier and pedestrian access to the current retail spaces.
Further, it will create a much improved public base area with
improved and expanded base lodge facilities. The base area
facilities will provide a full range of services to the
skiing public, including lockers and ski storage facilities,
public restrooms, ski school and skier service offices, ski
rental and repair, food and beverage service, all of which
represent a major and significant improvement over existing
conditions and services.
6. The construction of a first-class luxury hotel will
create an extremely attractive, social focal point to serve
as a symbol of quality emphasizing that Aspen Mountain is the
premier ski experience in North America. Its varied and
challenging terrain has given Aspen Mountain a reputation as
a unique and quality ski experience. The purpose of this
plan is to deliver base facilities that compliment the
mountain and make the statement and reaffirmation of the high
quality for which Aspen became famous.
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220
Members of the Planning Commission
June 21, 1985
Page 5
The hotel aims to provide excellent services to both
guests and local residents. The hotel will include
restaurant space and an expanded, improved deck to replace
the popular Little Nell deck area. The quality of
development envisioned for the new hotel will allow for
better after ski activities than currently exist at the
Little Nell building.
The Little Nell area as presently constituted detracts
from the quality image of Aspen Mountain and Aspen in
general. The existing building is decrepit with numerous
structural and roofing problems. The entrance to the
mountain, currently occupied by on grade automobile drop off
parking, presents an unsightly and constricting entrance to
the mountain. By this plan the Aspen Skiing Company seeks to
create a much improved and more visually pleasing
gateway -entrance to the base of North America's finest ski
mountain.
D- ADJUSTMENT OF S,P.,A, ROUNDARY
As part of this Conceptual Plan Submission, the Aspen
Skiing Company seeks to adjust the boundary of the property
designated S.P.A. to include more land within the S.P.A.
designation to accomodate the total base activity. Adjusting
the boundary to include this additional area is justified by
the unique characteristics of the parcel and because the City
feels this property fulfills the intents and purposes of the
S.P.A. designation Further, we offer the following support of
our request for adjusting the S.P.A. boundary.
1. The structure, which will occupy the expanded site
includes a full mixture of uses to include lodging,
commercial, ski area facilities, and parking.
2. Parking and ski area facilities are permitted as
conditional uses in the conservation zone; the re -drawing of
the S.P.A. boundary line allows the opportunity to develop a
more flexible site plan and allows for a unified, coordinated
review of the Aspen Skiing Company's entire plan for
development in the area. After thorough study and
investigation of the site, it is clear that numerous ski area
administration functions and skier support activities
logically belong in the proposed building. Putting these
sorts of uses in the building instead of having higher
intensity CC uses that would be permitted in the CC zone
reduces impacts and a less intense land use is achieved.
3. The re -drawing of this boundary line constitutes a
minor amendment to the current zoning map. The re -drawing of
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220
• 0
Members of the Planning Commission
June 21, 1985
Page 6
this line respects natural topography and represents a
sincere attempt to keep new building structures at the
existing base of Aspen Mountain. This Conceptual Plan does
not propose to construct buildings on the mountain side or to
do anything which would further constrict or interfere with
the skiing experience on Aspen Mountain.
We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this
application. The members of the development team listed on
the attached sheet are available to discuss any questions you
might have on this application.
Respectfully submitted,
The sp n Skiing mp ny
By
Peter Forsch, Project Manager
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220
Members of the Planning Commission
June 21, 1985
Page 7
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
Peter Forsch, Project Manager
Aspen Skiing Company
P.O. Box 1248
Aspen, CO
Larry Yaw, Architect
Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd.
210 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO
Bill Kane, Planner
Design Workshop, Inc.
710 E. Durant
Aspen, CO
Gideon I. Kaufman, Attorney
Law Offices of Gideon T. Kaufman; P.C.
315 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO
plan approval/DOC8
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220
FARM NO. G-50^n-t r
FOR COL.ORADO Nommmummu
Y-FORM ": 1970 (AMENDED 10.17.70)
SCHEDULE A
Amount of Insurance S 53, 000, 000 .00 Policyho. 7,301,704
Date of Policy September 18;, 1981 Sheet 1 of 101
at 8:00 A.M.
1. Name of Ins1►red:
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY,
a Colorado general partnership
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
SET FORTH ON SHEETS ATTACHED HERETO
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY,_
a Colorado general partnership
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:
This Policy consists of properties located in Pitkin County
and in Summit County. Parcels in both Schedule A and Sched-
ule B have been referred to using group references as follows:
GROUP LOCATION
I Buttermilk Parcels
II Snowmass Parcels
III Aspen Parcels
IV Summit Parcels 1-4, 7-13, and 12(A)
V Summit Parcel 14
VI Summit Parcels 15 and 15(A)
VII Summit Parcel 16
- • i
S C H E D U L E A —Continued
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
--Continued--
GROUP III
ASPEN PARCEL I: F�ir+ 4 V I �6 VW I '�%(aI
A parcel of land situated in the City of Aspen, being more fully
described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Block 102 in said City of
Aspen;
f said
thence S 75009'11" E 220000ffeetEalonst ofthherJNorthwest �orner of
Block 102 to a point
.Lot H of said Block 102;
thence S 14050'49" W 263.26 feet to a point on the Northeasterly
City of
Aspe
on to
aid
line of L035'40"tWe53.53 feetlto the thwest cornernof said
thence N 38
Lot 21;
thence S 45021'00°' W 124n2Linefeet
l-9along
thethe
or�ginalsAspen Towns�te;
said Lot 21 to a point o
thence N 39057122" W 231.18 feet along said Line 1-9;
thence S 14050'49" W 66.78 feet;
thence N 75009'11" W 143.00 feet;
thence N 14050149" E 112.00 feet;
thence S 75009'11" E 82.76 feet;
thence N 14050'49" E 10.00 feet to a point on the South line of
Dean Avenue;
'l1" E 60.24 feet along said South line to a point
thence S 75009
on the West line of vacated Hunter Street;
thence N 14050149" E 50.00 feet along said West line;
thence S 75009'11" E 37.50 feet to a point on the center line of
said vacated Hunter Street;
thence N 14050'49" E 100.00 feet along said center line;
thence S 75009'11" E 37.50 feet to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTING:
A tract of land more particularly described as follows:
' The Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacated Hunter Street, Westerly
of and adjacent to Block 102, City and Townsite of Aspen,
continued on next sheet ...
S C H E D U L E A —Continued
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
--Continued--
GROUP III
ASPEN PARCEL I: (continued)
between the Southerly line of Durant Avenue and the Northerly
line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly
one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street va-
cated by the City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947,
recorded in the Public records of Pitkin County on March 17,
1959 under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at Page 101.
S C H E D U L E A —Continued
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
--Continued--
GROUP III
ASPEN PARCEL J : �(/l4 4 �14" e, Ne 11 ��r�l
1
A tract of land more particularly described as follows:
The Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacated Hunter Street,
Westerly of and adjacent to Block 102, City and Townsite of
Aspen, between the Southerly line of Durant Avenue and the
Northerly line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision, said tract being
the Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of said
Hunter Street,vacated by City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53,
Series of 1947, recorded March 17, 1959 under Reception No.
107787, in Book 181 at Page 101.
or
• • alb�L me.µ, - A • •
Aspen/Pitk-,—, ^ltianning Office
130 south galena street
aspen4f col0 ad"o 81611
,.r
June 26, 1985
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
315 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Gideon,
I have reviewed your conceptual SPA submission for the Little Nell
property and have discussed the project with Jay Hammond and Glenn
Horn to obtain their advice. While the submission is substantially
the same as that we reviewed last month, upon closer examination we
feel that it is not sufficient. I, therefore, ask you to respond to
the following items before I certify it as complete, assign it a
public review date and send it to the referral agencies.
1. I do not think you have addressed the conceptual requirement
to show the design approaches to be employed. Are portions
of the building subgrade, or is it entirely above grade?
What is the basic look of the building? What materials will
be used, and what massing techniques employed? What areas
will be landscaped and which paved?
2. It would be helpful to have a drawing which shows the
various levels internal to the building, the uses which will
occupy each level, and the approximate height from grade of
these levels. I would also like to have a better under-
standing of where the service vehicle and parking access
points are for the facility.
3. You should specifically identify any variations from the CC
standards which you will be requesting. You should also
demonstrate the thinking that went into providing 77 spaces
for ;96 lodge rooms, commercial space and administrative
offices.
Gideon Kaufman
June 26, 1985
Page 2
4. It is unclear from the drawings how members of the public
will be accessing the various services at the base area,
including the lockers, restrooms, and other facilities you
mention. Please provide additional drawings illustrating
pedestrian flows. Please also demonstrate your right to use
the access point off Durant Street.
5. I would prefer it if you bisected the area shown as the
proposed SPA boundary so that the one in which the hotel is
located is designated CC/SPA, while that containing the
lifts is C/SPA. If you disagree, you should indicate your
intent to vary the use tables for the CC zone district. It
is also not clear that the snow cat service function can
operate in the CC zone without a variance, and you may also
want to show this portion of the facility in the Conserva-
tion zone.
6. You mention that the maintenance facility is to be relocated
onto the mountain. As this was not part of the Aspen
Mountain Ski Area Master Plan, please indicate where this
facility will be located and when the Plan will be amended
to address this issue.
7. You should demonstrate that you have evaluated the feasi-
bility of your proposal through a cursory review of the
availability of roads, utilities and other facilities to
serve the project. Any conflicts with existing utility
locations (especially water) should be noted, and an
indication made of how the conflict can be resolved (i.e.,
what do you propose to do with the City's pumphouse?).
8. You must provide us a list of owners of property within 300
feet of the proposed SPA boundary.
9. You must demonstrate ownership of the entire area within
the SPA boundaries. If multiple owners are involved, a
letter of consent to the application from each owner must be
provided.
10. A check in the amount of $2730 must be provided.
Should you have any questions abouttthese requests, I will be happy to
meet with you to discuss the form of your response. Please be aware
that I recognize that conceptual SPA is intended to be a very general
process, similar to making a basic zoning decision about what uses
belong on a piece of property. However, yours is one of the most
critical parcels within the City and will generate significant
attention before any action is taken. I think it is wise to have a
quality submission for review to avoid any charges that we have
adopted an ineffective ordinance.
r • 0
Gideon Kaufman
June 26, 1985
Page 3
You will also note that I have not asked you for any additional
elevation studies at this time. My understanding from our meeting on
June 25th is that these studies are being done on the DWI computer,
will be available for my viewing in advance of any review I will
undertake, and will be available at the public meetings. Please
confirm this fact in your written response to me.
Sincerely,
AS N/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Alan Richman, AICP
Planning and Development
Director
AR:jlr:AR.L3
cc: Jay Hammond
Glenn Horn
• •
As en Pitkin Plannin
P / g Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
441111�-=
May 3, 1985
Gideon Kaufman
315 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Gideon:
This letter is written in response to your letter of April 22, 1985
concerning the development of base facilities in the vicinity of
Little Nell. I have discussed this matter with Paul Taddune and
following are our responses to your questions.
Your first question concerned the timing of GMP submissions for
commercial and lodge projects. As you know, the Code requires submission
of commercial quota applications on August 1 and lodge quota applications
on October 1. We would prefer to review both aspects of the project
at once for the efficiencies this will bring to the process and, more
importantly, for the improved understanding of the project and its
impacts which will emerge from such a comprehensive review.
We are reluctant, at this time, to recommend a change to the submission
date for commercial quota applications simply to benefit a single
project. We think it is inequitable to other applicants in the
commercial zones to alter the date when no code amendments are planned
which would affect submissions. However, if the SPA Code Amendment
process were to grind to a halt this month, we would be much more open
to this suggestion. Furthermore, if it turns out that vours is the
only project submitted for an allotment in the CC/C-1 zone district
competition, we would be quite prepared to recommend to P&Z that your
project not be reviewed until the lodge submitted is made in October.
Your second question concerns the effect of change of use on the
City's lodge quota. As you correctly note, it you remove units from
the lodging inventory and deed restrict±or*.- them as employee housing,
the Code requires that the lodge quota be correspondingly adjusted
upwards. However, there is no provision in the Code whatsoever that
these units are reserved for the party whose action made the units
available. Staff is not prepared to support such an amendment, but if
you wish to pursue this idea, you should submit a privately initiated
Code amendment by August 15 of this year. I also remind you that
Council has not yet disposed of the issue of adding the Alpina Haus or
Copper Horse units back to the lodge quota upon their deed restriction,
nor has it decided that these units will be removed f rom the residential
quota upon this conversion. If this issue is finally resolved, there
will be an additional 50-55 units in the lodge quota for all applicants
in coming years.
t•.0�}rt"�1
Gideon Kaufman
May 3, 1985
Page 2
Your third question concerns the concept of a multi -year lodge allocation
to the project. As you know, the allocation to the Aspen Mountain
Lodqe takes all units available through the 1986 competition. Therefore,
were your project to compete successfully, it would be requesting an
allocation from the 1987 Quota (unless the Aspen Mountain Lodge
forfeits its allocation or the above described change in use credit is
completed) . As we read the Code, there is nothing to prevent you from
requesting the allocation of future units in a multi -year configuration.
Obviously, the burden will be on the applicant to demonstrate the
reasonabiness of the request, the community benefit which will result
and how the project fits within the overall plans and policies of the
community.
I hope these comments are of assistance to you. Pleases let me or
Paul know if we can otherwise help you during the pre -application
stage of the process.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Acting Planning Director
AR/ne c
11
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
HAND DELIVERY
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
BOX 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
April 22, 1985
Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: SPA/GMP at Little Nell
Dear Alan:
' E�CE=1VE
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
I write this letter pursuant to our meeting of
Thursday, April 11, 1985, with Bill Kane, Peter Forsch and
Paul Taddune. I would like to briefly summarize the meeting
and set forth the questions we would like answered, in
writing, in the near future.
The first item discussed was the timetable for
adoption of the SPA Ordinance. It was decided that although
you would be out of town on April 22nd it was desirable to
begin the process and therefore schedule first reading of the
SPA Ordinance for the City Council meeting on April 22nd. A
public hearing and discussion of the Ordinance would be
scheduled for May 13th. We determined that a study session
with the City Council prior to that May 13th public hearing
was imperative -- preferably sometime between the 8th and the
13th of May. This timetable allows for a public discussion
of the Ordinance with you present at which time the Ordinance
could be adopted. Your input and attendance at the May 13,
1985, City Council meeting will be very helpful for public
discussion because you really understand the Ordinance and
its changes and can provide invaluable guidance to the
Council during the public discussion of these issues.
Because the first reading of the Ordinance will not be a
public hearing, we all agreed it is not necessary for you to
attend that meeting.
As was pointed out in the meeting we have been
waiting for the adoption of this Ordinance since last fall
and as an accommodation to the City and the Cantrup Trustee
we allowed the matter to be tabled for six months pending the
resolution of the Cantrup bankruptcy. That has now been
resolved and the adoption of the SPA must now move forward as
expeditiously as possible.
C
•
Alan Richman
April 22, 1985
Page 2
Once the new SPA Ordinance is passed we will
present our conceptual SPA plan and SPA boundary adjustment
request for the Little Nell property. Obviously, a timely
approval of the conceptual SPA is critical because of the
rapidly approaching deadlines for GMP applications. Your
questioning of the political wisdom of having the City and
public discuss the commercial aspect of the hotel proposed
for the Little Nell area prior to the actual Lodge GMP
hearing is very well taken. We would therefore ask that the
Planning Office recommend either undertaking a joint review
of the commercial and lodge applications during the Lodge GMP
hearings in November or the changing of this year's
submission deadline for the commercial GMP to a later date.
Ample justification exists either to push back the commercial
GMP filing deadline or to undertake both the lodge and
commercial reviews simultaneously in light of the time
constraints surrounding the adoption of the SPA and also in
light of the Planning office's current staffing situation.
The Planning Office is presently understaffed and if new
personnel in City case work were hired it would be beneficial
for them to have additional time to become acclimated to
their positions and to the City GMP Process.
During the conceptual SPA process it will be
important to discuss the transfer of density concept which
would be employed by the Aspen Skiing Company. We would like
to remove existing lodge rooms owned by the Aspen Skiing
Company from the lodge market and convert them to permanent
employee housing. This action is presently recognized under
the City Code in the "Change in Use" provisions and adds the
removed units back into the lodge GMP quota. We would like
to get the Planning Office support for assuring that the
quota would be immediately replaced and that the extra quota
would be reserved for one year for the party whose action
made it available for the quota. Having this option
available is essential to the Aspen Skiing Company's ability
to construct the hotel without having to require too many
years' GMP allocations.
The Aspen Skiing Company development plan may need
multi year and/or future year lodge allocations -- how can
this be accomplished? Due to the complexity of the
development and our desire to incorporate the hotel into the
master plan for renovations at the base of Little Nell, a
multi year or future allocation becomes important. Since an
SPA precise plan approval can only be given for those
portions of a project which have received GMP aopproval how
can these approvals be harmonized with our project or will it
it require a variation by Aspen City Council.
•
Alan Richman
April 22, 1985
Page 3
As we explained at the meeting we intend to
minimize the SPA expansion into the conservation area. This
hopefully will mitigate the unfounded concerns of many of the
neighbors that our project will go all the way up Little
Nell. It is our intention to keep as much of the project to
the toe of the mountain as possible thereby mitigating
reasonable concerns.
In sum, we would like your written response to the
following:
1. Will the Planning Office either recommend a
joint lodge and commercial GMP review during the lodge GMP
reveiw process or recommend changing the deadline for
applications for the commercial GMP to a later date?
2. Will the Planning Office recommend allowing
transfer of density for lodge units converted to employee
units in accordance with the Aspen Skiing Company's plan
outlined above?
3. How can we proceed to receive multi -year or
future -year allocations so that our complete precise plan can
be approved this year.
I speak for Peter, Bill and myself in thanking you
and Paul for a very helpful meeting that aired a lot of
issues and concerns that we had as we embarked upon this
project. If there are any additional areas that I have left
out that you would like to cover in your answering letter I
would look forward to it, otherwise I hope that you would be
able to respond to this letter pending your discussions with
Paul as expeditiously as possible.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
GlIdeon Kaufman
GK/kl /1
cc: Peter Forsch
Bill Kane
Paul Taddune, Esq.
•
•
7
•
•
M
Plant List
GvMMol.l N4M*,
giZE
GoNv,
50TaIJ 1 c4-1, >JaM E
�,6NOPr TIC E>;�
�bPUI.Ud�-�MUJ.aIlr;�
GuJMv
��-a�cINLJ� p�uN�-n-Jb�Jlca J,alJccor,a-ra
ca�-.
�vB�Izi:EiJ "Tp•E�
t^jOVOp-aliti (/1�RIJGE
$'HT.
�%?>
plG�b PUNC�FIJ�i
LOI�bEV�C�L.Fi p1 b.J�
zjb.60 FIR- .,
b' +�T•
3 P
LJWU6a MEN>✓z11 �oL,a�Ga
�rG�
OP-IJbN181.JTaL. 7R-W4
Ulz- MapI.E
IG
Poi
46*P.- �1�11Jdl.a
-Wt��
PLPw&az w e a �,a.0
2''
�✓
M4.L.UO G1 PP.
cal,
6000U061TC4 0"
jI
M t
A2-IUNLJ40 �/11�f71f.IIQIJtS ' r/jf-1U7J�W'f '
Gdl�.
�►+wJ$r/i
GOP•JIJGj 0rrOL.0Q1F6iL4 ' GOL.o�•aaEN�I`j
C,�W-E ooieo '(
�Ca6�
PcT1'
f'R-uNUy M�eI.Ai•IOGap-I°d
al.Pl NE
(:-
707
F-IBE,:I 4�P1�-IUM
�IJQWI3EW:-'�
; (tI.
ft r
ti MPH Olzl Gales-r o� G�-�✓��
�uNIPG�-
rim-
Far
JUMP&iioUGJ Gf-h1N�N�iIS
;2CX,u--� MTIJ GJI�-E471 Nfp J IJ IJ 1 P6P-
h bG
f�'r
JUNIPEI�oUh GoMMLJNIti I-f01�•IZGNT4L.I�i
Mow
fV1JIJ41 MUbo MU 6LJ�i
6�oU IJ I7Gv�/,;,I�
09-ele? Nb
;tT
poTEu-n L.L.A. . Vo tJa 1Jd+J4
WTo4.J6012-0PT
oe7U �
Durant Avenue
Notes,
1
I� N.I. E�CI'(�jTlNro PL.�.NT MaTBtZ.I4Jl� lu ZOIJ'E oNE or
iL. o. W, S W1u. ft
2 ,7.OUE OI•IE WI L.L. " VI✓Ve.L oPSV 31-r -rHr- 4avON
,40.1we C0MnQr1 aT IT,!:; ov/ 05KP61.Jc4p, WITa-+
IQRJ,r PR.O Y Il-is Ac2p W Lo 17 os / wr iEET
IMp0-ov9.IME+J1r
IN PL4GE X -rl-+E -nMe ofg V C4I(1wQ •
s),,%01J6 2 Wtl,l, IsjJ'i 19P.V0l.pPEl7 1`sJt7 FUIJI��'�J" i
'fl-r a Londe I Urrt��t I M?1z-�/E� E I.1T 191 � Tiz I GT
WITI�-I 1�TIGIPaTIOIJ �' 'r+-IE �P�1J ��III.J6
ooMP4J�Y
+, ZONE 411.4 WILL. " COMF-%.rev
pH6�4 ay i7$��,2IbEb IN TH8
IP-i� I Ca4•'r�.D
I I.J 'TW
aTrbG+��p -T�>CT
co - PIL 4.IJ•r MCOW-I4L60 WI IOL, " 4eL-e r,-rr,-v F=-go IA 7;� e
4�coMI�1N'�I+.Ib I�L.al.hr l,lyT,
Stair
C414iR- WILL. PJE epula-r To fpj�IPp
/SGGFjG j TO -'r+�e ow-;P6 pF aG�v�1J MT�I.
- Pedestrian Trail
• 4 Tlaiy, E4:0EMENT W11.1. pRp�Ib�tD 4T THt�
1;-?P V of 4 4?s J M-rJ ' 'To tL1.L.ovJ PEDt t -IdN
4i,jo (GE aGGsg�GJ aca00"
Planters
- pL4l, g,e> ' dN17 PL.4IJ•r1Nb4::0 WIL.I. 4909:"TEIJ
'T f I r- , MbT;lzl d� Gi ,
m-
Lighting
�17E� ?�IaIJ vJca1.� L.161-ITI N6 (It'• ly') WHIGI•>` I�
GoMPGTGI�I.v W1-r►-I ->�-EE Ul��-GtUh1171IJC�
GDMMLJW IT-( WIL *s p /iaVia.
-- Ticket Kiosks
• TI U� E T wG�JV'GJ VAr+IGH 4L020 vi F 04t ACV PtJ ek- iG
� IUFow�laTlo+J Y,Io�I�i WILL 13F 12jU�1.,"r.
^:
W
— Plant Material
• Foy T t�1c4L. IoI.a.NT Y4'r00-lam 'I" Vae-2 4Nt7
4145141 �6E 11� 6 r-14k'r L.Iwrl
--►ZFF,y Nl� LOr.A,`0D 1 N Iry.41J'1'�t o i` ti�I�pM-I+J�
Paving
- Pavl�Jr w1L.,,
G01J G R-Fi?tom
(,DN GP-IC'r�t
C,OJC411�p-r of tl' ►3�coM Flub+-h
f>�- 4�J Pr�4LT �� •
Seathg
Jc�G 01= Jr
pr�1>7�� IJ ���ErzaL. I.oGeGTION!!.
REVISIONS
Project 701
Drawn By
Checked By
Scale 1"=30'
7L7%mr NORTH
0 15' 30' 45' 75'
Date Issued for
12-18-85 GMP/SPA
Landscape
Development Plan
4
•