HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Little Nell SPA.1986HELL
i
March 26, 1986
Aspen City Council
130 So. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
JI, ,
design workshop, inc.
710 e. durant
aspen, Colorado 81611
303/92.5-8354
The following materials are hereby formally submitted for
inclusion in your public hearing record dated March 26,1986
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Little Nell GMP/SPA submission dated December, 1985.
Supplemental drawing index submitted December, 1985.
Memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning and Development
Director, to Aspen City Council, dated September 17, 1985.
Ordinance of the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, extending
the boundary of the SPA overlay across a portion of the
Little Nell base area.
Resolution No. 85-18 of the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission recommending conceptual approval of the Little
Nell Base Redevelopment SPA.
Memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning Office, to Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, dated January 21, 1986.
City of Aspen Planning* and Zoning Commission evaluation L-1,
L-2 GMP score sheets dated January'21, 1986.
Memorandum from Jay Hammond, Public Services Director, to
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director, dated
January 6, 1986.
Memorandum from Thomas S. Dunlop, Director, Environmental
Health Department, to Alan Richman, Planning Office, dated
December 14, 1985.
Memorandum from Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official, to Alan
Richman, Planning Director, dated January 6, 1986.
Memorandum from Bill Ness, Parks Department, to Alan
Richman, Planning Department, dated January 9, 1986.
Memorandum from Jim Markalunas to Alan Richman, Planning
Office, dated December 23, 1985.
commUnity development land planning landscape architecture
o Memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning and Development
Director, to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, dated
January 23, 1986.
o Memorandum from Jay Hammond, City Engineering, to Alan
Richman, Planning and Development Director, dated January
20, 1986.
o Memorandum from Tom Newland, Planning Engineer, to Alan
Richman, Planning and Development Director, dated January
24, 1986.
o Letter from Jeffrey L. Hynes, Colorado Geological Survey, to
Alan Richman, Aspen/Pi.tkin Planning Office, dated January 6,
1986.
o Memorandum from Jay Hammond, City Engineering, to Alan
Richman, Planning and Development Director, dated March 3,
1986.
o Memorandum from A.J. Zabbia, Jr., Rea, Cassens, and
Associates, Inc., to Jay Hammond, City Engineering, dated
February 20, 1986.
o Little Nell GMP/SPA Precise Plan submission, Executive
Summary, dated March 14, 1986.
o Memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning and Development
Director, to Aspen City Council, dated March 19, 1986.
o Resolution #86-3 of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
recommending Precise Plan approval of the Little Nell base
redevelopment SPA
o Letter from Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director,
to Fred Smith, Planning Director, Aspen Skiing Co., dated
March 18, 1986.
o Resolution #2 (series of 1986) a resolution forwarding the
1985 City of Aspen L-1/L-2/CC/CL and other zone district
growth management score for the Little Nell base
redevelopment lodge GMP application.
o Four photographs of a computer simulation of the proposed
gondola building dated Marcia 24, 1986.
o Index of Drawings
SPA Illustrative Site Plan
Fig.
1
Schematic Site Plan - Phase One
Fig.
2
Schematic Site Plan - Completion Phase
Fig.
3
Drop-off Option I
Fig.
4
Drop-off Option II
Fig.
5
Drop-off Option III
Fig.
6
Drop-off Option IV
Fig.
7
Dzop-off Option V
Fig.
8
Hotel Drop-off A
Fig.
9
Hotel Drop-off B
Fig.
10
Proposed Skier Drop-off
Fig.
11
Lift Terminal Plan
Fig.
12
Lift Terminal Section
Fig.
13
Section at Durant Street
Fig.
14
West Wing Floor Plan
Fig.
15
West Wing 0 Level Plan
Fig.
16
Section at Durant St. -View Planes
Fig.
17
Section at Hotel Plaza
Fia.
18
West Wing Building Section
Fig.
19
Building Sections AA and BB
Fig.
20
West and North Elevations at West Wing
Fig.
21
Gondola Building Profile
Fig.
22
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manage 6:'
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Directorn�
RE: Little Nell Review Schedule
DATE: March 19, 1986
------------------------------------- ------
Attached for your review is the Planning Office's analysis of
the
Tittle Nell Precise
Plan.
This comprehensive
memo is the only
one
which we intend to produce
for this stage of the
review, and therefore
should be brought to
each
of the following meetings (along with
the
- applicant's executive
summary
which was provided
to yob earlier).
DATE
TIME
LOCATION
Wednesday, March
19
5:00-7:00 PM
Council Chambers
Monday, March 24
Regular Meeting
Community Center
Wednesday, March
26
5:00-7:00 PM
Council Chambers
Monday, March 31
4:00-6:00 PM
Council Chambers
Tuesday, April 1
5:00-7:00 PM
Council Chambers
Please call me if you
have
any questions about
the schedule or
the
attached memo.
AR.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manage
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Little Nell Precise Plan
DATE: March 19, 1986
APPLICANT: Aspen Skiing Company
ZONING/LOT SIZE: The base area of Little Nell is presently zoned
_ CC/SPA and C. Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1985, .which received
first reading approval from Council at the conceptual stage, will
place an SPA Overlay on that portion of the base area zoned C.
Final action on that ordinance should only be taken when Council
is ready to take final action on the Precise Plan. The area
zoned CC/SPA comprises 43,124 s.f., while the area zoned C
requested for inclusion within the SPA Overlay comprises 45,738
s.f., for a total lot size of 88,862 s.f.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: At this stage of the review process, the
following land use reviews are before the City Council:
1. Final action on SPA Precise Plan;
2. Final action on Ordinance 53, Series of 1985;
3. Final action on change in use GMP exemption to convert
the Holiday House from lodging to employee housing;
4. Final action on encroachment (vendor's agreement) into
Dean Street; and
5. Allotment of lodge units to the project (multi -year
allotment requested; allotment for additional commer-
cial space not yet submitted, but anticipated on August
1, 1986) .
Final actions taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission
included the following:
1. Grant of Conditional Use Permit for hotel in CC zone
and ski lifts in the C zone district; and
2. Grant of mountain viewplane and 8040 greenline ap-
provals.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: In order to provide Council with an
organized sequence in which to consider this application, we
suggest that issues be taken in the following order:
A. Analysis of proj ect's compliance with conditions of concep-
tual approval:
1. Architecture, site design and lift configuration.
2. Access, circulation and parking.
3. Geologic hazards, drainage, grading, utilities and
employee housing.
4. Miscellaneous issues which have been resolved.
B. Evaluation of consistency with precise plan review criteria.
C. Specification of zoning regulations to apply to the parcel,
variations permitted, construction schedule and mitigation
of construction impacts.
D. Growth Management allotments.
E. SPA Overlay Rezoning (Ordinance 53, Series of 1985) .
Our review of these issues follows, and should be used alongside
the executive summary provided to Council by the applicant which
provides the graphics to illustrate the points contained herein.
A. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. Council Resolution
No. 85-33 set 25 conditions of approval of the applicant's
conceptual plan. These conditions set the framework within
which the applicant and the P&Z have been working to develop
a precise plan in keeping with the site's unique location
and function. Therefore, our analysis of the applicant's
compliance with these conditions forms an integral part of
our evaluation of the suitability of the precise plan
itself.
1. Conditions Concerning Architecture, Site Design and
Lift Configuration. The issues to be discussed in this
section are open space (Condition No. 1), skier drop
off (Condition No. 7), visual impact (Condition No. 4),
shadows (Condition No. 15), pedestrian gateway (Condi-
tion No. 1 9) , encroachments (Condition No. 23) , lift
building design (Condition No. 12), lift service
(Condition No. 13), snow shedding (Condition No. 16)
and FAR (Condition No. 2) .
"1. The applicant shall amend the site plan to provide
K
E
open space along the length of the Durant Street
frontage of the hotel, so as to create a courtyard
of at least 10 feet in depth . The open space
requirement shall be considered in coordination
with rather than in addition to the area to be set
aside for the on -site drop-off facility required
in condition #7 below."
During the conceptual review, we raised a concern that
the open space on the site, being at the rear of the
building, did not meet the requirement of Section 24-
3.7(d) that open space be open to the street. By the
conclusion of that stage of the review we suggested
that the open space along Spring Street could be
justified as technically meeting this requirement.
Therefore, when the condition was rewritten, reference
to the technical requirement was dropped in favor of a
- simple statement that open space be -provided along
Durant to create a courtyard effect.
When Condition No. 1 was written, we had in mind that
the skier drop-off area could be set in the midst of
open space, and that the two areas need not result in a
total requirement for 20 or more feet of set back.
However, we did not anticipate that the drop-off area
would be designed to occupy the entire frontage, and
would essentially be used instead of providing open
space, as it was in the original design provided to the
Planning Commission at the Precise Plan stage.
The original Precise Plan reviewed by P&Z showed the
building moved back the minimum of 10 feet which had
been required by Council, with the skier drop-off
thereby extending partly into the Durant Avenue right-
of-way. This aspect of the Plan received relatively
low scores from P&Z in the GMP process, and caused the
applicant to re -think the project's design.
The revised plan, which was accepted by P&Z, was for
the building to be moved back another 10 feet on the
site, with the following results:
o The skier drop-off is accommodated fully within
the applicant's property.
o Views to the mountain have been improved.
o Shadow effects on Durant Avenue have been reduced.
o Four hotel units and a limited amount of accessory
space have been eliminated from the project.
3
C� J
•
The major trade-offs for these several benefits are:
o The image of the hotel on Durant Avenue is still
influenced by the presence of the parking area.
To mitigate this problem, the applicant proposes
to continue the Hunter Street paving program into
the drop-off area, and to do plantings in front of
the hotel and along the drop-off lane.
o The building no longer sits along Durant, but
instead is placed well back from the street. To
maximize pedestrian activity in the downtown, and
to be consistent with the character of our
victorian town, it is normally considered prefer-
able to have storefronts directly on the street.
Buildings such as Ajax Mountain and City Plaza are
examples of how "dead" open space is not prefer-
able to on -street building frontage. . The appli-
cant demonstrated to the Planning Commission that
the arcade in front of the building could serve
the function of an active street front and would
draw people walking in either direction along
Durant or from the Hunter Street Plaza into this
walkway.
o There are potential conflicts from the drop-off
onto Durant Avenue, which are discussed in detail
below.
Given the overlapping benefits which accrue from moving
the building back to its proposed location, we feel
that the proposal is a reasonable solution. We support
the applicant's argument that the mall area through
Hunter Street, and extending from the deck of the hotel
to the deck at the Tippler is the best location to have
people gather, given its sun exposure, mountainside
views and the skiing/socializing and shopping activi-
ties which are planned there. Once it is accepted that
a hotel is an appropriate use for the site, as was done
by Council at the conceptual level, we feel that the
orientation of the hotel and the pedestrian spaces has
been properly planned.
117. The applicant shall revise the site plan to
indicate an auto -taxi -limo drop-off facility
of adequate size for the needs of the ski
area, which is in addition to any drop-off
area for hotel guests. As the Council is
concerned about maintaining adequate traffic
flows on Durant Avenue, it is expected that
the applicant will address the proper
location for this facility within the
4
project's property boundary."
In conjunction with pushing the building back an
additional 10 feet, the applicant presented several
alternative designs for the skier drop-off area. The
P&Z originally chose an alternative which totally
separated the traffic circulation in the drop-off area
from that for the hotel. This solution pushed the
entrance to the hotel off the Durant/Spring corner,
onto Spring Street and created an impractical series of
turning movements out of the drop-off area and into the
hotel. A revised plan, which was presented to and
accepted by the P&Z subject to final approval by the
City Engineer has the following key features:
o The drop-off function is contained within the
applicant's property, and provides 9-10 spaces.
o The planting island between the drop-off and the
street is intended to buffer the vivw of the hotel
frontage. A sidewalk has also been provided in
the island to enhance pedestrian movement.
o Parallel parking for four cars will be permitted
alongside the island. The edge of this parking is
at the edge of the angle parking which now occurs
at the North of Nell and Aspen Club Lodge Build-
ings.
The City Engineer has serious concerns about the
impacts of this design, due to the presence of three
curb cuts on Durant Avenue. Jay Hammond is reviewing
the plan, and considering recommending that the curb
cuts be reduced from three to two. As will be demon-
strated to you at the meeting, either of these ap-
proaches creates car turning conflicts, but with three
cuts these conflicts are on the public street, while
with two cuts the conflict is on the applicant's
property.
4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the
impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen
Mountain from Hunter Street, and propose any
design changes which will reduce obstructions
of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or
Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed
architectural renderings and elevations shall
be provided at the Precise Plan stage."
The applicant has provided a computer simulated view of
the hotel as it will appear f rom Hunter Street at the
Durant and Cooper corners. These simulations are
5
evidence that the critical viewplane from the town to
the Little Nell run and Bell Mountain will be preserved
through the hotel's design approach. The Council
should require that these simulations be augmented by
the addition of the proposed gondola terminal building
to insure that this viewplane has been preserved. It
should also be recognized that the views presented from
the east and west on Durant demonstrate that the
building will fill in the one remaining open area along
this street, and complete the "walled in" feeling from
the Aspen Club Lodge and North of Nell Buildings.
Finally, Council should be informed of the applicant's
commitments to P&Z that no equipment on the roof of the
building will be visible from Durant Avenue or the base
area, and that no height variation from the 40 foot CC
zone standard is required to build this project.
"15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of
the effects of the building along Durant
Avenue and Spring Street, anti mitigate the
problems caused by the building's shadows for
pedestrians crossing the street."
The applicant's original shadow study stated that
"Durant Avenue will be in shade for most of the winter.
In December, shadows from the Little Nell Hotel will
shade the street north of the Hotel all day. By the
end of February, most of the driving surface of Durant
Avenue will be in the sun from 10:30 - 1:30. The south
side of Durant, adjacent to the Hotel, will remain in
shade all winter." This study was revised after the
building was moved back to demonstrate a significantly
less, although still apparent, shading effect on the
street.
The applicant's response to this problem is that "a
major pedestrian crossing be constructed at the
intersection of Durant and Hunter Street at the
applicant's expense. Included in this plan is a neck
down of the street to two travel lanes at the intersec-
tion. We advised P&Z that with Durant acting as a
major thoroughfare for downtown, this neck down may be
ill advised, and may create turning conflicts into the
drop-off area. The Commission considered our concerns,
and the manner in which the neck down in front of the
courthouse functions, and determined that the neck down
is a desireable addition to the plan. The Commis-
sioners felt that if the neck down were pulled back 1
to 2 feet, it would allow pedestrians a chance to react
to on -coming traffic, but would improve their view of
that traffic. Further, they felt that much of the
shading problem had been solved by the new building
ON
•
location, and therefore,
proposed as adequate.
accepted the mitigation
"19. The applicant shall make every effort,
including working with the City of Aspen, to
increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway
to the mountain so as to make it a more
"grand" entrance in the winter and summer."
In essence, the plan for the pedestrian gateway to the
mountain is quite similar to that proposed at the
conceptual level, and was not found by P&Z to be
significantly more "grand." The applicant made the
following representations to the P&Z as to improvements
in the gateway concept:
o Pushing the building back has slightly increased
the width of the Hunter Street entrance to the
mountain.
o The roof on the western portion o the building
has been sloped more than in other locations to
increase the feeling of spaciousness in the
pedestrian mall.
o The mall paving/landscaping theme has been carried
into the drop-off area in front of the hotel.
o A paving link will be created between the deck at
Little Nell and that of the Tippler, to include
the maze area for the gondola, which will be a
substantial milling area for apres-ski, events and
summer visitors.
o There will be formal landscaping at the rear of
the hotel, which will transition into a more
natural mountain environment in the vicinity of
the lift towers.
Council should be aware that the ASC has broken the
mall proposal into Zone I, comprising all of Hunter
Street and that portion of Dean Street between Hunter
and the Tippler, and Zone II, which involves the
Tippler frontage to Galena Street. ASC intends to pay
for the improvements in Zone I, and to participate with
its neighbors in the improvements to Zone II. The
likely vehicle for these improvements is the Lodge
Improvement District, but the ASC agreed that if Zone I
is completed before the District is underway, they
would pave Dean Street with materials consistent with
the rest of Dean Street, and restrict the entrance to
the Street such that it is limited to authorized
7
vehicle access only (e.g., Tipple Inn residents and
service vehicles for the Tippler). This arrangement
appeared to satisfy both the Planning Commission and
the Tipple Inn residents, who had previously objected
to the AS C proposals in this area.
"23. The applicant shall disclose at the Precise
Plan stage all plans related to the Dean
Street right-of-way, including any requests
for encroachments as may be necessary."
The applicant has disclosed the plans for Dean Street
and made an encroachment request of the City Engineer-
ing Department for paving, landscaping, street furni-
ture, ski ticket sales booths and skier drop-off
parking. We have, however, received a comment from
the City Attorney that an encroachment may be the wrong
tool to address these improvements. Paul suggests that
the use of Dean Street by ASC for its ticket kiosk,
landscaping and street furniture is similar to the
arrangement by McDonalds to add facilities to, and use
the mall, which was done by a "vendor's agreement" with
the City. In this sense, we differentiate the en-
croachment of a private building into a public right-
of-way from the use of public space for public type
improvements, to allow business to be conducted in
these areas. We, therefore, recommend that Council
enter into a vendor's agreement with the applicant, in
which the applicant indemnifies the City for any
liability associated with its improvements, and agrees
to maintain the mall for the period of the agreement.
"12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings
of the new base lifts, demonstrating that
these buildings are visually compatible with
the base area and that the principal storage
area for either chairs or gondolas will not
be above grade at the base area."
The applicant was only able to provide P&Z with the
design parameters for the gondola building, as the
structure itself is still in the design stage. The
applicant's presentation identified some of the
critical variables which defined the building's
location, including the following:
o It is essential that the gondola follow a route
which keeps its profile as low to the ground as
possible, to minimize wind disturbance. Given
existing lifts and mountain forms, orientation of
the lift building is relatively fixed.
8
o The gondola requires an extensive flat area,
including a "negative" grade, to permit accelera-
tion of the cars to necessary speeds. This area
also serves- the function of skier slow down,
maz ing and entry to the building. The design of
this area is intended to minimize skier climbing
to get into the building.
o The building's form is set by its function,
including a height to cover the machinery and
allow for maintenance work (about 22-25 feet) a
width to provide not only for the lift, but also
for the underground entry to the building of
supplies for the mountain restaurant (about 40-45
feet) and a length to include the acceleration
facilities (about 55-60 feet). It was noted that
if the capacity of the lift were to be increased
at some point in the f ut u re, the _length of the
building would also increase (to 10�feet).
o It is the architect's intention to create a
building which uses primarily transparent materi-
als to create visual interest and minimize its
impact on views.
The Planning Commission deferred its consideration of
the' detailed design of the building to the Council
Precise Plan review, recognizing that the required
drawings would take some time to complete. As was
noted above, the Council should pay particular atten-
tion to the building's effect on the Hunter Street
viewplane and make every effort to preserve that public
view corridor. We also recommend that consideration be
given to refraining from affecting the function of the
gondola by setting artificial building constraints
which will be counter to the best interests of the
community over the long-term.
"13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment
as to how lift service will be provided on
Little Nell for special events, ski instruc-
tions and for secondary access to Lift 5.
The applicant will show the location of all
lifts proposed for the base area and will
provide a commitment that their installation
will be initiated in 1987. The applicant
shall be required to specify to the City
which lift system is intended to be installed
prior to review of the Precise Plan by the
City Council, also giving the Planning Office
approximately two (2) weeks to review the
proposal and obtain referral comments from
E
other agencies prior to the initial presenta-
tion of the Precise Plan to Council."
Since the applicant has chosen to install a gondola,
rather than a detachable quad chair, the issue of lift
service to Little Nell has come into clearer focus.
Attached for your information is a letter which I wrote
to the ASC amending the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master
Plan (AMSAMP) to provide for the installation of a new
lift #4A. The lift is expected to be a triple chair
(although double or quad configurations are still under
consideration) , capacity of 1200 skiers at one time
(SAOT) which will not operate as an initial access
lift. The lift will function as a backup to the
gondola, if the latter is out of service or running at
reduced capacity, and will provide ski school and
special event access to the Little Nell Run, but will
not operate until 10:00 A.M., while the gondola will
open at 8:30 A.M. If the ASC intends to alter the
operation of the lift, this will be considered a major
plan amendment, to allow the City and County to address
the on -site and off -site impacts of any capacity
increase which would result.
The new lift program has been reviewed with, and found
acceptable by the U.S. Forest Service, which is now
considering the amendment to their Master Plan for
Aspen Mountain. I have also received verbal comments
from the USFS that their landscape architect has looked
at the base area design for the ski area and feels that
it will function properly. Finally, the USFS has
indicated that they are meeting with ASC to develop a
program to bring the lift towers into conformance with
applicable visual appearance criteria (i.e., painting)
and would like a condition applied to the project to
insure that this occurs.
"16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techni-
ques to be employed on the roof of the hotel
to manage snow shedding to insure that it
does not interfere with or endanger pedes-
trians below."
The applicant has provided us with a schematic drawing
of the features designed into the building to manage
the snow on the roof. The techniques employed include
a flat slope on the roof top to retain snow, avalanche
guards at the edge of the sloped portions of the roof,
use of dormers to protect entryways and use of a flat
roof on the arcade to protect pedestrians. This
presentation satisfied the concerns of P&Z, and should
be reviewed by Council to insure that you are also
10
i
•
comfortable with the proposed approach.
"2. The applicant shall,
in the Precise Plan
submission, request
a variation of the
project's FAR if it is
above 1.5:1, since the
land zoned Conservation
does not count toward
the overall project FAR. The applicant may
also request special
review approval to
increase the allowable
commercial FAR of the
property to 1.7:1 by
providing employee
housing in the appropriate
ratio on or off
site."
The applicant has indicated that the project's FAR is
about 1.93:1, using the land area zoned CC, and about
0.94:1, using the land zoned CC as well as that zoned
C. These numbers are based on the actual building size
proposed at 81,265 s.f., plus 2,000 s.f. requested by
the applicant to provide for miscellaneous building
- needs which may become apparent during final design and
construction.
Since the Conservation zone does not allow the hotel or
retail uses, we continue to recommend that the same
method of FAR calculation as was used for the Aspen
Mountain PUD be applied to this project. This rule
states that we do not calculate the FAR using land in a
zone in which the use is not allowed. Council should
also note that Ordinance No.2, Series of 1986, elimi-
nates the ability to obtain bonus FAR when off -site
housing is provided. Therefore, the applicant should
be viewed as requesting an FAR variation from 1.5:1 to
1.93:1, a substantial increase of about 25 percent over
the allowable FAR, although within the maximum 2.0:1
permitted in the CC zone when employee housing is
provided on -site. This variation should, however, be
permitted, if Council finds the design of the building
to be suitable for this site as presented.
The Planning Commission supported the Planning Office
in its calculation methodology, and recommended that
you grant the requested FAR variation to the project.
2. Conditions Concerning Access, Circulation and Parking. The
issues to be discussed in this section include parking needs
(Condition No. 3) , adequacy of streets (Condition No. 9) ,
service areas (Condition No. 8) and trails (Condition No.
1 8) .
"3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical
study of the parking needs of the facility to meet
11
the demands from the lodge rooms, skiers, adminis-
trative offices, commercial spaces - and skier
support facilities, and shall increase the number
of spaces to be provided at the Precise Plan
stage."
TDA has accomplished the requested study and based on their
recommendations, the number of parking spaces has been
increased from 77 to 116. (Note: There are •83 spaces, not
85 on Level -22, and 33 on Level -12, for a total of 116 and
not 118 spaces, as represented.) Following is a category by
category calculation of the applicant's proposal as compared
to the Code requirements:
SPACES TYPICAL CODE CODE
CATDGORY STANDARD APPLIED PROPOSED* STANDARD** REQMT
Lodge Units (92) 0.55-0.7 spaces/unit 53/67 1/unit 92
Administrative Replace Existing 27/7 3-4/1000 s.f. 17
Offices (4883 s.f.)
Retail (20,553 s.f.) 0.1-0.8 per 1000 s.f. 2/17 4/1000 s.f. 82
Restaurant 1/1000 s.f. 5 4/1000 s.f. 20
(5196 s.f.)
Skier (1300 skiers AMSAMP approval 46*** N/A N/A
added) (off -site)
* Range reflects winter vs. summer.
** No parking is required in the CC zone for lodge or commercial uses.
These standards reflect those of the most similar zone for the
proposed mix of uses, the L-1/L-2 zone districts.
*** As a condition of AMSAMP, ASC agreed to provide 46 spaces either at
Little Nell, off -site (no location designated) or via cash contribu-
tion to parking or transit facilities of at least $460,000, but not
more than $690,000 (based on $10-15,000 per space, to be specified by
a City study). The condition also stated that "under no circumstances
will the automobile parking requirement of Pitkin County be increased
unless ASC proposes additional daily capacity increases on Aspen
Mountain in the future."
Based on the standards applied by the consultant, the
applicant argued that 92-101 spaces will be demanded for the
project in the winter versus the summer (92 = 53 + 5 + 27 +
2 + 5; 101 = 67 + 5 + 7 + 17 + 5) , and, theref ore, some
credit should be given to ASC against the 46 space require-
ment. The P&Z rejected this request, but approved the
proposal to provide 118 spaces subgrade on site as meeting
the project's needs. It should be noted that in the discus-
sion of the impact of the project on City streets, the
consultant stated that 67 cars would be generated by the ski
12
capacity increase approved by Pitkin County in 1985. The
P&Z considered increasing the 46 space requirement by an
additional 21 spaces, but this motion was defeated by a 4-3
vote.
Staff has numerous comments on the information provided by
the consultant, including the following:
o The parking standard applied to the Aspen Mountain
Lodge and to the hotels at the Highlands base of
0.7 spaces per unit is the minimum which we can
justify for this facility.
o It is reasonable to assume that many of the
visitors to the shops will already be on the site
for other reasons. However, the standard of one
space per 1000 s.f. of restaurant is exceptionally
low. We would expect some guests to the luxury
dining facilities to arrive at the port cochere
and expect valet parking to be available.
Further, no space has been provided for visitors
who may attend a conference on the site, whether
they be in -town residents or guests from other
lodges. Invariably, some limited parking will be
needed for such facilities. The accessory parking
need for conference is included in the above -noted
standard of 0.7 spaces per unit but not in the
lower standard proposed by the applicant.
o Parking for ski area employees, based on 40
percent of employees driving, is reasonable, given
the Ski Company's excellent bus service for
employees.
o The 46 space requirement from AMSAMP represents a
very low standard applied only to the capacity
increase for the mountain. No provision was made
for the increased attractiveness of the Little
Nell Base Area due to the high speed lift to be
installed. No provision was made for any parking
with respect to existing skiers on the mountain.
While we do not suggest a reassessment of the on -
mountain parking commitment which emerged from the
Master Plan, we strongly suggest that you reject
any request to meet some of this requirement by
requiring any less than the 118 spaces proposed
for the hotel and other uses. We recommend that
at a minimum the Council require the same number
of parking spaces as did the Planning Commission,
in addition to the 46 spaces required by AMSAMP.
o Council should be aware that a condition of AMSAMP
13
from the City 's referral review was that "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 of a recorded
covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin
County and the City of Aspen." This parcel of
land has passed from the ASC to John Roberts, who
has since provided an option to purchase the lot
to Hans Cantrup as part of his 601 Aspen Street
Residential GMP project. ASC has a lease with
Roberts which recognizes that 30 parking spaces
must be provided on this site, proximate to the
site, or underground and proximate to the site.
The lease does not, however, recognize the City's
desire to consider the lot for transit related
uses. We recommend that this issue be addressed
by the applicant as part of Council's review and
that an appropriate condition be carried forward
with this project.
o Another condition of AMSAMP was that "ASC shall
institute a taxi -limo -auto drop-off facility at
Lift lA within the time frame of the three year
improvement program for Aspen Mountain." This
Condition seems particularly important if we are
to continue to have a viable second entry point
for Aspen Mountain for the near term. Also
valuable would be a shuttle between the Little
Nell Base and lA to respond to overcrowding at the
gondola and to otherwise better distribute skier
impacts on the town. We recommend that Council
also carry this condition forward in its review of
the Precise Plan, and further ask the applicant to
make representations as to any auto disincentives
such as vans which are being designed into the
hotel and the remainder of the base area.
9. The applicant shall provide a detailed,
technical study of the adequacy of Durant,
Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle
traffic volumes associated with skiers, hotel
guests, employees, service vehicles, and
visitors to the commercial uses and shall
propose appropriate mitigation measures to
address any traffic problems which will
result from the project. The applicant shall
also take into account the access needs of
emergency vehicles, including, but not
limited to ambulances and fire trucks.
14
The TDA study of streets shows a daily net traffic
increase on Durant of about 250 trip ends per day in
winter (60 trips at the peak hour) and about 375 trip
ends per day in summer (42 trips at the peak hour).
However, in the original study, no accounting was made
of the approximately 300 vehicle trip ends per day due
to the mountain capacity increase. The implementation
of this increase, through constructing the new high-
speed lift, is clearly a part of this project, and was
not accounted for in AMSAMP. The consultant provided
an updated review of the street impacts to P&Z,
demonstrating that even with the inclusion of the ski
capacity increase, Durant could accommodate expected
vehicle trips, particularly since the skier drop-off
has been moved out of the right-of-way. Spring Street
was also demonstrated to have sufficient capacity, and
is discussed in further detail below with respect to
service and emergency vehicle access.
B. The applicant shall provide a detailed
analysis of the proposed servfce yards on
Spring Street and Dean Street, demonstrating
that adequate space has been provided for
truck stacking and that proper turning
movements can be accomplished within these
streets. The applicant shall also confer
with the Environmental Health Department as
to any air and water quality devices which
may need to be installed in these areas (and
in the parking facility for cars). The
applicant shall work with the North of Nell
and Tippler management entities and shall try
to accommodate the service delivery needs of
these buildings in a single location off Dean
Street. Finally, the applicant shall demon-
strate that the service delivery area on Dean
Street will not cause safety problems for
pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance
problems for the residents of the North of
Nell, and that the needs of the facility
could not practically otherwise be met by a
single facility on Spring Street."
There have been two major improvements to the service
yard proposal since Council reviewed this application
at the Conceptual stage. First, the service area
adjacent to the Tippler on Dean Street has been
entirely eliminated, which will significantly benefit
pedestrians in this area. Service to the hotel is
proposed in a covered area off Spring Street, as is
receiving for on -mountain restaurants, which will be
transported beneath the site, to the gondola building
15
and up the mountain. This solution will substantially
reduce Snow -cat traffic to the base area, as will the
plan to remove the maintenance facility and move it up
to the mountain location.
The second change came about during the P&Z's review of
the project. The applicant agreed to construct a
modified "cul-de-sac" at the end of Spring Street which
would improve the turning capabilities of trucks in the
service area, and allow the largest likely service
vehicle to maneuver past vehicles parked at the new
entrance to the Aspen Club Lodge. Although the
modified cul-de-sac would remove two of the Aspen Alps'
parking spaces adjacent to the Little Nell property,
its benefit to that facility is that it would reduce or
eliminate the through traffic which is currently
experienced at the Alps' drop-off area. It should be
noted that the ASC has a 30 foot circulation easement
over that portion of the property zoned "park" over
which a portion of the cul-de-sac wo-uld be built.
Finally, it was agreed that the applicant would be
responsible for providing landscaping to buffer the
Alps from any visual impact from the service yard and
cul-de-sac.
The Council should be aware that the utility/trash
service area requires a variation, as permitted by the
SPA regulations. There is a minimum rear yard require-
ment for the utility/trash service area in the area and
bulk requirements chart for the CC zone, referenced to
Section 24-3.7(h)(4), stating that the area be on an
alley and setting standards for its dimensions. It
appears that an area for this building would require a
minimum length of 20 feet for the first 6,000 s.f. of
building area and 5 feet for each addition 6,000 s.f.,
resulting in a length of about 83 feet for the service
area. The P&Z recommends that you grant a variation
of this requirement to 36 feet which more accurately
represents the needs of the project.
"l8. The applicant shall provide a trail easement
through the property connecting the trail
near the Aspen Alps with the Dean Street
trail and will include any required ramps for
bicycles or other year-round trail facilities
in their site plan at the precise plan
stage. The applicant will also examine the
potential for creating a pedestrian trail
connecting to the Aspen Mountain Road within
the context of the base area regrading and
provide an alignment for said trail if it is
found to be feasible."
16
6 46
The original proposal by the applicant was to provide a
trail which swung from the Aspen Alps, to the south of
the lift, in the flat portion of the site, connecting
to a ramp and to the Dean Street trail. However, the
location of the gondola, and its associated structures,
makes a trail in this location infeasible. The
applicant now proposes to connect the Dean Street and
Aspen Alps trails through the base area, using the
paving area behind the lift and providing signs for
connections as needed. The applicant has also expres-
sed a willingness to provide an unpaved, graded trail
connection to Aspen Mountain Road for summer hikers out
of the base area, but no design has been provided to
date. Finally, we have been informed that the appli-
cant has been working with the Nordic Council to
provide a trail across Aspen Mountain above the Aspen
Alps near Aspen Mountain Road. The applicant should be
required to provide a year-round trail easement to the
_. City for this trail, and to accommodat-e the needs of
the trail in the slope regrading program.
3. Conditions Concerning Geologic Hazard, Drainage, Grading,
Utilities and Employee Housing. The issues to be discussed
in this section include geologic hazard (Condition No. 10),
grading (Condition No. 5), drainage (Condition No. 22),
pumphouse relocation (Condition No. 11), and employee
housing (Condition No. 14).
"10. The applicant shall provide a detailed,
technical study of the geologic hazard on
Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and
shall demonstrate that any hazard posed to
the property can and will be fully mitigat-
ed. The applicant shall also investigate the
soils hydrology in the area to demonstrate
the suitability of the site for development
purposes."
Chen and Associates has prepared two studies of the base
area subsurface, slope regrading and the on -mountain
geologic hazard during this phase of the project. The two
principal recommendations of their first study concerning
subsurface conditions were that:
o A program of test holes should be drilled and observa-
tion wells installed to provide information on ground-
water.
o A subsurface investigation program should be conducted
to provide information on subsurface soil conditions
and to analyze slope stability.
17
6
The later study recommends that:
o Monitoring of groundwater conditions be done through
the spring run-off period.
o Additional design level foundation study be performed.
o Additional slope stability analysis be performed for
fill placement areas.
o Further surface water hydrology study be performed when
aerial topographical information can be obtained in the
spring.
Jay Hammond, City Engineer, feels that there are not any
unsolvable subsurface geological problems for the site and
recommends that you find that this condition has been met
if .
1. The additional studies recommended by Chen are com-
pleted; and
2. The final structural design and grading plan is
certified by the geotechnical engineer as not impacting
slope stability and surface hydrology to the detriment
of this project or its neighbors.
With respect to the potential off -site impacts from flood or
debris flow from Copper/Spar Gulch, and Vallejo Gulch, Jay
states that:
"Additional information is also required regarding the
flood and debris flow risk from the Vallejo Gulch area
onto the project site and adjacent sites. Adequate
mitigation should be provided to protect the project
and any adjacent properties impacted by new grading.
Related to the work undertaken by Chen to evaluate the
geological hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell
redevelopment site is the ongoing effort to evaluate
the hazards and mitigation across the entire base of
the mountain. To the extent that the Aspen Skiing
Company is the major land holder within the upslope
source areas and since a failure to mitigate the
problems in the upslope area could affect Little Nell
and other downslope sites, we would recommend that ASC
be required to commit to ongoing hazard study, engi-
neering and mitigation construction in those areas
under their control via direct ownership, leasehold, or
other usage agreement as a condition of the Little Nell
approval."
This language should be carried forward in the agreement to
be written between the applicant and the City.
"5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans
for the earth work which is proposed to occur at
the base area, including any activity associated
with the base of the new lifts which may fall
outside of the SPA boundary, and shall identify
the locations for any material deposition which is
to occur."
The current grading plan for the site calls for a balanced
cut and fill program between the material to be removed from
the lower portions of the Little Nell slope and the material
which will be placed at the upper end of the slope, princi-
pally in the vicinity of Aspen Mountain Road and at the top
of the new Lift #4A terminal. The regrading of Aspen
Mountain Road is intended to create no more than a 14
percent grade on the road, in keeping with cuf-rent grades on
the road. The applicant will need to obtain an encroachment
permit from Pitkin County for the work on this County road
prior to initiating any regrading activities. Further,
Jay's comments with respect to geologic stability should
also address the proposed grading program.
22. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan at the
Precise Plan stage which meets the standards of
the Engineering Department concerning the 100 year
storm and which addresses drainage from Aspen
Mountain as it affects the site and drainage from
the development site itself."
During the course of P&Z's review, the applicant's represen-
tative, A.J. Zabbia, provided the City Engineer with
adequate information to indicate that this condition had
been met. The basic detention facility will be a 12 foot
deep trough, 24 feet wide, and 90 feet long, in front of the
gondola building, which will be fenced or otherwise pro-
tected against any skier or hiker crossing. Incidentally,
the trough helps in the functioning of the gondola by
providing the negative grade needed for the acceleration of
compartments.
"ll. The applicant shall provide a solution to the
pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to
implement said solution at the applicant's cost."
The applicant's has made the following representation with
respect to this problem:
"The pumphouse relocation and well modification will
19
occur in essentially two phases. In 1986 the facili-
ties providing pumping capability to serve the Little
Nell 0.5 NG steel tank; control and telemetry equipment
to serve the tank; and controls for the motorized
butterfly valve at the well will be relocated inside a
new proposed pumping station thus eliminating the 12
inch steel line up the Little Nell slope.
In conjunction with Hotel construction and final
improvements in Hunter Street, the Little Nell well
will be modified by pulling the existing turbine pump,
cutting the casing below grade, and installing a
submersible pump and controls. The existing wellhouse
will be removed and a subsurface vault with a removable
access lid constructed in its place. The chlorinator
and necessary control equipment will be relocated in a
room provided in the commercial structure with an
outside door.
The water produced by the Little Nell —well will be
pumped directly into the system through the existing
motorized butterfly valve."
The City Water Department supports this solution, provided
that all plans, equipment and access easements are viewed in
advance of any construction. Council should also be aware
that the applicant has committed to undergrounding all
utilities on the site east of Galena Street.
"14. The applicant shall provide housing for
employees of the project in a manner accept-
able to the Housing Authority and Planning
Commission. The number of employees to be
housed will be determined at the Precise Plan
stage, based on the applicant's commitments
as part of the growth management plan
application."
The applicant's proposal is to house 30 employees, repre-
senting 36 percent of the net new employees generated by the
project. The Housing Authority concurs with the generation
figures submitted by the applicant, and the method by which
the employees are to be housed. The Planning Commission
recommends that you grant the requested change in use of the
Holiday House from lodge to residential use. We would also
note that the AMSAMP requirement that four additional
employees be housed is proposed to also be met at the
Holiday House. Therefore, 17 units (2 persons per unit)
will be converted at this time, while 5 other units were
previously required to be deed -restricted by Hans Cantrup.
The remaining six units on the site will likely be used to
off -set the employee housing impacts of the commercial
20
development at the Little Nell base area.
4. Conditions Concerning Miscellaneous Issues Which Have Been
Resolved. The following issues were fully resolved during
the course of the P&Z's deliberations.
"20 . The applicant shall demonstrate in the Precise
Plan submission that all questions as to the
ownership of the Hunter Street right-of-way are in
the process of being resolved, to insure that
permanent guarantees of the availability of Hunter
and Dean Streets for pedestrian access will be
provided. The Precise Plan shall not be approved
until the pedestrian access issue has been
resolved to the City's satisfaction. The appli-
cant will also demonstrate that the boundary
questions adjacent to the Tippler have been
resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall
be adjusted accordingly."
The applicant has obtained title to the contested land in
Hunter Street. The Tippler boundary problem has been
resolved by only including in the SPA plan that land which
is not subject to any dispute. If the boundary issue is
resolved in the favor of the ASC, the added land will only
enhance the project.
6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of
the City's 8040 greenline and mountain view plane
review procedures to the proposed development.
Should it be found that either review procedure
applies, the applicant will submit the necessary
materials at the Precise Plan stage demonstrating
compliance with the review criteria of the Code."
The Planning Commission gave final 8040 G reenline and
Mountain V iewplane approval to, the project at the time of
its Precise Plan review.
"17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
buildings do not encroach into the land within the
Park zone near the Aspen Alps."
The applicant proposes no building activity on the property
in question. Emergency skier service is proposed through
this site, with ambulance pick up on Spring Street.
Further, the cul-de-sac will encroach into this land, but on
the portion of the site which has an easement over it f or
circulation. These uses would not appear to affect the
status of the land in the Park zone district.
"21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental
21
•
Health Department with detailed information
on any fireplaces which will be included in
the project, demonstrating their compliance
with applicable Code provisions."
The Environmental Health Department is quite pleased at the
applicant's proposed use of "gas log" type fireplaces, which
meet or exceed current woodburning device legislation.
"24. Final approval of
change shall only
final approval of
project."
the proposed SPA boundary
occur in conjunction with
the Precise Plan for the
This procedure is being followed by the tabling of Ordinance
53, Series of 1985, at second reading until the Little Nell
project completes its Precise Plan review.
"25. In the event that the growth allocations for
the project shall expire, the boundary of the
SPA shall revert to its prior configuration."
This item should continue forward as a condition of ap-
proval.
B. Evaluation of Consistency with Precise Plan Review Criteria.
The evaluation of the project's consistency with the Precise
Plan review criteria should be conducted using the following
language from Section 24-7.7 as the standard of evaluation.
"(b) The burden shall rest upon an applicant to
demonstrate the reasonableness and suitability of
the Precise Plan, its conformity to the require-
ments of this article, that the adverse effects of
the proposed development have been minimized to
the extent practicable,and that it complies with
the City Council's intent in originally designat-
ing the site with an SPA overlay, including the
reasonable conformance of the Precise Plan with
the approval granted to the conceptual plan."
Each of the criteria in the Code are considered with respect
to this project below.
1. Compatibility with Neighboring Development - The proposal is
surrounded by other short-term tourist uses. Its height is
40 feet, in compliance with underlying zoning and lower than
the North of Nell or Aspen Square. Its FAR of 1.93:1 is
well below that of the North of Nell Building and its mass
is offset by use of various architectural techniques.
Problems noted at the P&Z review stage concerning open
space, shadows and skier drop-off as they affect this site
M
0 •
and the neighborhood have been adequately addressed by the
applicant.
2. Utilities and Roads - The project will upgrade water, sewer
and fire service to the area, underground existing utili-
ties, and provide for detention of stormwater from the site
and the mountain and routing to the City's storm sewer. The
project will add,l,,significant volumes of traffic to Durant__
Avenue, although within available street capacities. The
City Engineer remains concerned about traffic conflicts
between cars entering and exiting the skier drop-off and
those on Durant itself.
3. Environmental Suitability - The applicant has initiated
studies of the identified hazards affecting the site. If
the recommendations of the consultant and City Engineer,
summarized above, are followed, the site appears to be
suitable for development.
_ 4. Land Planning Techniques - The techniques employed by the
applicant include the use of subgrade space for the support
services to the hotel and ski area, removal of the mainte-
nance function from the base area, use of stepped back
architectural form to preserve the Hunter Street viewplane,
provision of substantial open space at the rear of the
parcel, and upgrading of Hunter and Dean Streets into
pedestrian malls. The design of the gondola terminal is an
important factor which has yet to be reviewed but must be
sensitively accommodated on the site.
5. Conformance with Aspen Area Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land Use
Plan designates this site as "recreation/accommodations",
which is intended "to allow for the recreation and accommo-
dation needs of the visitor to Aspen in an area that is
especially suited for this because of its unity with, and
identity to, the proposed transportation system, the ski
area and the central area." The conformance of the project
with the Growth Management Policy Plan has been discussed at
the conceptual stage, and is reviewed again below.
6. Expenditure of Public Funds - The project does not appear to
directly require the expenditures of additional public
funds, although there will be costs to the improvement
district to upgrade that portion of Dean Street not addres-
sed by the applicant. The applicant will enhance services
to the neighborhood in a variety of categories.
The Planning Office and the Planning Commission find that the
project is generally consistent with the intent of the above six
review criteria.
C. SPECIFICATION OF ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, VARIATIONS
PAI
0 •
PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Section 24-7.6 (c)
requires that the application specify the zone district
regulations and variations which are to apply to the
development, while Section 24-7.6(d) requires the provision
of a schedule specifying the timeframe of the development.
The zone district regulations recommended by the Planning
Office and Planning Commission are a combination of those of
the two underlying zones (CC and C). In all cases, however,
the regulations are limited by the Precise Plan as it has
been presented to the P&Z and Council, since Section 24-
7.5(b) states that "the plan (including all conditions of
approval and representations of the applicant) shall
constitute the development regulations for the parcel ."
1. Area and Bulk Requirements (with variations from
underlying zone noted)
a.
Minimum lot area
3,000 s.f.
b.
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit
No requirement
C.
Minimum lot width
No requirement
d.
Minimum front yard
26 feet
e.
Minimum side yard
No requirement
f.
Minimum rear yard
No requirement
g.
Maximum height
40 feet
h.
Minimum distance between primary
No requirement
and accessory buildings
i.
Percent of open space required
25 percent
for building site (minimum)
j.
External floor area ratio
1.93:1
(maximum)
(83,265 s. f . )
(variation)
k.
Internal floor area ratio
No requirement
1.
Utility/trash service area
36 f e e t i n
length
(variation)
2. Off -Street Parking Spaces
a. Internal to the project building 118
b. External to the project building 15 ( 9 in drop-
off lane, 4 in
p a r a l l e l
parking along
drop-off island
and 2 service
delivery bays)
3. Permitted and Conditional Uses
The following uses for the project will be permitted,
unless identified as conditional uses (variations from
24
underlying zone requirements noted)
a. Hotel (conditional use, variation allowed for
hotel protruding into C zone)
b. Retail commercial
C. Ski accessory retail to include ski shops, repair,
rental and storage
d. Open use recreation
e. Restaurant
f. Additional retail commercial as specified under
permitted uses in the CC zone Section 24-3.2 of
the Aspen Municipal Code
g. Ski area administrative offices
h. Shipping and receiving for hotel and mountain food
service
i. Storage of materials accessory to the above
j. Cabaret and night club
k. Activities associated with emergency medical
service for treatment of injured skiers
1. Ski lifts and lift buildings (conditional use)
M. Ski mazes and milling areas
n. Hotel accessory retail
As noted above, the variations which the Planning Commission
recommends you grant are:
1. FAR from 1.5:1 to 1.93:1;
2. Utility/trash service area from 83 feet in length to 36
feet in length; and
3. Hotel protruding into the C zone district.
The reason for continuing to identify the hotel and ski
lifts as a conditional use is that a public hearing is
required for substantial modification of a conditional use,
but not for an SPA amendment, and so in this manner the City
will retains its greatest review powers over the two most
sensitive, and potentially impactive uses at the base area.
25
0 .
The construction schedule originally proposed by the
applicant has been altered by the decision to construct the
gondola and the new Lift #4A this season. Generally,
following is the intended schedule:
Summer/Fall 1986. - Excavation and structural work for
the ski administration area (hotel, west wing) .
Utility relocations, regrading of Little Nell slope.
Construction of gondola and Lift #4A with the former to
be operational by Christmas and the latter by Thanks-
giving. Interim skier services plan to be implemented.
Spring/Summer/Fall 1987 - Demolish Little Nell complex,
complete work at western wing of new complex to provide
skier services for the 1987-1988 season, initiate hotel
and commercial construction.
Winter 1987-Winter 1988 - Complete interior and
exterior of hotel, complete landscaping,— sidewalks and
plazas.
Since the construction site is intended to continue in use
for initial skier access and commercial support services
throughout the construction period, we feel it is important
for us to fully understand how circulation will occur and
what the base area will look like during construction. The
applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the base area
as it will function in the 86/87 season which includes the
following features:
o The new ticket kiosks will be in place in Dean and
Hunter Streets, and the ski corral will be recon-
structed in its current location.
o Regrading will take place in the mall areas, temporary
steps will be constructed to allow access to the lifts,
and planers will be installed with temporary plantings
accomplished. The surface treatment on the site will
be asphalt. The pumphouse will remain in place until
the hotel is built.
o The ASC office and ski school buildings will remain in
operation. The maintenance building will remain for
receiving of goods, but most maintenance functions will
occur on the mountain in the new building.
Since these plans are quite schematic at this time, we
recommend that the applicant should be required to provide
the Planning Office and the City Engineer with the following
materials prior to the issuance of a building or excavation
permit during each construction season:
26
1. Specific design and location of pedestrian barricades
and walkway structures.
2. Traffic and pedestrian circulation routes during
construction.
3. An agreement on the part of the . applicants to properly
maintain the barricade and walkway system throughout
the course of construction, including repairs and
removal.
4. Provision of a plan addressing site access and material
and equipment storage areas during construction.
5. Scheduling and design detail regarding utility reloca-
tions, replacements and undergrounding.
6. Further detail regarding the limits of excavation,
construction easements and shoring needs._ .
7. Proposed landscaping of areas where demolition is
contemplated without immediate reconstruction.
A final issue for Council's information has to do with the
construction of the ski area administrative offices this
year. The Planning Office and City Attorney have determined
that this office space requires receipt of a growth allot-
ment in the "CL and Other Zone district" commercial competi-
tion. The date for submission of applications for such
projects is August 1, yet the applicant will need to have a
building permit for this space this spring if the new
gondola is to be built. We recommend that Council allow
this space _to be constructed in the form of a hotel or ski
area accessory "shell" (which doesn't need an allotment) and
that its occupancy as commercial space only be permitted -if -
growth allotments are obtained. Adequate assurances to
protect the City in this regard should be written into the
SPA agreement.
D. Lodge Development Allotment: As you recall, the issue of a
multi -year lodge development allotment was discussed
extensively at the conceptual plan stage, at which time
Council indicated "its willingness to consider granting a
multi -year allocation to the project upon approval of the
applicant's precise plan . . . " Since so much time was
spent on the policy aspects of this issue at the earlier
review stage, we will merely provide you with a brief
numerical analysis of the implications of awarding the 92
units requested by this project.
Before we address the numerical analysis, Council should be
27
•
aware that at a public hearing on January 21, the P&Z scored
the Little Nell project at 55.2 points, just above the 54
point minimum threshold. P&Z Resolution No. 2, Series of
1986, is attached, providing you with documentation of the
scores awarded by P&Z to the project. Further, Council
should note that during its review of the development
allotment issue, the P&Z declined to make a recommendation
either in favor of or opposed to the multi -year allocation
request.
In the nine years since the adoption of the lodge GMP,
following is a history of what has taken place in the L-1/L-
2/CC/CL zone districts:
QUOTA AVAILABLE QUOTA AWARDED
1977/81 (5 yrs)
@ 18 units/yr. = 90 units 1977 (Aspen Inn - 36 units)
1982-85 (4 yrs) --
@ 35 units/yr. = 140 units 1981 (Lodge at Aspen -
31 units)
TOTAL 230 units 1982 (Carriage House -
26 units)
1983 (Aspen Mtn. Lodge -
172. units)
TOTAL 265 units
The above summary demonstrates that we have awarded all of the
units available through 1985, plus the 35 units available in
1986. It is also obvious, given the four projects involved, that
no units have been built under this quota system in nearly a
decade.
Beyond the above units, two lodge projects have received GMP
exemptions as historic structures in this development category,
including the 20 units at the Sardy House and the 67 units to be
added at the Hotel Jerome. If we also account for these units in
the quota, as required by the Code, then the quota has been
allocated for 1987, 1988 and 17 of the 35 units in 1978. The 92
units requested by the Little Nell project therefore takes the 18
units in 1989, 35 in 1990, 35 in 1991 and 4 in 1992. Obviously,
these numbers presume that (i) the anticipated amendment to the
Hotel Jerome will not increase the number of rooms in the addi-
tion, which is not likely to be the case, as an increase of 10-20
rooms is expected; and (ii) the four projects which are approved
but, unbuilt will be constructed, rather than forfeit their units,
F:
L�
which may also be unlikely.
There is one important mitigating factor to this quota analysis.
There are four L-3 lodges which are to be converted to employee
housing as part of the lodge development activities, as follows:
Copper Horse 14 units (part of Aspen Mtn. Lodge project)
Alpina Haus 40 units (part of Aspen Mtn. Lodge project)
Cortina Lodge 11 units (Hotel Jerome Addition, Aspen Club
Lodge)
Holiday House 17 units (Little Nell and AMSAMP)
Total
82 units
There are also 6 units remaining at the Cortina Lodge and 6 units
at the Holiday House which are being held for future projects but
are also expected to be converted.
_. The total of 94 units at these four small lodgers completely
offsets the increase in lodge units from the Little Nell project
and indicates that if the four approved lodge projects and the
Little Nell project were built, and the conversions took place,
we would still be right on track for our overall projected lodge
growth rate in the community. Given the fact that it will take
2-3 years at a minimum for these projects to be occupied, it can
be seen that even including the Hotel Jerome GMP exemption; if no
other projects are approved over the next few years, we will be
back on our lodge quota target by 1990, at which time the hotels
will be in operation. we, therefore, recommend that Council
direct the Planning Office to credit the L-1/L-2/CC/CL and Other
zone category with the units from the change in use of the above
four L-3 lodges, in order that the quota effects of the approved
lodge development can be addressed. The newly converted employee
units will have to be deducted from the residential quota in the
year of their conversion to address the growth impacts of this
additional housing which is created by each of the lodge pro-
jects.
E. Ordinance 53, SPA Rezoning
Ordinance 53, Series of 1985, extends the SPA Overlay
designation across the lower portion of the site (approxi-
mately 1 acre) which is zoned C - Conservation. The
Ordinance was approved on first reading on September 17,
1985 and then tabled until the Precise Plan could be
submitted and reviewed.
The applicant's zoning boundary change differs significantly
from that which was considered and eventually denied by City
Council in 1983. The extent of the area requested for SPA
designation is considerably less than that previously
29
identified and corresponds directly to that area in which
the hotel, commercial and ski support facilities are to be
located at the toe of the slope. In fact, by extending the
boundary, we insure that the location of the lifts is
considered at the same time as the remainder of the base
area development.
We find that the increase in the SPA boundary meets the test
of being unique and providing public benefit in that it
permits integrated planning of the lift locations in
conjunction with the remainder of the base area development.
Without the SPA Overlay, our review of the ski lifts would
be limited to the conditional use review process.
The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adjust-
ment with the following qualifications:
a. The area designated C-SPA is not used in the calcula-
tion of the FAR for the project, since the hotel is not
an allowed use in this zone.
b. In the event that final approval of the project
expires, the boundary of the SPA should revert to its
prior configuration until a new conceptual and precise
plan is submitted.
F. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On March 18, 1986, by a motion of 5 in favor, 2 opposed, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the attached
Resolution 86-3, recommending that you approve the Little
Nell Base Redevelopment SPA. We also attach for your
consideration a minority position statement submitted by
four members of the Commission, either opposing or com-
menting upon the majority action. We anticipate that
members of the Commission will be present at your meeting to
express their concerns with respect to particular aspects of
the proposal.
G. SOMMARY
The above analysis provides you with material for your
upcoming meetings on the Little Nell Precise Plan. Staff is
working with the applicant to develop a draft SPA Agreement,
which will be the device used to tie together all of the
applicant's commitments into a coherent document. This
document will be presented for your review at the conclusion
of your deliberations.
AR.115
30
0 .
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen,
Mr. Fred Smith
_ Planning Director
Aspen Skiing Company
0060 Atlantic Avenue
P.O. Box 124E
Aspen, CO 61612-1248
Dear Fred,
colorado 81611
March 18, 1986
I am in receipt of your March 4, 1986 letter which requests that
insubstantial modifications be made to the Aspen Mountain Ski
Area Master Plan (AMSAMP). The Planning Office has reviewed the
improvements proposed by the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) for
construction during the 1986 off-season and compliments ASC for
aggressively working to improve the skiing experience on Aspen
Mountain.
The Planning Office has reviewed your proposal to amend the
AMSAMP to include a new Lift A4 at the base of Aspen Mountain
serving Little Nell. As you know, the Board of County Commis-
sioners recommended certain improvements to the AMSAMP proposed
as part of Resolution No. 85-44. Specifically, the Board
proposed that the ASC be given the option of retaining Lift 14 or
a similar lift system with certain operational restrictions as
part of the AMSAMP. Since the Board made this recommendation I
consider your proposal to construct a new Lift C4 to be an
"insubstantial change" to the AMSAMP as long as Lift R4 is
operated in accordance with the operation plan as set forth in
this letter.
Pitkin County's major concern regarding
Lift #4 relates
in the
to the
daily
impacts upon
the City of Aspen from an
and
increase
safety problems
which
capacity to
could occur
Aspen Mountain potential
on the Aspen Mountain trails
system particularly
at
the end of
the skier day. Therefore,
the conditions
of the
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: March 3, 1986
RE: Nell Precise Plan
This is to inform you of progress on several of the technical
items discussed in my memo of January 20 on the Little Nell
S.P.A. precise plan. This memo is intended to update my previous
memo on those items for which I have received new information
from the applicants through meetings with Dave Ellis of Design
Workshop and A.J. Zabbia of Rea, Cassens and Associates. Any
items not discussed herein have not changed from my comments of
January 20.
UTILITIES
All of the concerns related to utilities are responded to via
A.J. Zabbia's memo of February 20 (attached) . Subject to approval /c
by Jim Markalunas, I would recommend that the representatives in
A.J.'s memo be included in the S.P.A. agreement. Detailed plans
and specifications for all City utility relocations will need to
be submitted to the City for approval prior to construction.
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
We have received a second preliminary report from Chen dated
November 27, 1985 regarding foundation conditions and proposed
grading for the project. The phase II report raises concerns
regarding proposed fill areas on the conceptual grading plan as
well as groundwater conditions in the area of proposed structures.
The phase II report recommends:
a. Monitoring of groundwater conditions through the
Spring runoff period.
b. Additional, design level, foundation study.
C. Additional slope stability analysis for fill
placement areas.
d. Further surface water hydrology study, which is
dependent on aerial topographical information which
must be flown in the Spring.
Page Two
Nell Precise Plan
March 3, 1986
The applicants have demonstrated that they are in the process of
revising some of the slope grading plans to minimize the potential
problems identified by Chen. The evidence would seem to suggest
that there are not any unsolvable geological problems for the
site. At this point, I would be willing to support a conditional
approval subject to:
1. Completion of the additional studies recommended by Chen.
2. Certification of the final structural design and grading plan
by the geotechnical engineer as not impacting groundwater, slope
stability and surface hydrology to the detriment of this project
or its neighbors.
STORM DRAINAGE
Storm drainage concerns raised in my prior memorandum are also
addressed in Mr. Zabbia's memo of February 20. Once again,
appropriate representations in that memo could be included in the
S.P.A. agreement.
Service Access - The information presented by the applicant to
the City Planning and Zoning Commission and to this office appear
to have addressed the service access concerns. Committment by the
applicant to participate in the construction of a reduced "cul de
sac" may be appropriate.
X Skier drop-off - Concerns of this office have not been fully
addressed by the current solution to the skier drop-off design.
Further demonstration by the applicants and their consultants
that a three curb cut design is less impactive to Durant Street
than a two cut design would be helpful in this area.
X Parking - This remains a concern and we would continue to recommend
that the applicant be required to present a solution to the skier
capacity increases agreed to in the ski area master plan process.
This concern becomes all the more strident in view of the plan to
construct the new capacity improvements this year.
Please feel
free to
contact me if any of
the above items raises
questions.
I will
be available at the
City P & Z meeting of
March 4 and
will be
back at work on March
10.
JH/co/NellPrecisePlan
Enclosure
cc: Dave Ellis
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jay Hammond, City Engineer
FROM: A.J. Zabbia, Jr., Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc.
DATE: February 20, 1986
RE: Memo from Jay Hammond to Alan Richman dated January 20, 1986.
Little Nell S.P.A. Precise Plan
UTILITIES
Pumphouse Relocation:
The pumphouse relocation and well modification will occur in
essentially two phases. In 1986 the facilities providing pumping
capability to serve the Little Nell 0.5 MG steel tank; control and
telemetry equipment to serve the tank; and controls for the motorized
butterfly valve at the well will be relocated inside a new proposed
pumping station thus eliminating the 12" steel line up the Little Nell
slope.
In conjunction with Hotel construction and final improvements in
Hunter Street, the Little Nell well will be riodified by pulling the
existing turbine pump, cutting the casing below grade, and installing a
submersible pump and controls. The existing wellhouse will be removed
and a subsurface vault with a removable access lid constructed in its
place. The chlorinator and necessary control equipment will be
relocated in a room provided in the commercial structure with an outside
door.
The water produced by the Little Nell well will be pumped directly
into the system through the existing motorized butterfly valve.
Spring Street Line:
The Aspen Skiing Company currently proposes installation of the 12"
DIP waterline in Spring Street as an upgrade and system improvement at
no cost to the City of Aspen.
Nell Slope Line:
The current plans for Little Nell regarding utility improvements
and relocations incorporates the installation of the City furnished 6"
DIP parallel to the 12" DIP proposed to serve the Aspen Alps project.
Items in the water extension/relocation proposal have been added for
transporting the 6" DIP from the Water Department yard to the
construction site, steam cleaning the inside of the pipe, providing
rubber gaskets and cad welds, additional trench excavation, additional
bedding, additional compacted backfill, and any additional fittings for
the construction to incorporate the 6" DIP with the 12" DIP installation.
After the contract proposal is finalized the cost of the aforementioned
items will be forwarded to the City for review and if acceptable, will
be incorporated into the work. The City will be billed accordingly
based on the total cost of installation of the 6" DIP through an
agreement between the City of Aspen and the Aspen Skiing Company.
Easements:
The Aspen Skiing Company agrees to provide new easements for the
relocated water mains and the new extensions in accordance with the
forms provided by the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen in turn is
requested to formally abandon any existing easements previously provided
by the Aspen Skiing Company, other individuals, or entities for water
facilities no longer needed or relocated as result of the construction.
Electric:
The Aspen Skiing Company agrees to relocate at their expense all
Aspen electric lines and facilities directly affected by the project in
accordance with specifications and approval of the City Electric
Department. Holy Cross has bees► retained to design the system
modifications and oversee the contract construction.
STORM DRAINAGE
The Storm Water Drainage Study prepared for the project submittal
was based on existing topographical information and the proposed
development site plan at the tir:ie of submittal. The applicant is
currently revising the grading plan for the Little Nell Ski Slope and
the site plan will be modified in accordance with the results and
recommendations of the approval process. Additional topographical
information will be ascertained this spring for the area at and around
the base of Lift Terminal No. 5.
The Drainage Study and recommendations for detention volumes and
location, as well as calculations for developed run-off will be revised
in accordance with the new grading plan, finalized site plan and new
topographical information.
.The applicant requests that approval be given to the project
contingent on a revised and City approved Drainage Study if one is not
finalized by the end of the approval process.
One noted comment is that basin A-3 and its subsequent discharge
mentioned in Mr. Hammond's memo is historic in nature and depicts the
existing condition. The new grading plan for the Ski Slope and
subsequent developed drainage way or may r►ot reduce this discharge
toward the Aspen Alps, but in no case will it aggravate the situation.
The applicant feels it is unfair and unreasonable to expect it to
resolve or mitigate conditions that are existing and considered
historical, and do not directly affect the project.
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
February 4, 1986 - Tuesday
5:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
City Hall
REGULAR MEETING
I. CO MMI S S I O N ER S' COMMENTS
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Little Nell Base Redevelopment Precise Plan/Conditional
Use/Mountain Viewplane/8040 Greenline Review
IV. RESOLUTION
A. Resolution forwarding P&Z GMP Scoring of Little Nell Project
to Council
V. ADJOURN MEETING
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 21, 1986 - Tuesday
5:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
City Hall
REGULAR MEETING
I. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Little Nell G MP Scoring Session
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Muni Code Amendment: Lot Split Resolution
V. A DJ OU RN MEETING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
FROM: Tom Newland, Planning Engineer
RE: Little Nell Base Development SPA
DATE: January 24, 1986
I have reviewed the applicant's submission and wish to forward to
you the following comments:
Relocation of County Road: In the applicant's submittion the
grading plan shows the Aspen Mt.
Road (County Road #14) relocated
approximately 25 feet above it's
present alignment on the ski slope
known as "Little Nell". This county
road is a Class V or primative
roadway that traverses the face
of the Aspen Mountain ski area.
Since the Aspen Skiing Company is completely responsible for the
maintenence of this road, it
is not necessary to require any
culverting or other upgrading
to compensate for effects the
proposed grading plan might have
on this realigned road. However,
an escavation permit should be
secured through the county for
this work. This permit is obtainable
through the County Road and
Bridge Department.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Little Nell Precise Plan/Conditional Use Public Hearing
DATE: January 23, 1986
APPLICANT: Aspen Skiing Company
ZONING/LOT SIZE: The base area of Little Nell. is presently zoned CC/SPA
and C. Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1985, will place an SPA Overlay on that
portion of the property zoned C. This Ordinance has received first reading
approval from Council and will be heard at second reading when the Precise
Plan is before Council. The area zoned CC/SPA comprises 43,124 s.f., while
the area zoned C requested for inclusion within the SPA Overlay comprises
45,738 s.f., for a total lot size of 88,862 s.f.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The following
requests are
before
the Planning
Commission at this time:
1.
Recommendation to City Council for
Precise Plan
Review.
2.
Grant of Conditional Use Permit for
hotel in CC
zone.
3.
Grant of Mountain Viewplane Review.
4.
Recommendation to City Council for
Change in
Use GMP
Exemption to
convert units at the Holiday House
from lodge to
employee
housing.
5.
Grant of 8040 Greenline Review to
regrade the
Little Nell slope and
install new lift towers.
6.
Recommendation to City Council for
encroachment
into the Dean Street
right-of-way.
Copies of the applicant's entire submission have been provided directly to
the Planning Commission, therefore, the Planning Office's memo will
concentrate on the comments of review agencies rather than summarizing the
applicant's proposals. Comments are not provided herein on any growth
management issues. We have already provided the Commission with our
recommended lodge allotment scoring in an earlier memo. The applicant has
not yet applied for commercial allotment, although such a request is
anticipated on August 1, 1986. Finally, we have not again provided you
with comments on the multi -year allotment issue, preferring to await your
direction to determine if it is necessary to spend additional time on this
issue.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: Our review of this project is organized in the
following sequence:
A. Analysis of compliance with conditions of conceptual approval.
B. Review of applicable precise plan and conditional use evaluation
criteria.
C. Specification of zoning district regulations to apply to the parcel,
variations permitted, and a schedule for construction.
A. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Council Resolution No. 85-33
set 25 conditions of approval of the applicant's conceptual plan. An
analysis of the applicant's response to each condition is contained
below, organized into the following three broad topical areas:
1. Conditions concerning access, circulation and parking;
2. Conditions concerning building design; and
3. Conditions concerning miscellaneous technical issues.
1. Conditions Concerning Access, Circulation and Parking: The
issues to be discussed in this section include skier drop off
(Condition No. 7), parking needs (Condition No. 3), adequacy of
streets (Condition No. 9), service areas (Condition No. 8),
trails (Condition No. 18) and encroachments (Condition No. 23).
"7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an
auto -taxi -limo drop-off facility of adequate size for
the needs of the ski area, which is in addition to any
drop-off area for hotel guests. As the Council is
concerned about maintaining adequate traffic flows on
Durant Avenue, it is expected that the applicant will
address the proper location for this facility within
the project's property boundary."
In our review of the proj ect in the GMP scoring process, we
indicated that the skier drop-off facility represents one of the
principal design flaws in the project. This comment was
reinforced by the relatively low scores given to the project by a
majority of the Commission in the categories of site design and
parking and circulation.
The principal problems we see with the present solution include
the following:
o Potential turning conflicts for cars entering and exiting
from the area with cars on Durant Avenue.
o The area extends into the public right-of-way, contrary to
the intent of the condition.
o There is a loss of approximately 12-14 public parking spaces
on Durant, which are being replaced by the 12 skier drop-off
spaces. This problem could be mitigated through management
of the spaces to allow public usage during other than peak
skiing periods.
o The area creates a
poor image
for the entrance to
the
mountain/front of the
hotel. The entrance in this area
is
neither
open space,
nor is it a
lively street facade,
but
instead
is a parking
lot. The area
should either truly
be
an open
space area,
or should
create pedestrian interest
through
stores fronting directly
on the street.
The Planning Office recommends that the applicant be required to
submit alternative designs to resolve the identified problems
with the drop-off area.
3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study
of the parking needs of the facility to meet the
demands from the lodge rooms, skiers, administrative
offices, commercial spaces and skier support
facilities, and shall increase the number of spaces to
be provided at the Precise Plan stage."
TDA has accomplished the requested study (Appendix 3) and based
on their recommendations, the number of parking spaces has been
increased from 77 to 116. (Note: There are 83 spaces, not 85 on
Level -22, and 33 on Level -12, for a total of 116 and not 118
spaces, as represented. However, there are also 12 spaces in the
skier drop-off which are to replace those lost on Durant.)
Following is a category by category calculation of the
applicant's proposal as compared to the Code requirements:
6
•
CATEGORY
STANDARD APPLIED
SPACES
PROPOSED*
TYPICAL CODE
STANDARD**
CODE
REQMT
Lodge Units (96)
0.55-0.7 spaces/unit
53/67
1/unit
96
Administrative
Replace Existing
27/7
3-4/1000 s.f.
17
Offices (4883 s.f.)
Retail (20,553 s.f.)
0.1-0.8 per 1000 s.f.
2/17
4/1000 s.f.
82
Restaurant
1/1000 s.f.
5
4/1000 s.f.
20
(5196 s.f.)
Skier (1300 skiers
0.05/skier
46
N/A
N/A
added)
(off -site)
* Range reflects summer vs. winter.
** No parking is required in the CC zone for lodge or commercial uses.
These standards reflect those of the most similar zone for the
proposed mix of uses, the L-1/L-2 zone districts.
Based on the standards applied by the consultant, 92-101 spaces
will be demanded for the project in the winter versus the summer
(92 = 53 + 5 + 27 + 2 + 5; 101 = 67 + 5 + 7 + 17 + 5) .
Considering that the project removes 45 on -site existing spaces,
and provides 116 new spaces, supply has been calculated to exceed
demand in the winter by 11 spaces. Therefore, the applicant
requests that 11 spaces be applied to the 46 spaces requirement
in the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP) that offset
the ski capacity increase of 1300 skiers per day.
Staff has numerous comments on the information provided by the
consultant, including the following:
o The parking standard applied to the Aspen Mountain Lodge of
0.7 spaces per unit is the minimum which we can justify for
this facility. The consultant did propose a standard of
0.66 spaces/unit for summer use for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge, which was not accepted. The proposed winter standard
of 0.55 spaces per unit should be rejected unless adequate
reasons are provided for its usage.
o It is reasonable to assume that many of the visitors to the
shops will already be located on the site. however, the
standard of one space per 1000 s.f. of restaurant is
exceptionally low. We would expect some guests to the
luxury dining facilities to arrive at the port cochere and
expect valet parking to be available. Further, no space has
been provided for visitors who may attend a conference on
the site, whether they be in -town residents or guests from
other lodges. Invariably, some limited parking will be
needed for such facilities. i
o Parking for ski area employees, based on 40 percent of
employees driving, is reasonable, given the Ski Company's
excellent bus service for employees.
o The 46 space requirement from AMSAMP represents a very low
standard allied only to the capacity increase for the
mountain. No provision was made for the increased
attractiveness of the Little Nell Base Area due to the high
speed lift to be installed. No provision was made for any
parking with respect to existing skiers on the mountain.
while we do not suggest a reassessment of the on -mountain
parking commitment which emerged from the Master Plan, we
are very discouraged at this effort to meet some of this
3
requirement by proposing unreasonably low parking standards
for base area uses. We recommend that the Planning
Commission request the use of more realistic parking
standards and continue to require that 46 skier spaces be
provided on site, or as part of City initiated parking plan
off -site (see attached condition approving AMSAMP).
o P&Z should be aware that a condition of AMSAMP was that "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 of a
recorded covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin
County and the City of Aspen." we were very disturbed to
review the 601 Aspen Residential GMP project and find that
ASC placed this property under option to that project's
developer, without covenanting the property as required.
The developer of the 601 Aspen Project intended to place the
spaces underground, contrary to the intent of that
condition. We recommend that the P&Z carry forward the
AMSAMP condition as part of this review and set a specific
date for the implementation of this condition.
"9. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study
of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to
handle the vehicle traffic volumes associated with
skiers, hotel guests, employees, service vehicles, and
visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose
appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic
problems which will result from the project. The
applicant shall also take into account the access needs
of emergency vehicles, including, but not limited to
ambulances and fire trucks.
The TDA study of streets shows a daily net traffic increase of
about 250 trip ends per day in winter (60 trips at the peak hour)
and about 375 trip ends per day in summer (42 trips at the peak
hour) . However, no accounting is made of the approximately 300
vehicle trip ends per day due to the mountain capacity increase.
The implementation of this increase, through constructing the new
high-speed lift, is clearly a part of this project, and was not
accounted for in AMSAMP. The applicant should be required to
address these impacts, and propose appropriate mitigation
techniques. Further, the applicant should be required to remove
the skier drop-off area from the Durant Avenue right-of-way, as
this proposal is viewed as adding to the circulation problems on
Durant Avenue, which is a major through street in the downtown
area due to the existing mall closures on Cooper and Hyman
Avenues. Finally, the applicant should provide comments on the
emergency vehicle situation, which does not appear to have been
addressed in the submission.'
8. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the
proposed service yards on Spring Street and Dean
Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been
provided for truck stacking and that proper turning
movements can be accomplished within these streets.
The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental
Health Department as to any air and water quality
devices which may need to be installed in these areas
(and in the parking facility for cars). The applicant
shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler manage-
ment entities and shall try to accommodate the service
delivery needs of these buildings in a single location
off Dean Street. Finally, the applicant shall
demonstrate that the service delivery area on Dean
Street will not cause safety problems for pedestrians
on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents
of the North of Nell, and that the needs of the
facility could not practically otherwise be met by a
E
0
single facility on Spring Street."
The applicant is proposing a single, covered shipping and
receiving area off Spring Street to handle the needs of the hotel
and on -mountain restaurants. While we prefer the single access
point to the prior dual service area concept, we have the
following comments to make:
o The schematic drawing contained in the submission does not
constitute a "detailed analysis". Conclusive drawings and
calculations should be provided to the City Engineer,
demonstrating the adequacy of the turning radius.
o The applicant's drawing of the Dean Street area does not
respond to the request that cooperative planning be
accomplished for service delivery to the North of Nell and
Tippler/Tipple Inn properties. While we understand that the
drawing has been abandoned, and responsibility given to the
improvement district, we feel that a conceptual proposal by
all three entities is needed at this time. Without a
service access plan suitable to the entry to Dean Street, we
believe that the entire concept of the Dean Street mall will
be flawed. Therefore, a design of this area is an integral
part of this SPA plan, although responsibility for
accomplishing the improvements should fall on the
improvement district.
o There is a minimum rear yard requirement for the
utility/trash service area in the area and bulk requirements
chart for the CC zone, referenced to Section 24-3.7 (h) (4) ,
stating that the area be on an alley and setting standards
for its dimensions. It appears that an area for this
building would require a minimum length of 20 feet for the
first 6,000 s.f. of building area and 5 feet for each
addition 6,000 s.f., resulting in a length of about 135 feet
for the service area. We recommend that the applicant quest
P&Z's variation of this requirements since the area shown on
the plans is about 35 feet in length and does not abut an
alley. The request should provide adequate justification
for the area as proposed.
"l8. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through
the property connecting the trail near the Aspen Alps
with the Dean Street trail and will include any
required ramps for bicycles or other year-round trail
facilities in their site plan at the precise plan
stage. The applicant will also examine the potential
for creating a pedestrian trail connecting to the Aspen
Mountain Road within the context of the base area
regrading and provide an alignment for said trail if it
is found to be feasible."
The illustrative site plan shows a trail connection from Spring
Street to Dean Street across the base area. There do not appear
to be any ramps or other facilities required to implement the
trail. The applicant further commits to "an informal pedestrian
trail" to the Aspen Mountain Road.
"23. The applicant shall disclose at the Precise Plan stage
all plans related to the Dean Street right-of-way,
including any requests for encroachments as may be
necessary."
The applicant has disclosed the plans for Dean Street and made an
encroachment request of the City Engineering Department for
paving, landscaping, street furniture, ski ticket sales booths
and skier drop-off parking. Jay Hammond's comments with respect
to this application are that the required submittal materials and
fees have not been received. The applicant should get together
with Jay to provide him the necessary materials.
5
• 0
2. Conditions Concerning Building Design: The issues to be
discussed in this section are open space (Condition No. 1),
visual impact (Condition No. 4), shadows (Condition No. 15),
pedestrian gateway (Condition No. 19), snow shedding (Condition
No. 16), FAR (Condition No. 2) and lift building design
(Condition No. 12).
"l. The applicant shall amend the site plan to provide open
space along the length of the Durant Street frontage of
the hotel, so as to create a courtyard of at least 10
feet in depth. The open space requirement shall be
considered in coordination with rather than in addition
to the area to be set aside for the on -site drop-off
facility required in condition #7 below."
During the conceptual review, we raised a concern that the open
space on the site, being at the rear of the building, did not
meet the requirement of Section 24-37.(d) that open space be open
to the street. By the conclusion of that stage of the review we
suggested that the open space along Spring Street could be
justified as technically meeting this requirement. Therefore,
when the condition was rewritten, reference to the technical
requirement was dropped in favor of a simple statement that open
space be provided along Durant to create a courtyard effect.
When Condition No. 1 was written, we had in mind that the skier
drop-off area could be set in the midst of open space, and that
the two areas need not result in a total requirement for 20 or
more feet of set back. However, we did not anticipate that the
drop-off area would be designed to occupy the entire frontage,
and would essentially be used instead of providing open space.
It is not reasonable to consider the drop-off area as an open
space courtyard, and we do not approve of the street image which
is created by this proposed solution.
In our opinion, there are two distinctly different ways of
looking at the open space requirement. If, on the one hand, the
building were truly set back from Durant by open space, its
impact on the street would be softened, the pedestrian entrance
be made more grand, the shadows on Durant might be reduced and a
more positive image created for the hotel. On the other hand,
the historic character of our victorian town is that. commercial
buildings front directly on the street, creating active people
places on the adjacent sidewalks. Therefore, if we are given a
choice between a parking lot and no setback at all, the street
frontage might be preferable. Our preference is that the
applicant should be made to provide true open space on the front
of the site, moving towards (although not necessarily
duplicating) the open base area concept advocated by Hans
Gramiger, and creating the several complimentary benefits noted
above. However, we recognize that this redesign should
fall within the parameters of the conceptual approval upon which
the applicant has relied in preparing the Precise Plan, and
suggest that a reasonable compromise be proposed by the
applicant.
N. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of
the hotel on the views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter
Street, and propose any design changes which will
reduce obstructions of the mountain from the corner of
Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed
architectural renderings and elevations shall be
provided at the Precise Plan stage."
The applicant has provided a computer simulated view of the
building as it will appear from Hunter Street at the Durant and
Cooper corners. These simulations are evidence that the critical
viewplane from the town to the Little Nell run and Bell Mountain
will be preserved. On the other hand, the views shown looking
11
east and west on Durant demonstrate that the building will fill
in the one remaining open area along this street, and complete
the "walled in" feeling from the Aspen Club Lodge and North of
Nell Buildings. The applicant has provided renderings and
elevations of the building on its four sides which I consider to
be relatively schematic for this final stage of the review
process, although nearly identical in detail to that provided by
the Aspen Mountain PUD at the preliminary review stage. It would
be helpful if the applicant identified the materials to be used
in each location in the building during your review so as to give
a better picture of the way the building will truly look.
"15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the
effects of the building along Durant Avenue and Spring
Street, and mitigate the problems caused by the
building's shadows for pedestrians crossing the
street . "
The applicant's shadow study states that "Durant Avenue will be
in shade for most of the winter. In December, shadows from the
Little Nell Hotel will shade the street north of the Hotel all
day. By the end of February, most of the driving surface of
Durant Avenue will be in the sun from 10:30 - 1:30. The south
side of Durant, adjacent to the Hotel, will remain in shade all
winter."
The applicant's response to this problem is that "a major
pedestrian crossing be constructed at the intersection of Durant
and Hunter Street." Included in this plan is a neck down of the
street to two travel lanes at the intersection. We feel that
with Durant acting as a major thoroughfare for downtown, this
neck down is ill advised, and will create turning conflicts into
the drop-off area. It is also unclear from the applicant's
presentation whether the ASC will take responsibility for placing
the proposed sidewalk paving materials across the street to
indicate pedestrian zones. Finally, it should be noted that the
icing problem which now exists from the Aspen Club Lodge and
North of Nell Buildings is likely to be repeated on this block as
well, causing additional problems for vehicular traffic. The
only real solution to this problem would appear to be a major
design change in the hotel by either (a) stepping the building
back from one story to the next or (b) setting it back much
further from the street than has been proposed.
"19. The applicant shall make every effort, including
working with the City of Aspen, to increase the extent
of the pedestrian gateway to the mountain so as to make
it a more "grand" entrance in the winter and summer."
We do not see any improvements in the plan for either Hunter or
Dean Streets which are any more "grand" than the proposal made at
the conceptual level. Clearly, the improvements to both streets
will make a vast difference in terms of better skier circulation,
visual image and functional support of recreation at the base
area. These elements of the plan were present at the conceptual
level, and are now committed to be paid for fully by ASC, with
the exception of the area in "Zone II" on the landscape plan,
whose cost is to be shared with other owners having property
along Dean Street.
"16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techniques to be
employed on the roof of the hotel to manage snow
shedding to insure that it does not interfere with or
endanger pedestrians below."
The applicant has provided us with a schematic drawing of the
features designed into the building to manage the snow on the
roof. The techniques employed include a flat slope on the roof
top to retain snow, avalanche guards at the edge of the sloped
portions of the roof, use of dormers to protect entryways and use
7
of a flat roof on the arcade to protect pedestrians. In our
review of the elevations and perspectives for the building, we
see large sloped areas on the roof which appears to be capable of
allowing snow to slide beyond the arcade area. We feel that this
design problem should be reviewed visually by the P&Z with the
project architect.
2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan submission,
request a variation of the project's FAR if it is above
1.5:1, since the land zoned Conservation does not count
toward the overall project FAR. The applicant may also
request special review approval to increase the
allowable commercial FAR of the property to 1.7:1 by
providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on
or off site."
The applicant has indicated that the project's FAR is 1.96:1,
using the land area zoned CC, and
1.05:1, using the land zoned CC
as well as that zoned C. Since
the Conservation zone does not
allow the hotel or retail uses, we
continue to recommend that the
same method of FAR calculation as
was used for the Aspen Mountain
PUD be applied to this project.
This rule states that we do not
calculate the FAR using land in
a zone in which the use is not
allowed. P&Z should also note that Ordinance No.2, Series of
1986, eliminates the ability to
obtain bonus FAR when off -site
housing is provided. Therefore,
the applicant should be viewed
as requesting an FAR variation from 1.5:1 to 1.96:1, a
substantial increase of over 30
percent of the allowable FAR.
This variance should, however,
be permitted, if P&Z finds the
design of the building to be suitable for this site as presented.
"12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the
new base lifts, demonstrating that these buildings are
visually compatible with the base area and that the
principal storage area for either chairs or gondolas
will not be above grade at the base area."
The elevations provided in Appendix 7 include a drawing from the
Hunter Plaza, showing the proposed lift building. The lift
building should meet the representation made in the Master Plan
that it will be a minimal structure, as generally represented by
several conceptual drawings provided at that time. Instead, the
building has been scaled at 25 feet in height, which seems quite
substantial. Further, the sketch provides little detail as to
the building design, including no indication of building
materials. The applicant has indicated, however, that storage of
gondola cabins will be at the top terminal, but that limited
"work rail" storage will be at the bottom. This representation
should be clarified as we do not know what "work rail" storage
means.
3. Conditions Concerning Miscellaneous Technical Issues:
The issues to be discussed in this section include geologic
hazard (Condition No. 10), grading (Condition No. 5), drainage
(Condition No. 22), rights -of -way ownership (Condition No. 20),
lift service (Condition No. 3) 8040 Greenline and Mountain
Viewplane (Condition No. 6), pumphouse relocation (Condition No.
11) , employee housing (Condition No. 14) , potential park zone
encroachment (Condition No. 17), fireplaces (Condition No. 21),
and SPA Boundary Change (Condition Nos. 24 and 25).
"10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study
of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects
this site and shall demonstrate that any hazard posed
to the property can and will be fully mitigated. The
applicant shall also investigate the soils hydrology in
the area to demonstrate the suitability of the site for
development purposes."
Chen and Associates has prepared a study, contained in Appendix
1, which reviews the geologic hazards to the site. On -site
impacts include potentially shallow groundwater, steep slopes and
mine subsidence. In this regard, the consultant recommends:
o A program of test holes should be drilled and observation
wells installed to provide information on groundwater.
o A subsurface investigation program should be conducted to
provide information on subsurface soil conditions and to
analyze slope stability.
In this regard, Jay Hammond notes that the regrading and
subsurface work on the site will likely require the use of a pile
retaining system, adjacent to South Spring Street, which is a
difficult construction technique, involving noise and disruption
to the neighborhood. Jay would like to see more detailed
investigation of the design of this system prior to any
construction on the site. More comments on construction impacts
are provided in a later section of thismemo.
o No action is recommended relative to mine induced subsidence
due to the low risk posed to the site.
The potential off -site impacts to the proposed development
include the potential for flood or debris flow from Copper/Spar
Gulch, and Vallejo Gulch. According to Jay Hammond:
"Additional information is also required regarding the flood
and debris flow risk from the Vallejo Gulch area onto the
project site and adjacent sites. Adequate mitigation should
be provided to protect the project and any adjacent
properties impacted by new grading.
Related to the work undertaken by Chen to evaluate the
geological hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell
redevelopment site is the ongoing effort to evaluate the
hazards and mitigation across the entire base of the
mountain. To the extent that the Aspen Skiing Company is
the major land holder within the upslope source areas and
since a failure to mitigate the problems in the upslope area
could affect Little Nell and other downslope sites, we would
recommend that ASC be required to commit to ongoing hazard
study, engineering and mitigation construction in those
areas under their control via direct ownership, leasehold,
or other usage agreement as a condition of the Little Nell
approval."
5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for
the earth work which is proposed to occur at the base
area, including any activity associated with the base
of the new lifts which may fall outside of the SPA
boundary, and shall identify the locations for any
material deposition which is to occur."
The grading plan for the site calls for the creation of a 160
foot flat area between Dean Street and the uphill end of the
acceleration wheels on the detachable lift system. The plan
indicates that approximately 66,600 cubic yards (c.y.) of dirt
will be cut, in the lower potions of the slope and 51,350 c.y.
will be filled, in the upper portion of the slope. This leaves
approximately 15,250 c.y. of dirt which is not addressed by the
plan, with our assumption being that this dirt will be removed
from the site. If other plans for the dirt are proposed, these
should be disclosed by the applicant. We would also note at this
time that the regrading involves a proposed relocation of Aspen
Mountain Road, a County Road which is maintained by ASC by
agreement with Pitkin County. The applicant should be required
to obtain an encroachment permit for road work from Pitkin County
prior to initiating any regrading activities.
9
0 •
"22. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan at the
Precise Plan stage which meets the standards of the
Engineering Department concerning the 100 year storm
and which addresses drainage from Aspen Mountain as it
affects the site and drainage from the development site
itself."
Appendix 5 contains the drainage study prepared by Rea Cassens
and Associates. The scope of the study was to determine drainage
requirements for the site, including those due to runoff from
Vallejo Gulch, which appears to flow down the Little Nell slope
and to handle runoff from the development site itself. The City
Engineer's comments on this plan are that:
"Rea Cassens and Associates has provided a thorough analysis
of the various basin impacts from the 5 year and 100 year
storms. Conceptually, they appear to be both conservative
and in keeping with City policy of detaining major flows and
releasing them off -site at historic rates. The site plan,
however, does not address the specific location of proposed
detention facilities and channels. Precise plan approval
should include adequate location and capacity for storm
routing and detention. In addition, Basin A-3 on the
drainage plan indicates a discharge onto the Alps property.
To the extent that this discharge has been increased due to
grading or other site activity it should be detained by the
Nell developer and released at historic rates."
"20. The applicant shall demonstrate in the Precise Plan
submission that all questions as to the ownership of
the Hunter Street right-of-way are in the process of
being resolved, to insure that permanent guarantees of
the availability of Hunter and Dean Streets for
pedestrian access will be provided. The Precise Plan
shall not be approved until the pedestrian access issue
has been resolved to the City's satisfaction. The
applicant will also demonstrate that the boundary
questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved,
and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted ac-
cordingly."
We received a letter from Gideon Kaufman indicating that ASC
would provide the City with funds to purchase or condemn the west
half of vacated Hunter Street and would defend the City's right
to acquire this land through condemnation. This matter was taken
up by City Council on their regular agenda on January 27, at
which time it was decided that the City Attorney should research
this matter, and provide the Council with a recommended course of
action at their meeting on February 10. When a decision is
reached, we will provide you updated information on this matter.
As to the Tippler issue, we are informed by the applicant that
resolution of the boundary location is proceeding and does not
affect the site plan due to relocation of the service yard.
However, in a conversation with the representative of the Tippler
we were informed that no contact has been made with them by ASC
since the conceptual approval. This issue should be resolved by
the applicant.
13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment as to how
lift service will be provided on Little Nell for
special events, ski instructions and for secondary
access to Lift 5. The applicant will show the location
of all lifts proposed for the base area and will
provide a commitment that their installation will be
initiated in 1987. The applicant shall be required to
specify to the City which lift system is intended to be
installed prior to review of the Precise Plan by the
City Council, also giving the Planning Office approx-
10
0 •
imately two (2) weeks to review the proposal and obtain
referral comments from other agencies prior to the
initial presentation of the Precise Plan to Council."
The Master Plan provides two options for the new high speed lifts
on Aspen Mountain, as follows:
1. Detachable grip, quad chair, capacity of 1800-2000 skiers
per hour, terminating at the top of Tourtelotte Park.
Access to Little Nell and Lift #5 is committed to via a
midway unload station or separate lift system similar to the
present Lift #4.
2. Gondola system, capacity of 1800 to 2000 skiers per hour,
terminating near the Sundeck. Access to Little Nell and
Lift #5 is committed to via a separate lift system similar
to the present Lift #4.
We would expect a choice between these two systems to be made and
presented to the Planning Office following the completion of
P&Z's review.
6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the
City's 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane review
procedures to the proposed development. Should it be
found that either review procedure applies, the
applicant will submit the necessary materials at the
Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the
review criteria of the Code."
The applicant has determined that both review procedures apply to
the project and included appropriate review materials in Appendix
4. The 8040 greenline review applies to the placement of two
lift towers and regrading of the Little Nell slope, and not to
the base area construction. We tend to agree with the applicant
that this type of development is not the kind which resulted in
8040 review being implemented by the City. Nonetheless, the
regrading will substantially change the view of the mountain,
will affect the drainage on the site and is affected by the site
geology. In general, the benefit to the community of installing
the new high speed lift justifies, in our opinion, the regrading
which must be accomplished to allow the detachable chair/gondola
to gain speed out of the base area. Drainage and site stability
concerns are addressed elsewhere. Therefore, we concur with Jay
Hammond that there appears to be no problem with the proposed
regrading or lift tower construction, subject to appropriate
utility relocations, accomplishment of necessary drainage/slope
stability investigations and reseeding of disturbed slopes.
The Mountain Viewplane issue also does not bring particular
concerns. Although the site does fall within the Wagner Park,
Cooper Avenue, Courthouse #1 and #2, Wheeler Opera House and Main
Street Viewplanes, only the Wheeler Viewplane presents any
limitations to the height of the development. Further, due to
the existing buildings on the Hyman and Cooper malls, there is no
further degradation of the view of Aspen Mountain from the
Wheeler due to this project. Although, as Jay notes, if the
foreground obstructions were redeveloped and brought into
compliance with the Viewplane, there would be an intrusion by the
hotel into the viewplane, given its minor nature and its position
in the backdrop and not the foreground, this effect is minimal.
The Planning Office and Engineering Department recommend approval
of the 8040 Greenline and Mountain viewplane reviews.
"11. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse
relocation problem and shall agree to implement said
solution at the applicant's cost."
The applicant's solution to relocating the pumphouse in Hunter
11
0 •
Street is to install a submersible pump with a remote
chlorination station. The City Water Department supports this
solution, provided that all plans, equipment and access easements
are viewed in advance of any construction.
14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of
the project in a manner acceptable to the Housing
Authority and Planning Commission. The number of
employees to be housed will be determined at the
Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commit-
ments as part of the growth management plan applica-
tion."
The applicant's proposal is to house 30 employees, representing
36 percent of the net new employees generated by the project.
The Housing Authority concurs with the generation figures
submitted by the applicant, and the method by which the employees
are to be housed. We would note that the applicant has not
applied for a Change in Use approval for the Holiday House Lodge
conversion to residential status. The applicant should submit a
letter of application, site plan and drawings of internal
configuration so that the adequacy of this facility can be
determined.
"17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
buildings do not encroach into the land within the Park
zone near the Aspen Alps."
The applicant proposes no building activity on the property in
question. Emergency skier service is proposed through this site,
with ambulance pick up on Spring Street. This use would not
appear to affect the status of the land in the Park zone
district.
"21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental Health
Department with detailed information on any fireplaces
which will be included in the project, demonstrating
their compliance with applicable Code provisions."
The Environmental Health Department is quite pleased at the
applicant's proposed use of "gas log" type fireplaces, which meet
or exceed current woodburning device legislation.
"24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary change
shall only occur in conjunction with final approval of
the Precise Plan for the project."
This procedure is being followed by the tabling of Ordinance 53,
Series of 1985, at second reading until the Little Nell project
completes its Precise Plan review.
"25. In the event that the growth allocations for the
project shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall
revert to its prior configuration."
This item should continue forward as a condition of approval.
B. REVIEW OF APPLICABLE PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE EVALUATION
CRITERIA: As noted above, there are six review procedures which need
to be addressed in this process. 8040 Greenline, Mountain Viewplane,
Change in Use, and Encroachment were addressed above. The purpose of
this section is to address the following:
1. Conformance with standards for review of Precise Plan (Section
27-7.7).
2. Conformance with conditional use review criteria (Section 24-
303) .
In our review, the following provision from Section 24-7.7 should be
12
the governing review criterion:
" (b) The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate
the reasonableness and suitability of the Precise Plan,
its conformity to the requirements of this article,
that the adverse effects of the proposed development
have been minimized to the extent practicable,and that
it complies with the City Council's intent in
originally designating the site with an SPA overlay,
including the reasonable conformance of the Precise
Plan with the approval granted to the conceptual plan."
1. Conformance with Precise Plan Review Standards.
a. Compatibility with Neighboring Development - The proposal is
surrounded by other short-term tourist uses. Its height is
40 feet, in compliance with underlying zoning and lower than
the North of Nell or Aspen Square. Its FAR of 1.96:1 is
well below that of the North of Nell Building and its mass
is offset by use of various architectural techniques.
Problems noted elsewhere in this memo concern open space,
shadows and skier drop-off as they affect this site and the
neighborhood.
b. Utilities and Roads - The project will upgrade water, sewer
and fire service to the area, and provide for detention of
stormwater from the site and the mountain and routing to the
City's storm sewer. As noted above, we are most concerned
that the road system analysis by the consultant discounts
the impact of the mountain capacity increase on the City
streets, and feel this issue should be more thoroughly
studied.
c. Environmental Suitability - The applicant has initiated
studies of the identified hazards affecting the site. If
the recommendations of the consultant and City Engineer,
summarized above, are followed, the site appears to be
suitable for development.
d. Land Planning Techniques - The techniques employed by the
applicant include the use of subgrade space for the support
services to the hotel and ski area, removal of the
maintenance function from the base area, use of stepped back
architectural form to preserve the Hunter Street viewplane,
provision of substantial open space at the rear of the
parcel, and upgrading of Hunter and Dean Streets into
pedestrian malls.
e. Conformance with Aspen Area Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land Use
Plan designates this site
as "recreation/accommodations",
which is intended "to
allow for the recreation and
accommodation needs of the
visitor to Aspen in an area that
is especially suited for this because of its unity with, and
identity to, the proposed
transportation system, the ski
area and the central area."
The conformance of the project
with the Growth Management
Policy Plan has been discussed
earlier, and will be reviewed again at the conclusion of the
Precise Plan review.
f. Expenditure of Public Funds - The project does not appear to
directly require the expenditures of additional public
funds, although there will be costs to the improvement
district to upgrade that portion of Dean Street not
addressed by the applicant. The applicant will enhance
services to the neighborhood in a variety of categories.
Issues not adequately addressed at this time include parking
and road impacts and associated costs.
2. Conformance with Condition Use Criteria.
13
a. Compliance with Zoning Code Requirements - The proposed use
of the property complies with most of the standards of the
underlying CC zone district. The proposal strictly complies
with the 40 foot height limitation, substantially exceeds
the 25 percent open space requirement and provides a front
yard of 16 feet, where no setback requirement exists, and
provides 116 subgrade and 12 at grade parking spaces where
no Code requirement exists. The only variations requested
are in terms of FAR, from a Code allowance of 1.5:1 to a
proposed 1.96:1; and in the rear yard trash area, from about
135 feet in width to about 35 feet in width. The applicant
also requests a use variance to allow the hotel to occupy
land zoned C - Conservation. All other uses appear to be in
conformance with the limitations of their underlying zones.
b. Consistency with Intents and Purposes of CC Zone - The
intent of the CC zone is "to allow the use of land for
retail and service commercial, recreation and institutional
purposes, with customary accessory uses to enhance the
business and service character in this central core of the
City. Accommodation and residential uses are limited to an
accessory st at us. " Based on this intent, the project is
consistent with the intent of the zone in terms of its
retail and recreation uses. The accommodations uses, which
are the principal use of the property rather than accessory,
are more in keeping with the surrounding properties and
nearby CL, L-1, and L-2 zone districts. Nevertheless, since
this CC property is not located in the central commercial
area, but instead is more closely associated with the base
of Aspen Mountain and its tourist accommodations, the hotel
use can be viewed as appropriate to the site.
C. Compatibility with Surrounding Land -Uses - This review
criterion has already been covered under the Precise Plan
review standards.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Office finds that:
1. The project meets the conditional use review criteria; and
2. There is a substantial amount of material which must be
provided by the applicant before it can be demonstrated that
the project complies with Precise Plan standards of review.
C. SPECIFICATION OF ZONE DISTRICT RE)GULATIONS, VARIATIONS PERMITTED AND
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Section 24-7.6(c) requires that the
application specify the zone district regulations and variations which
are to apply to the development, while Section 24-7.6(d) requires the
provision of a schedule specifying the timeframe of the development-.
Based on the preceding review, it is clear that several of the zoning
district requirements will need to be set following the review by the
Planning Commission, including trash area access and parking, and
possibly minimum front yard. The proposed uses listed on Page 13-14
of the SPA Precise Plan portion of the application appear reasonable,
with the exception that the hotel should continue as a conditional use
for the property, to give greater review power over any alterations or
modifications which may be proposed after it is constructed (i.e.,
public hearing is required for substantial modification of a condition
use, but not for an SPA amendment) . We would expect to specify the
zoning regulations for the property within the final resolution
concerning the project.
The applicant has provided a construction schedule on Page 18-19 of
the G MP submission. The schedule provides for the following:
Summer/Fall 1986 - Excavation and structural work for the commercial
structure and lower lift terminal, along with the regrading of the
Little Nell slope to permit future lift construction/operation. The
regrading would be done in such a way as not to disrupt the footings
of the existing lift towers so as to maintain the existing Lift #4 in
14
operation for the time being.
Spring/Summer/Fall 1987 - Demolish Little Nell complex, complete work
at western wing of new complex to provide skier services for the 1987-
88 season, construct new lifts, initiate hotel and commercial
construction.
Winter 1987/Winter 1988 - Complete interior and exterior of hotel,
complete landscaping, sidewalks and plazas.
Since the construction site is intended to continue in use for initial
skier access and commercial support services throughout the
construction period, we feel it is important for us to fully
understand how circulation will occur and what the base area will look
like during construction. We feel that the applicant should submit
both graphic materials as well as a detailed written description of
the proposal for the interim base area. The applicant should also be
required to demonstrate that the regrading of the slope can be
accomplished without disrupting the lift service or otherwise
endangering visitors to the area. Finally, in keeping with our
approach to the Aspen Mountain PUD, the applicant should be required
to provide the Planning Office and the City Engineer with the
following materials:
1. Specific design and location of pedestrian barricades and walkway
structures.
2. Traffic and pedestrian circulation routes during construction.
3. An agreement on the part of the applicants to properly maintain
the barricade and walkway system throughout the course of
construction, including repairs and removal.
4. Provision of a plan addressing site access and material and
equipment storage areas during construction.
5. Scheduling and design detail regarding utility relocations,
replacements and undergrounding.
6. Further detail regarding the limits of excavation, construction
easements and shoring needs.
7. Proposed landscaping of areas where demolition is contemplated
without immediate reconstruction.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: As noted earlier in this memo, SPA Precise Plan
review puts the burden on the applicant to demonstrate the reasonableness
and suitability of the project, including the minimization of its adverse
effects to the extent practicable, and its compliance with the Council's
intent in designating the site with an SPA overlay. Given the strategic
location of this parcel and its crucial importance to the success of Aspen
as a resort, we have been most careful to work within the applicable
provisions of the Code to try to obtain the best possible project for the
residents of and visitors to Aspen.
Based on our review to date, we feel that substantial work must be done to
demonstrate to the Planning Commission that the project is reasonable and
suitable for the site and has minimized its adverse effects to the extent
practicable. We recommend that the following work be accomplished during
the course of P&Z's review of this submission.
/1. The applicant should be required to submit alternative designs to
address the skier drop-off problem.
/2. The applicant should review the parking and circulation studies with
the Planning Commission. If the consultant's assumptions cannot be
justified, additional mitigation in terms of parking and roads should
be required.
/3. The applicant should provide detailed drawings and calculations as to
15
9 •
the service area turning radius.
) .'4. ASC should work with its neighbors to develop a design concept for the
entrance to the Dean Street Mall and present this concept to the P&Z.
W5. The applicant should investigate and present alternative designs for
the hotel which provide true open space along Durant Avenue.
6. The applicant should propose ways to mitigate the shading effects of
the building on Durant Avenue.
7. " he Planning Commission should review the snow retention plan and
detailed architecture (including materials) with the architect.
B. The applicant should agree to the requests by the City Engineer with
respect to geologic concerns, grading and drainage, and provide the
Commission with the necessary review materials.
9. The applicant shall make appropriate submissions with respect to the
change in use of the Holiday House, the request to vary the size of
the trash access area, and the encroachment licenses.
10. The applicant shall submit the requested materials with respect to the
construction at the base area.
11. Other miscellaneous requests and comments made throughout this memo
should be reviewed and addressed by the applicant and the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Office has no final recommendation on the entire application
until these concerns have been addressed.
AR. 5
16
MEMO RAN DG M
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Little Nell Base Redevelopment Plan - Lodge GMP Scoring
Session
DATE: January 21, 1986
PURPOSE: The purpose tonight's meeting is to score the only project
which was submitted in the 1985 L-1/L-2/CC/CL Zone District
competition for lodge units -- The Little Nell Base Redevelopment
Plan. Although the Municipal Code provides for such applications to
be submitted to the City on October 1 of each year, and reviewed by
P&Z in November, Ordinance 42, Series of 1985, adopted on August 12,
changed these dates to December 1 and January, respectively.
Tonight's public hearing will focus only on the GMP scoring issue. On
February 4, we have advertised a public hearing to initiate discussion
of the precise SPA plan and hotel as a conditional use in the CC zone
issues. Other issues to be addressed at that, or subsequent meetings
include 8040 greenline, mountain viewplane and right-of-way
encroachments. Finally, at the conclusion of all of your
considerations, we would expect you to make a recommendation with
respect to the applicant's request for a multi year allotment of 96
lodge units.
PROCEDURE: The standard procedure used by the Planning Commission in
scoring GMP applications can be summarized as follows. The Planning
Office will initiate the meeting by summarizing the project and
providing a suggested number of points for the scoring of the
application. At this time, we will also review any procedural issues
which may arise from questions by Commission members, the applicant or
members of the public. Next, the applicant will give a brief
presentation of the proposal, including any clarifications or rebuttal
of Planning Office comments. A public hearing will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each
commission member will be asked to score the applicant's proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to
the project. A project must score a minimum of 60% of the total
points available under categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 54
points, a minimum of 30% of the points available in each category 1,
2, and 3, and provide housing for 35% of the employees generated by
the project to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum
points are as follows: Category 1 = 3 points; Category 2 = 11.7
points; Category 3 = 6.3 points and Category 4(a) = 9 pts. Should the
application score below these thresholds it will no longer be
considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied.
Bonus points cannot be used to bring the application over this minimum
threshold.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS
The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a
recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the
ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively scored the proposal.
The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explana-
tion of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the
attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings.
•
E
Public Facilities
and Services
7.5
Quality Guest
of Design Amenities
19.5 16
Public Policy
Goals
14
Total
57
In our rating of this project, we have used a slightly different
standard than would otherwise be the case. When reviewing all
previous GMP applications, the project has been at the conceptual
level, and our expectations in terms of level of detail and degree of
problem solving has been set accordingly. In this case, the SPA
regulations require that the GMP submission occur at the precise plan
level. Therefore, in cases where the applicant simply commits to
addressing an issue (i.e., drainage) without adequately presenting a
design solution, we have been more conservative in our rating than
would otherwise be the case. We feel that problems must be solved at..
this stage of the review, since it represents the Planning
Commission's final opportunity to consider the project.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
To help the Planning Commission in understanding our thinking on this
project, following is a category -by -category summary of some of the
principal issues identified in our proposed scoring:
1. Adequacy of Services - The applicant has provided a utility plan
which demonstrates that the project will benefit the community by
upgrading water and sewer service not just for the project, but
for the surrounding neighborhood. The drainage proposal for the
site intends to provide for detention of mud flows from Aspen
Mountain, but has not provided a design demonstrating where or
this runoff will be handled and tells us that in any case, it
-Otlwill finally be diverted to the City's storm sewers. Fire
protection needs will be met by two new hydrants in the area,
necessary for the project and neighborhood, and sprinklers in the
building, since access cannot be provided to all sides of the
building. No road improvements are proposed for the area.
2. Quality of Design - The project will provide significant design
improvements to the gateway to Aspen Mountain, but also exhibits
significant site design flaws. The architects have attempted to
reduce the perceived mass of the building, but have not provided
true open space along Durant Street and have created a
significant shading problem for a major thoroughfare. The
project will upgrade the Hunter Street entrance to the mountain
and a portion of Dean Street , but leaves costs for the remainder
of Dean Street to neighbors. The skier drop off along Durant
Avenue does not meet our expectations from the Conceptual review,
and it would be preferable to have the building truly front on
the street or be moved back on the site dramatically, rather than
to accept this solution. The proposal may cause significant
traffic conflicts on Durant and stacking problems on Spring
Street. Service access has been significantly improved by one
covered access point on Spring Street. Parking has been increased
to 116 spaces but still may not be in excess of project needs. A
major circulation and access problem has been created for the
Tipple Inn and the Tippler. Maintenance functions will be
removed from the base, helping circulation and creating a
positive visual image. Views from key public places have been
preserved.
3. Guest Amenities - The project provides conference, lobby,
restaurant, bar and recreational space befitting a project of
this magnitude but not to the point of being superior for the
community when compared to other lodging developments we have
e xpe r i enced. The new lif t at Little Nell, to be either a
detachable quad or gondola, is of crucial significance to the
continuing superiority of Aspen as a ski resort:
2
•
0
4. Employee Housing - The applicant meets the minimum threshold by
housing 30 employees at the Holiday House, to be converted from
lodging to deed restricted status.
In summary, the project scores slightly above the minimum threshold
and is eligible for an allocation. The applicants have taken on an
ambitious project in a highly sensitive location and have been
successful in their efforts to enhance the skier experience and
develop a quality lodging/commercial/administration complex directly
adjacent to Aspen Mountain. However, in taking on a project of this
magnitude, they have also created impacts on the neighborhood for
which they are responsible. We expect that in the coming public
hearings regarding the precise plan and conditional use, considerable
attention will be given to issues such as open space, skier drop off,
pedestrian malls, service access, public views, shading, drainage,
parking and roads. We feel that these issues can and should be
resolved during the course of the upcoming review procedure, and must
be successfully handled before we get to your recommendation to
Council on allotment of 96 lodge units.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Planning Commission direct the Planning Office
to draft a Resolution which:
1. Forwards to Council the Commission's scores on the GMP project;
and
2. Recommends that City Council not act on the issue of allotment of
96 lodge units until such time as the Commission completes its
review of associated submissions, and forwards its complete
recommendation to Council.
The applicant should be asked to submit a letter to the Planning
Office, in a form to be established by the City Attorney, waiving the
procedural deadlines of Section 24-11 .6 (f) as amended by Ordinance 42,
Series of 1985, that Council must award a development allotment to the
project prior to March 1st of 1986.
AR.2
3
1 0 0
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, L-2 GMP SCORE SHEETS
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. HATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS: Jay H
RATING: 2
POINTS: 2
••. u, •e • .•
• ••
• .••
a-•
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
COMMENTS:
RATING: 2
POINTS: 2
•
-. •
o,
N,,-
•• •-
• •- �.• •- •.- • •-
-• •e •- •-.i
• ti •.
•
1Mt:aznxm
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires 'use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: 1
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1
• - - / • / • - • - • • 1 • • . • 11 • • •11
A,si)e.-& Mountain, T• n•Al-so-states• . • • • -
••' • 11 • • 1 •• / • • - - it -WIN
040
• • • ' 11
•
•
• •
• /
I
• ' }
0 •
• -• ••
•
• •
Mr •
• • 1
• ••
• • I • •
•
• I
•
11
11
I - • •
•
11MV-10MIR1064F.403
Mole
I •.
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to its
established response without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to
an existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING: 1.5
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1.5
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the development.
RATING: 1
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1
• 0
• �• •, .•- • •• 1 it
• ••. •• • • I101
• •
Mit
W
• - • • E 1 - 1 • • • • • •
• \ ' • ! 11 • • • • • • ' • ' • •
ry • • • • • 1 �• • • • • 11
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
-- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
-- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developments.
(Multiplier: 3)
RATING: 1.5
POINTS: 4.5
•• 490M WZ6 • r-M 608 4944Z-• 11 ..VIVE IN IFI a • 1ll
• • I •
MIS
• • • • • • • 11 I • Iff WHO
• 1 -
• •. •.- • I !. • • •1 ••
• • • • • ( •. • I • • •11 I •
•• - • • "o••• . • 1 •- •• 1- I
•• • WWWWWWwRIMMI-10. MIN7011211M.•- • • •-
ITOMWRTOnamne 1 - • • • • • • - so-• - I • • - • •
• - • • • • • 11 I - • • • •W.1950000F.10"MOM • ' • • I -
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the
development .
RATING: 1
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 3
• v NI- 11- • • �•-. .�
• - • • • - 11 • • - • - • - • • • R• - • • • • •
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation,
solar energy devices, passive solar orientation and similar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of
solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 1)
RATING: 3
POINTS: 3
r • • 811 WI• •• • no I•
• • • - • • • • - • • • - 11 • • • • •Rk
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
efficiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the project, or any addition thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen parking from public
views.
(Multiplier: 3)
RATING: 1
POINTS: 3
COMMENTS: The single coverprl qprvirp access pQint on Spring
I;t-rppt is nreferahlp to the two j.Qints shown at the• . h
••- • • •• but based on unusually low demand 1
restaurant/bar) • - removal • • - maintenance fu• • • from
visual benpf its. However. cipsion flaws, as noted hy Jay Hammond
and the 121annina Off ire Are elimination of nuhlir •. •• ••
problems creatc• for the Tipple Inn and the Tippler (see also
letter •11 Jack Crawford),and a pQtential stacking problem ••
• • Street from cars leaving the parte cochereami• turi3ing
onto • • - than enterina the parking •. c'
• • • offs to hotel or
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
(Multiplier: 3)
RATING: 2
POINTS: . 6
• : •- • �• • • •- •- - • • - -• - • •- III. •11
••• IF WIRIOM
------
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (Maximum 21 points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6
;. COMMENTS: The hotel ,r)rovides a single conference room of about
1000 s.f, in the subgrade area. A multi purraose room on the
lobby level is also to be used for meetings, as is a third room.
the "Board" room. These latter two areas provide an additional
�G l�j 0 1000 s.f. of meetinpsnace. The lobby appears adequate for the
L, hotel I s needs. It is impossible to evaluate the quality of any
4U' of the amenity spaces due to the sketchy drawinas provided to
date, although representations are that this will be a "first
1 ��J class" facility,
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
RATING: 2_
POINTS: 4
COMMENTS:• dinina/drinking spaceshave • -• identified•
the nlan.1 are two substantial res-taurant1- lohh
and a •. • ••- nichtclub, described in •- ul ••
and • .r c;;lareg also have outdoor areas t• continue the• - - •
experience • • the deck at Little Nell, The• • • • ex0erienc
should • - an uporade, although the of • presen
eatina and drinkina areas at the base may be lost. Tt- should h
noted I 1 t)resently two restaurants • • the site and
bar, all of which have c3i-cTtinctly local• • • •a- il
restaurant,style to "luxury" noted • the 7plan,
• • - •' of auest. but dignIare another,• • is therefore• •
C�
C�
4.
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 2)
RATING:
POINTS: 6
COMMENTS The aipplicants are orovidina an outdoor -*
1/ s. f with access to the decks, all forhotel • The
1 u ov ' 11 -ent s f or • • 11 11 • • • ' e •
M-1 •' •1111 11'• • • S11 • 111 E' /•
CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0 to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off -site
1 point for each 12% housed.
(Multiplier: 1)
b. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
RATING: 9
POINTS: 9_
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle -income units by purchasing fully constructed units
which are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and
placing a deed -restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
POINTS
1%-33% of all low- , moderate- and 1
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
34%-66% of all low -, moderate- and 3
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
•
67%-100% of all low-, moderate- and
middle -income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed -restricted
(Multiplier: 1)
5. BONUS POINTS (Maximum 6 points)
5
RATING: 5
POINTS: 5
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design merit ng recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11 .6 (b (1) , (2) , (3.) and (4) , prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
(Multiplier: 1)
6. TOTAL POINTS
RATING: _NZ_
POINTS:
Points
in
Category
1:
7.5 (Minimum of
3 pts. required)
Points
in
Category
2: 19.5
(Minimum of
11.7 pts. required)
Points
in
Category
3: 16
(Minimum of
6.3 pts. required)
Points
in
Category
4a: —9
(Minimum of
9 pts. required)
Points
in
Category
4b: _5
(No minimum
threshold)
SUBTOTAL:
5_
(60% threshold = 54 pts.)
Bonus Points:
--
TOTAL POINTS: 1 577 (Total of 96 Available)
Name of Commissioner member: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
AR.1
fIEf10RAiN1)(1f1
.L : Man Richnan, Planning and Development Director
I-'P.ON: Jay Hammond, City Engineering--*—
DATE: January 20, 1986
PE: Little Nell S. P. A. Precise Plan.
having reviewed the above application for precise plan approval
of the Little dell S.P.A., the City Engineering Department would
offer the following comments;
UTILITIES
hater - Generally, we are pleased with the system improvements
andrelocations presented by the applicant. I]e will need to be
informed of:
Pumphouse Relocation - Conceptually, this sloes not appear to
create problems though the City will need to approve all plans,
equipment and access easements to all relocated facilities.
Spring Street Line - I -le would recommend the upsizing of the
proposed Spring Street water line to a 12 inch line with a valve
at Durant and a valve, plug and kickblock at Ute :venue to
provide for future extension by the City.
Nell Slope Line - The City would like to coordinate with the
applicant the placement, by the City, of a parallel 6 inch main
crossing the Nell slope adjacent to the new 12 inch proposed by
the development.
Easements - Relocation of water and other utilities will
require new easements from the Ski Company. Also, some existing
easements will need to be formally abandoned by all utilities
currently utilizing them.
Electric - Relocation of City electric facilities in the
area shall be at the applicant's expense with relocation and
equipment design subject to approval by the City Electric Superi-
ntendent.
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Precise plan approval should be subject to further geotechnical
investigation to investigate slope stability and groundwater
conditions in the areas of the proposed cut slopes and foundation
and groundwater conditions in the areas planned for structures
Page Two
Little Nell S. P.A. Precise Plan
January 20, 1906
per the Chen report. One important construction related concern
involves the potential need for retaining structures adjacent to
South Spring Street.
Additional information is also required regarding the flood and
debris flow risk from the Vallejo gulch area onto the project
site and adjacent sites. Adequate mitigation should be provided
to protect the project and any adjacent properties impacted by
new grading.
Related to the wort: undertaken by Chen to evaluate the geological
hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell redevelopment site
is the ongoing effort to evaluate the hazards and mitigation
across the entire base of the mountain. To the extent that the
Aspen Skiing Company is the major land holder within the upslope
source areas and since a failure to mitigate the problems in the
upslope area could affect Little Nell and other downslope sites,
we would recommend that ASC be required to commit to ongoing
hazard study, engineering and mitigation construction in those
areas under their control viz direct ownership, leasehold or
other usage agreement as a condition of the Little I•Iell approval.
STORM! DRAINAGE
Rea Cassens and Associates has rrovided a thorough analysis of
the various basin impacts from the 5 year and 100 year storms.
Conceptually, they appear to be both conservative and in keeping
with City policy of detaining major flows and releasing them
off -site at historic rates. The site plan, however does not
address the specific location of proposed detention facilities
and channels. Precise plan approval should include adequate
location and capacity for storm routing and detention. In
addition, basin A-3 on the drainage plan indicates a discharge
onto the Alps property. To the extent that this discharge has
been increased due to gracaing or other site activity- it should be
detained by the Nell developer and released at historic rates.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
Service Access - Further detail %,.ith respect to appropriate
turning radii for truck access and egress are needed. maintaining
public parking on the east :aide or Spring adjacent to the Aspen
Club Lodge is a concern as is the limited right-of-way in Spring
Street.
Skier Drop -Off - The skier drop-off proposed involves elimination
of public on -street parking and an unworkable curb line extension
adjacent to the hunter Street right-of-way. We would recomimend
e::ploration of alternative designs that maintain on -street public
0 •
Page Three
Little dell S.P.A. Precise Plan
January 2.0, 1986
paring and revision of the curb design adjacent to the Horth-of-
Nell.
Parking - Uhile the parking provided on -site appears reasonable
for the needs of the lodge and skier support facilities, we
remain concerned about the adequacy of parking for the new
restaurant : and for the increased skiers attracted to Little dell
by the proposed new lift and general area expansion. Expansion
a_)proval by the County required 46 additional parking s^aces an(;
some indication of where these are to be located may be appropr-
iate.
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The applicant should be required to commit to particiL:ation in
the Lodge Area. Special Improvement District #OG-1 pursuarit to the
representations in the application and appendix 10 as a condition
of the SPA agreement.
ENCROACHMENTS
Despite the representations in the application, we have not
received appropriate submittal materials or the fee for encroachment
application.
8040 GREENLINE
Subject to appropriate utility relocations, as represented by t1he
applicant, as well as reseeding of the revised slopes, we have no
particular problems with the proposed regcc.ding or lift toner
construction under the 8040 criteria.
VIEW PLANE
Again, we are not particularly concerned about the view plane
issue. I would suggest that one of the theories of the view
plane was that foreground obstructions may eventually be redeveloped
and brought into compliance. Given the distance from the 1lheeler
and the minor nature of the intrusion, however, we are not
particularly concerned.
JII/co/LittletlelI2
cc: Jim llarka-lunar
Rich Cassens
•
14EMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman Planning Dept.
FROM: Bill Ness Parks Dept.
RE: Landscape Development Plan Little Nell
DATE: January 9,1986
After viewing the landscape conceptual site plan j believe
it to be a big improvement and should fit into the citys
overall design.All the plants the architect will be using
are indigenous with this elevation.My only concern is,Who
will be responsible for the maintenance of the trees along
Durant St.,and the snow removal on Spring St.sidewalk in
front of the hotel?
l i OF C04
0
0
P I-86-0013
RICHARD D. LAMM * a,o �` * JOHN W. ROLD
GOVCRNOR,* DIRECTOR
* 1876
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY plfp�
� DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES?15 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREE
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611I JAN January 6, 1986 f
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Richman:
RE: LITTLE NELL LODGE, GMP
We have reviewed the pertinent portions of this application and the general
and engineering geology of the area. We concur with the findings and recom-
mendations found in the Chen & Associates, and Rea-Cassens & Associates re-
ports (Appendix 1 & 5 respectively).
The potential problems associated with high watertable and slope instability
are resolvable based upon detailed, site -specific design studies as recom-
mended by Chen. These studies should be accomplished prior to actual con-
struction or grading activities commence.
The recommendations found in the Storm Water Drainage Report appear adequate
for the water/mud floods anticipated. The observation for the need to update
and revise the entire city plan is well taken.
In summary, we see no adverse conditions of a geologic nature which should
affect GMP approval. The detailed studies regarding slope stability and
water table problems should be conducted prior to final approval.
Yours truly*L.nes
Jeffrey
Senior Engineering Geologist
bcr:JLH-86-049
G E O L O G Y
STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE
MEMORANDUM
1)atc: January 6, 1986
TO: Alan Richman, Planning, Director
FROM: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official _�.1
SUBJECT: Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
The following fire, life, safety deficiencies are evident at this
stage of the design:
1) Fire Department access to all sides of the building has not
been provided, therefore the building must be protected
throughout with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
2) Class III standpipes shall be provided as required by
building code.
3) A stairway (centrally located) shall extend to the roof,
while access via roof hatches is permissible at the other
stairways.
4) The atrium area must meet the requirements of the 1982
U.B.C., including a smoke removal system.
5) The fire -safety code discourages day care centers in basement
levels. A building permit will not be issued for the proposed
child care center as it is currently designed.
6) The north end of the corridor at Level -12 exits into the
parking garage, a violation of building code.
7) Any wood roofing material must be fire -retardant, Class B
rated.
In addition, the developer should be aware of the possibility of
an effective building code change. In 1986, the Building
Department will be submitting the 1985 U.B.C. to City Council for
adoption. The building code in effect at the time of building
permit application will be applied to this project.
cc: Peter Wirth, AVFD
JW/ar
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, Public Services Director
DATE: January 6, 1986
RE: Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission
Having reviewed the above application for Growth Management Plan
scoring of the Little Nell Base Development,,the City Engineering
Department would offer the following comments:
WATER Subject to the commitments expressed by the applicant to:
a. Abandon the Little Nell 12 inch steel line,
b. Relocate and reinforce the Little Nell 12 inch gravity
line (per r;arky's letter of November 27, 1985) .
C. Relocate pumping facilities to the snowmaking plant.
d. Relocate well control and treatment facilities from the
Hunter Street pumphouse into the lodge structure
And, subject to the applicant's willingness to assist and coordinate
with the City in its installation of an additional line to the
Aspen Alps, as well as upsizing of the proposed Spring Street
line, we would view the proposal as a substantial upgrading of
the area water system.
We are currently analyzing some of the additional items above and
will be more specific in our recommendation as soon as possible.
Recommended Scoring 2
SEWER Based on the development plan, and pursuant to the
comments in Heiko Kuhn's letter of November 20, 1985, the plan
represents an improvement to the Aspen Sanitation District's
system in the area.
Recommended Scoring 2
STORM DRAINAGE The proposal responds to current requirements
with regard to on -site detention of storm flows. In addition, it
responds, at least conceptually, to the need for upsizing of
detention to accommodate potential mud flews ar,d is beneficial to
the area in general in that regard. Subsequent information
• 0
Page Two
Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission
January 6, 1986
regarding the specific location of detention facilities should be
required.
Recommended Scoring 2
FIRE PROTECTION The application provides for two new fire
hydrants and is responsive to Peter Wirth's letter of November
21. The hydrants are recommended to serve the project and
represent a standard solution to the needs of the new development.
Recommended Scoring 1
ROAD SYSTEM TDA's analysis would appear to indicate that the
existing network is adequate. we are concerned that traffic
generation figures for the winter months may be low anticipating
the increased use of Little Nell as a skier access following
completion of the Gondola. Generally, however, the road system
should be adequate to provide some flexibility in the trip
generation figures. Greater concerns resolve around parking and
will be discussed later.
Recommended Scoring _I
SITE DESIGN The site plan calls for extensive utility relocation
and proposes to place all "proposed utilities" underground. We
would request some further detail regarding any existing utilities
slated for undergrounding.
Recommended Scoring 2
PARKING AND CIRCULATION Generally, parking provided for the
lodge and base facilities, taken in consideration of a firm
commitment to proposed van service, valet parking, employee
shuttles, etc., would appear to be adequate.
Problems include:
a. Flimination of public parking on Durant to accommodate
controlled skier drop-off and parking on the site.
b. Parking, circulation and service access problems created
for the Tipple Inn and the associated bar and restaurant.
Page Three
Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission
January 6, 1986
We would recommend further work in these areas to maximize public
and require private parking.
Recommended Scoring 1
JEl/co/LittleNellGMPSub
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING OFFICE
JIM MARKALUNAS
LITTLE NELL LODGE GMP/PRECISE PLAN
23 1985
DATE. DECEMBER ,
UWE
DEC24i
LVII
This is to advise you that we have reviewed the Little Nell Lodge
GMP/Precise Plan, and at this time, we do not have any additional
comments. We do wish to reference our letter of Nov. 27, 1985,
and note that we have been in close contact with the developer
and engineers regarding this project. It has been suggested that
the 6" fire main in Spring St. be increased to a 12" for future
connection to Ute Ave. We have no further comments to make at
this time, except that the Water Department wishes to be advised
of any changes in the overall plan and the scheduling of construction
work, so we can properly schedule the necessary changes to our
operations and construction activities.
JM:ab
ASPEN4PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office
FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director '3f�
Environmental Health Depa i t.ii ri
DATE: December 14, 1985
RE: Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
The above -referenced submittal has been reviewed by this ofi J.ce
for the following environmental concerns.
AIR POLLUTION
Solid Fuel Burning Devices:
The applicant has committed to install only "gas i oq" i•ypt_
fireplaces in hotel suites and one wood -burning i r•
the main hotel lobby. This approach is in conform•ince with
policies of this department.
The applicant should be commended in this novel desicgri
feature to address the fireplace issue. As the result oi:
many air pollution studies which have been perform(,ci in the
Aspen Pietro area, it is well documented that every developir-iient.,
large or small, has the potential to negatively if.ipKic•t. ail
quality. The Aspen Skiing Company's progressive approach to
this very sensitive issue should be considered as a t:todel
for other future developments to follow.
The applicant has met and/or exceeded their required _:ompl.i",nce
with current woodburning device legislation.
Construction Air Pollution
Prior to any demolition of existing buildings, t:hc
i. shall certify through a qualified source that thf,re i:: no
asbestos present in those buildings. Inspect i;ln, !:•+Wild i ng
and analysis of any suspected asbestos matey i gal. will be
required.
If asbestos is present in the buildings, the Shall
retain qualified asbestos removal personnel to i c-m�ive the
material.
It
shall be
handled as a hazardous waste and
di pe_.eci et in
a
designated
landfill after the removal Plan
hA:. ;h
130 South Galena
Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-2020
Page Two
Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
December 14, 1985
approved by this department and the Colorado Health Departm-
ent. Colorado Air Pollution Control laws, Regulation 8
Section II.3.4 dictates the need for this action.
Further, during demolition and construction the applicant
;j will be required to remove any mud and dirt carry -out onto
City streets by vehicle traffic from the site.
This soil shall be removed by means of a mechanical street
sweeper which will use a water/brush method. The soil
contained within the machine shall be re -deposited on the
applicants property. Daily cleaning of the impacted streets
will be the applicants responsibility.
During actual razing of buildings, the applicant will be required
to prevent windblown (fugitive) dust from leaving the property.
This control may take the form of spraying the immediate demolition
site with water. Other examples of acceptable control techniques
include dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site, shrouding
the work area, etc.
Contact by the project sponsor shall be made with the Colorado
Health Department to determine if an emission permit and/or a
fugitive dust control plan is required for both the demolition
and construction phase of the project. That determination is
relative to the estimated emissions which will be generated
(tons per year). Contact Mr. Scott Miller, Colorado Health
Department, 222 S. 6th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, or
phone him at 248-7150 to inquire about Regulation 1, Section III,
D,2,h titled "Demolition Activities" of the "Colorado Air Quality
Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards," Revised
March 1983.
UNDERGROUND PARKING
It will be a requirement of this office that adequate air handling
facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate any buildup
of air contaminants inside the underground parking structures.
NOISE ABATEMENT
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 2 series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All demolition
and construction noise related activities shall be covered under
the maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance.
A project of this magnitude can be expected to generate persistent
Page Three
Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
December 14, 1985
sound levels that may be annoying to the neighborhood. The
applicant must be aware of this and be conscious of methods and
approach to minimize generation of complaints to this office.
Time of day, duration of specific activities and using the most
technically quiet equipment are a few mitigating measures that
may be involved. If complaints are received, the referenced
ordinance will be the governing document used in enforcement.
The submittal details plans for a night club to be included in
the project. Construction techniques shall be employeed which
will not allow sound generated from this facility to exceed the
noise abatement ordinance maximum allowable decibel levels. Such
sound levels would be measured at the property line.
As a point of information, the applicant should also be considerate
of guests at the lodge and design the night club to not interfere
with their comfort.
CONTAMINATED SOIL
No evidence of mine dumps or mine tailings being present on the
project site are indicated in the Chen and Associates report.
However, during demolition, excavation and construction if such
soil types are discovered the following shall apply.
All suspected mine waste materials shall be sampled and evaluated
for Lead, Zinc, Arsenic, Cadmium and other metals commonly found
in mine dumps or mine tailings.
The sample analysis shall be provided to this Office from a
qualified laboratory for evaluation. If elevated levels of heavy
metals are identified, mitigating measures will be required.
Professionally competent people in the field of geology will be
required to develop the mitigation plan.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL,
Service to this project of a public sewaye collection system a:;
provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District i:; in
conformance with policies of this office.
This will include installation and maintenance of grease traps as
required by the District.
WATER SUPPLY
Service to this project by t:he distribution line:; as I�rovided by
Lhe City ol_ l,;Ex n Water Depactnient i:; in cunf011:1,int-:0 with polic,ie-:
i
Page Four
Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
December 14, 1985
of this office.
FOOD SERVICE
All food service establishments shall comply with Colorado Rules
and Regulations governing such facilities. This will include not
only restaurants, bars and lounges, but also mountain restaurant
food storage areas. Proper licensing of these facilities through
this department will be required prior to service of food to the
public.
Compliance with Section 11-2.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled
"Restaurant Grills" will also be required. This section addresses
the type of cooking devices which can be installed and operated
in new or remodeled food service establishments.
SWIMMING POOLS/SPAS
Swimming pools and spas must comply with the Rules and Regulations
governing such facilities as required by Colorado standards.
Throughout this review reference has been made to various rules,
regulations, ordinances and laws. Copies of all of them may be
found in this office. It is recommended that architects under
contract to this project become familiar with them during the
design phases.
TSD/co/LittleNell
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Dept.
Environmental f'.ealth Dept .
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Parks Department
Fire Chief
Chief Buildina Official
Zoning Enforcement. Officer
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
Di st tint
RE: Little Nell Lodge G[':P/Precise Plan
DATE: December 11, 1985.
F-
�� fl ,
ac
Attached for your reviei:, is an
application submitted by
Peter
Forsch
of the Aspen Skiing Com—, a ny .
This application consists
of a
request
for a 96 unit Lodge GNP quota
allotment, Precise Plan
review
(since
the property is located in the
CC zone district with an
SPA overlay),
Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline
Review and Vountain Viewplane
Review.
We are referring this application at this point in time although there
are additional materials expected f rom the applicant (e. g. , addi-
tional drawings to be submitted around 1st of year), which we will
provide to appropriate referral agencies at the time they are submit-
ted. Also, please note that we are referring full scale plan sets to
a select group of the referral agencies. If other agencies are
interested in seeing full scale plan set_., they are available here
in the Planning Office.
We would appreciate if you Would please limit your comments to your
ovrn particular area of expertise. If you have any questions as to why
this application was referred to you and whet comments we ray be
looking for from you, rl ez ce contact me. This application is unusu-
ally complex and has a great cleal. of political importance. Ile,
therefore, neec; your cor::;e nt. s on time, and in any case, no later than
January 6, 1980'. We cannot accept delays in this case.
Thank _you for your cooperation in advance.
TNT /is/c•- Cv-5��� nn�r n 1 ^14 r r
.►� ^-a
��.•����- ..—rom_ s � .�,
r
TO:
TH RU :
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Hal Schilling, City Manager A-0
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director fir\
Conceptual SPA Submission - Little Nell Base Redevelopment
September 17, 1985
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) requests concep-
tual SPA approval for the redevelopment of the Little Nell base area.
The applicant also requests that the boundaries of the area designated
as SPA be expanded. Presently, the SPA Overlay covers that portion of
the site (about 43,000 square feet) which has a "CC" - Commercial Core
zone designation. The applicant requests that the SPA overlay be
expanded across about 45,000 additional square feet which is now
designated "C" - Conservation, with no change in the underlying C-zone
designation being requested.
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: There are several sections of the newly
adopted Ordinance 20 which are particularly pertinent to the appli-
cant's request, including the following:
"Section 24-7.2 Procedure for Designation of Sites as SPA
(a) Parcels of land shall be designated with a Specially Planned Area
(SPA) overlay or the boundaries of parcels already designated
with an SPA shall be adjusted only following the procedures and
requirements for amendments to the zoning map described in
Article XII of this chapter, and by submitting a conceptual plan
for development of the parcel, as described below."
(c) In designating, parcels with an SPA overlay, the Planning Commis-
sion and City Council shall make findings as to the unique
characteristics of the parcel which justify its designation with
an SPA overlay, including how the parcel complies with the
intents and purposes of this Article."
"Section 24-7.3 Conceptual Plan
(a) An applicant for any site designated, or proposed to be designat-
ed with an SPA Overlay shall submit a conceptual plan, for the
purpose of establishing the objectives which the SPA designation
is to achieve. The conceptual submission shall include a
statement of the intent and a conceptual description of the
type of development which is proposed to take place on the
parcel, including but not limited to use categories, overall
proj ect density, and design concepts to be employed. The
applicant shall consult with the Planning Director as to the
submission requirements prior to the submission of the conceptual
plan; however, as a general guide, it is not intended that the
submission go into the technical detail required of conceptual
subdivision or conceptual PUD."
In my opinion, the key points regarding conceptual review which are
contained in the above statements are as follows:
1. Adjustment of the boundaries of an SPA requires that rezoning
procedures (i.e., public hearing before P&Z, Ordinance adoption
by City Council) be followed. We attach a proposed Ordinance for
your first reading consideration.
2. If Council supports the alteration of the Little Nell SPA
boundaries, it must identify "the unique characteristics of the
parcel which justify its designation with an SPA overlay."
Therefore, we must make such findings with respect to the new
area requested for designation if we are to support this request,
as was done by P&Z in their attached resolution.
3. Conceptual SPA is a very broad review process, intended princi-
pally to identify the overall type and form of development which
is to take place on the parcel. In this respect, it is closer to
a zoning process, which establishes the uses and area and bulk
requirements for a parcel, than a subdivision or PUD process,
which deals with design standards and technical feasibility of
the project. These detailed concerns are more properly to be
addressed at the precise plan stage which follows conceptual
approval by Council.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: The Planning Office review of this project
can be broken down into the following categories:
1. Major design issues, including referral comments; and
2. Growth rate issues.
Following this review, a summary of the pros and cons of the project
is presented, and a Planning Office recommendation is made. For a
detailed summary description of the project and an analysis of the
existing deficiencies of the base area, we refer you directly to
the materials provided by the applicant.
MAJOR DESIGN ISSUES:
1. Use - The conceptual plan is the appropriate time to review the
use categories proposed for the project. The uses proposed in
the Little Nell Base Redevelopment are as follows:
o Hotel - 96 rooms (approximately 77,700 sq. ft. above grade
PA
and 15,700 subgrade). Included in the hotel are various
subgrade spaces serving skiers such as lockers and rest -
rooms.
o Commercial - Approximately 16,100 sq. ft., of which about
13,400 sq. ft. is requested for verification as existing
space. (Note: This square footage is included in the above
hotel size estimate.)
o Ski Area Support Facilities - Approximately 10,000 square
feet of subgrade space, some of which is a reconstruction of
existing space (note: the applicant should clarify the
breakdown of uses within this space and how much is a
rebuild of existing offices and support areas for the
purposes of establishing the commercial quota for which the
applicant will be applying) . This area is principally ski
administration space, but also included in this category are
the new lifts at the base area, for which no FAR has been
provided.
o Parking - 77 subgrade spaces are proposed, at a rate of .7
spaces per room (96 x .7 = 67) plus 10 spaces f or key
employees, in an area of about 30,000 square feet.
The Planning Office believes that the proposed mix of uses is an
appropriate one for this SPA site. The hotel is a conditional
use in the CC zone, while the commercial uses are permitted in
this zone The ski area support facilities are an appropriate
use of the land in the Conservation zone district. More will be
said about the appropriateness of the proposed uses in the
section of this memo concerning the proposed boundary change to
the SPA overlay. However, at this point it is clear that the
intrusion of the hotel and commercial area into the portion of
the site zoned C, with an SPA overlay requested, would be a
variation in the uses allowed in that district.
2. Area and Bulk Requirements - The key area and bulk requirements
of the CC zone district which apply to this development are as
follows:
o Maximum Height - 40 feet - The building has been scaled at
46 feet to the top of the roof and appears to be able to
meet the 40 foot limit to the midpoint of the roof . Final
determination of compliance would be made at the precise
plan stage.
o Percent Open Space - 25% - If we include both the present
and proposed SPA areas, the site contains about 88,862
square feet, of which 61,003 square feet are to be kept in
open space (approximately 68.5% open space) . However,
according to the definition of open space in Section 24-3.7
(d) , open space must be open to the street and unobstructed
3
from ground level and have a minimum street frontage of 100
feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet. The purpose of these
provisions is to provide visual relief along the street
from the mass of the building.
Since the pedestrian plaza is not within the applicant's
ownership, there is no area along the Durant Street frontage
which meets this provision. However, the open spaces does
front on Dean Street. As a condition of P&Z's recommenda-
tion, the applicant has been asked to verify with the Zoning
Official that this open space meets the requirements of the
Code. In any case, the building as proposed has an exten-
sive facade mass, and by not having open space along Durant
Street within the applicant's ownership, will particularly
affect views from the Aspen Square Complex. Also important
in this regard are the shadow effects on Durant Street, as
noted in condition 15 of the P&Z resolution.
o External FAR - 1.5:1 - There are two possible methods to
calculate the external FAR for the project. First, the FAR
can be calculated based on the existing CC/SPA site, which
would involve 43,124 square feet of lot area and 77,718
square feet of building, amounting to an FAR of 1.80:1. A
second approach would be to include in the calculation the
area zoned C, and proposed to have an SPA overlay placed on
it. In this case, the site would be 88,862 square f eet and
the FAR would be 0.87:1. Based on the precedent set in the
review of the Aspen Mountain Lodge, the land zoned C should
not be included in the FAR calculation, since the uses
proposed (hotel, commercial) are not permitted or condition-
al uses in the C zone. Therefore, the applicant is request-
ing a variance from the CC FAR from 1 .5:1 to about 1 . 8: 1 .
The applicant can also request Special Review approval to
increase the allowable commercial FAR on the site to 1.7:1
by providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on -
or off -site.
o Parking - There is no requirement for parking for lodging
or commercial uses in the CC zone. There is also no parking
requirement for lodge uses in the C zone, but the Code does
require that parking for "all other uses," (i. e. , the
commercial space) receive Planning Commission review. Both
the Engineering Department and the Planning, Office have
serious doubts about the adequacy of 77 spaces for a project
of this magnitude. The application references "recent
downtown parking studies" (presumably those for the Aspen
Mountain PUD) to justify this level of parking provision.
We would like to see additional study of this issue to
justify that the parking needs of the lodge rooms, adminis-
trative offices, commercial spaces and skier support
facilities are being met by this proposal. We would also
note that the building is proposing to displace approxi-
4
0
mately 30 parking spaces which now exist on the property,
although only about 10 of these spaces are used year-round.
The parking issue is addressed by Condition #3 of P&Z
Resolution 85-18.
3. SPA Boundary Change - The applicant proposes to adjust the
boundary of the area designated with an SPA overlay. The
applicant does not request any change in the extent of the area
designated as CC. Instead, it is proposed that an SPA desig-
nation be placed over approximately 1 acre of property currently
designated only as conservation.
The applicant's zoning boundary change differs significantly from
that which was considered and eventually denied by City Council
in 1983, The extent of the area requested for SPA designation is
considerably less than that previously identified and corresponds
directly to that area in which the hotel, commercial and ski
support facilities are to be located at the toe of the slope. In
fact, by extending the boundary, we insure that the location of
the lifts is considered at the same time as the remainder of the
base area development.
We find that the increase in the SPA boundary does meet the test
of being unique and providing public benefit in that it permits
integrated planning of the lift locations in conjunction with the
remainder of the base area development. Without the SPA Overlay,
our review of the ski lifts would be limited to the conditional
use review process. Furthermore, the site itself is unique due
to its location at the gateway to Aspen Mountain, and the year-
round recreational benefits to the community which can be
provided there.
The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adjustment
with the following qualifications:
a. The area designated C-SPA is not used in the calculation of
the FAR for the project, due to the rationale noted above.
b. Final approval of the boundary change should only occur in
conjunction with final approval of the precise plan for the
proj ect . Theref ore, the City Council should accomplish a
first reading of the ordinance, and table second reading
until a precise plan submission is reviewed in 1986.
C. In the event that final approval of the project expires, the
boundary of the SPA should revert to its prior configuration
until a new conceptual and precise plan is submitted.
Each of these qualifications was accepted by P&Z and included in
their attached Resolution.
4. Project Visibility - There are at least three aspects of the
5
project's visibility which we believe are of concern to the
community. First, there is a concern about the historic ability
of residents and visitors to view the base of the mountain from
various points in town. In my opinion, the view corridor up
Hunter Street provides the least cluttered sight lines which must
be preserved. I have reviewed a computer simulation prepared by
the applicants which will be included in their slide show. This
simulation appears to demonstrate that because of the pedestrian
plaza, the hotel will not cause a significant impact on the
Hunter Street view. However, I have asked the applicants to move
the reference point for this view back down Hunter Street from
Durant to Cooper and even to Hyman to better evaluate this
impact, and feel that this information could be requested at the
conceptual review stage. P&Z addressed this concern in Condition
#4 of Resolution 85-18. Detailed architectural renderings and
elevations would not be expected until the precise plan stage.
A second visibility question has to do with the regrading of the
Little Nell slope. I have been informed that either the new quad
lift or the gondola will require an extensive flat area to allow
the lift motors to bring the chair or the gondola up to the
necessary minimum speed. This flat area will also have the
significant benefit of allowing easier pedestrian access to the
lifts, drastically improving circulation at the base area. We
will need to see a detailed grading plan to evaluate the extent
of the cut which will be required and to obtain a clearer idea of
the degree to which the historic appearance of the base of the
mountain will be altered. This concern is addressed as Condition
#5 of Resolution 85-18.
A final visibility question has to do with the City's mountain
viewplane and 8040 review criteria. It appears that a portion of
the site may technically fall within the Cooper Avenue viewplane,
or possibly even be affected by the Courthouse or Wheeler
viewplanes. It also is unclear from the applicant's presentation
whether or not the project falls within 50 yards below the 8040
greenline. The applicant should study these viewplane and
greenline concerns and, if review is required, submit the
necessary documentation at the precise plan stage of review.
5. Circulation - Several conceptual circulation issues have been
raised by our review of the conceptual site design. First, the
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners approving the
Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP) requires that the
taxi -limo -auto drop-off facility at Little Nell be maintained.
We do not see where provision for this facility has been made on
the conceptual drawings. This issue received extensive attention
at the P&Z level and was finally addressed as Condition #7 of
Resolution 85-18. The applicant also has not made provision for
the 46 off-street, skier automobile parking spaces required to
mitigate theeffects of the 1,300 daily skiers - at -one - time
capacity increase on Aspen Mountain. However, the BOCC Resolu-
0 •
tion states that this requirement can be met either at the base
of Little Nell, through a cash contribution, or through an off -
site solution by ASC.
A second circulation question has to do with the location of
service delivery areas on Spring Street, opposite the Woodstone
Inn, and on Dean Street, behind the North of Nell building.
These two entrances are intended to serve the vehicles bringing
goods to the hotel -commercial facility, and for the restaurants
on the mountain., respectively.
The City Engineer questions whether it is appropriate to have two
such service yards, or if a single area can be provided to
consolidate these operations. Given our recent experience with
the Aspen Mountain Lodge service yard on Monarch Street, we want
to insure that these facilities impact the least number of sur-
rounding residents. Condition #8 of Resolution 85-18 states
that we would like the applicant to demonstrate that adequate
room has been left for stacking trucks within the service yards
and for making necessary turning movements, without causing
interference with traffic on either Spring Street or Dean
Street.
With respect to overall traffic circulation, the app_li�at_...1�
rp�ovided us with no _.information whatsoever on the adequacy of
Durant, Spring and Dean S_tr.eets to handle the traffic volumes
f-rom skiers, guests, employees and users of the commercial'
spaces. Condition #9 of Resolution 85-18 requires that such
technical information be provided in conjunction with precise
plan review.
One of the most positive aspects of the applicant's proposal is
the improvement to pedestrian circulation which is expected to
result form the plazas on Hunter and Dean Streets. The applicant
appears to have given thoughtful attention to the placement of
the ticket booths, the lift and the entrance to the mountain. We
are conceptually pleased with this effort, but note that neither
Dean Street nor Hunter Street is owned by ASC, although the
applicant states that it does have easements over these pro-
perties. The ASC must clarify its intent with respect to these
right-of-ways at the time of precise plan review, and provide us
with copies of these easements as soon as possible, since without
these areas, there is certain to be inadequate access for
pedestrians to the mountain. P&Z has requested that efforts be
made including coordination with the City, to increase the extent
of this pedestrian gateway to the mountain.
We also need
to clarify the kinds
of vehicles which will be
permitted on
Dean Street, since the
applicant
already intends to
have service
vehicles here, and
possibly
emergency (fire,
ambulance,
etc.) vehicles as well, which
could affect the
pedestrian character
of the street.
Finally,
the applicant has
7
been asked in Condition 418 of Resolution 85-18 to provide trail
facilities connecting to Ute Avenue and Aspen Mountain Road
through the site.
6. Miscellaneous Technical Concerns - From our review of the Aspen
Mountain PUD it has become clear that we must take a much closer
look at geologic hazards in the review of any development at the
base of Aspen Mountain. Condition #10 of Resolution 85-18
requires that a conclusive, technical study demonstrating that no
hazard is posed to this project, or that any hazard can be f ully
mitigated, be provided prior to the review of the precise plan.
The applicant has also been asked to address off -site drainage as
it affects this site and on -site drainage in Condition #22 of P&Z
Resolution 85-18.
A memo has been received from Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water
Department noting the presence of City water pumping facilities
in the east half of hunter Street. Jim feels that relocation of
this facility is technically possible and should not be an
impediment to the project. Condition #11 of Resolution 85-18
requires that technical details of the proposed solution to this
problem be provided at the precise plan stage. There appear to
be no problems whatsoever with the provision of sewage disposal
service for this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District.
Several aspects_ of the base area plan relate to commitments made
during the review of AYSAMP. First, ASC committed to a general-
ized design f'or 'the" lift structure at the base which would insure
that it not be a large, obtrusive building in which hundreds of
chairs would be stored. Compliance with this condition should be
demonstrated at the precise plan review stage, as noted in
Condition #12 of P&Z's attached Resolution.
The applicants also committed to provide lift service on Little
Nell for special events, ski instructions, and secondary access
to Lift 5. The applicants agree at this time to provide such
service via a mid -way unloading station (if a detachable quad
chair is implemented) or via a relocated number 4 lift (if a
gondola is implemented) .
Finally, the applicants agreed
to removing the
snowcat mainte-
nance
shop from the base area and relocating it
to the mainte-,:,,;,,i:,
nance
facility on the mountain.
Accomplishment
of this commit-
ment
will significantly improve
the look of the
base area,
will
the consolidation of the snowcat loading dock function in a ��ijrl:r►+
much
less obtrusive location.
Both of these commitments are
contained
in the conceptual SPA
plan.
One amenity
requested
by
the Planning
Office but not made a
condition of
approval
by
the County was
the provision of public
ski storage
facilities
on
site. We felt
that such storage would
1.1
be an auto disincentive by making it easier for people to travel
about town without excess baggage before and after skiing. We
are pleased to see the inclusion of public lockers and ski
lockers in the hotel plan. We would like the applicant to
clarify that these lockers will be available for public overnight
storage of skis, boots and accessories.
A concern raised by the City Engineer and the P&Z in Condition
#16 relates to snow shedding from the roof. The applicant has
been asked to address this problem to insure that pedestrians
are not affected by snow from the hotel.
A last technical issue is that of employee housing. The app-
licant has put this issue off to the precise plan review stage,
and indicate that the requirements will be satisfied at an off -
site location. The Planning Office does not object to this
approach at the conceptual stage, pending review of the location,
quality and quantity of the proposed housing,.
GROWTH RATE ISSUES
A. Problem Statement
Under the provisions of Ordinance 20, the applicants will not
submit their growth management application until the precise plan
is submitted. Council recently changed the due date for 1985
lodge allocation submission other than L-3 from October 1 to
December 1. Therefore, you can expect a lodge GMP application to
be submitted by this applicant on December 1 of 1985 or October 1
of 1986.
Even though we are not yet reviewing the GMP application at this
time, the Planning Office believes that the question of the
allocation itself is a conceptual issue. Presuming for the
moment that the applicant is successful in meeting the competi-
tive threshold, we feel the Council should provide the applicant
with an indication of the likelihood of obtaining an allocation
for this project. We pose this issue because of the unique
circumstances associated with this year's lodge competition.
As you recall, the City granted an allocation of 172 lodge units
to the Aspen Mountain FUD. This allocation consisted of 32 lodge
units unallocated from prior years, and the full 35 unit per year
allocation for 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. In effect, the lodge
quota available for this year and next year is 0.
Section 24-11.3 (b) of the Municipal Code provides that:
"(b) The City Council may (but need not) grant a development
allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a
period of years provided that each year during the scheduled
construction the annual allotment provided for in Section
24-11.1 shall be reduced by the amount of construction
permitted by the approval. "
Therefore, it is clear from the above language that the City can
award an allocation to this project from the 1987, 1988 and most
(26 of 35) units of the 1989 quotas. Therefore, the question for
us to analyze is whether the City should, from a planning and
development perspective, award such an allocation.
Numerical Analysis
In the opinion of the Planning Office, one key consideration
in awarding a future allocation is that we have approved a
series of lodge projects in recent years which have not yet
been occupied and whose impacts have yet to be felt. Included
within this list are the following projects:
1. Aspen Mountain Lodge (275 rebuilt units, 172 new units)
2. Hotel Jerome PUD (28 rebuilt units in Phase I, 11
rebuilt and 67 new units in Phase II) .
,--� 3. Sardy House (20 new lodge units) .
-�N, 4. Highlands Inn Renewal (37 rebuilt units, 136 new
units) .
►�: 5. Hotel Aspen (13 new units) .
The above projects amount to about 350 rebuilt units and over 400
new units in the Aspen Lodging inventory, none of which have yet
been occupied. Other projects which have recently been occupied
and which demonstrate the level of activity in Aspen's lodging
market include the 14 rebuilt and 4 new units at the Hotel
Lenado, the 35 rebuilt units at the Hotel Aspen (Nugget Lodge),
and the 35 rebuilt and 3 new units at The Aspen (Applejack) .
Units which are approved to be removed from the inventory include
the 14 at the Copper Horse and 40 at the Alpina Haus. ;
(Note: When the units at these two facilities are deed -restrict-
ed, the change in use provisions of the Code will require us to
credit the L-3 quota with these 54 units, and to deduct 54 units
from the residential quota.)
r 7NR /f;/�.n
The Council should also be aware that the Code (Section 24-11.2) :y`, -:-."?
requires that when a building permit is issued for the new units
in the Sardy House (this occurred in August, 1985) and Hotel
Jerome projects (expected in Spring, 1986) , we will have to
deduct those units from the lodge quota. This requirement means
that, in effect, these projects have taken the available quota
for 1987, 1988 and part (17 units) of the 1989 quota. Therefore,
the Little Nell Base Redevelopment project could be seen as
10
• 0
requesting the remainder of the quota for 1989, 1990 and 1991
(less 2 units) .
C. Policy Analysis
During the Planning Commission's review of this project, quite a
controversy was created when the Planning Office presented the
above numerical analysis. Some members of the Commission felt
that additional study of the lodging inventory should be done,
since there have been assertions of an overall loss of short-term
pillows over the last 10 years which have not been addressed by
the formulation of the lodge quota. The applicant provided some
data to support this claim, although admittedly not a comprehen-
sive study of this issue.
The .applicant also provided a numerical analysis of the lodge
quota. This analysis found that if the 54 units in the Copper
Horse and Alpina Haus are credited to the L-1/L-2/CC/CL and Other
zone quota (as was originally recommended by the Planning office
and Planning Commission in the P&Z Resolution recommending con-
ceptual approval of the Aspen Mountain Lodge) and the 20 units at
the Sardy House are deducted f rom this quota, then 34 of the 35
units in the quota would be available beginning in 1986. On this
basis the applicant's request would be to obtain 34 units from
the 1986 quota, the 35 units f rom the 1987 quota and 27 units
from the 1988 quota. Since the facility is planned to open in
1988 or 1989, the applicant feels that no inconsistency with the
growth management quota system is being proposed. However, the
problem with this rationale is that Council did not accept the
recommendation to credit the L-1/L-2 quota for those units, and
the L-3 quota will, therefore, receive the lodge unit credit.
The Planning Office believes that this type of numerical analysis
is one indication of the impacts of the 96 unit allocation
request by the applicant, but that it should not be the sole
determinant of Council's decision. As` noted on Page 41 of the
Growth Management Policy Plan, "Growth management would be a
meaningless exercise in the manipulation of sterile numbers if
some higher goal were not in mind". Our understanding is that
the higher goals were (and continue to be) community balance and
quality of life.
A principal reason that the community chose to regulate its rate
of growth was to avoid the boom conditions of the prior decade,
where the construction of a multitude of projects at a single
time would take us across major service thresholds and require
the government to intervene in a time frame in which it cannot
respond. We, therefore, established a growth phasing mechanism
to smooth out the growth cycles, so that projects do not occur at
the same time which would profoundly change the community before
the public sector can develop plans and react to the service
problems the growth has caused.
11
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 identify some of the
most critical, including:
o Highway Entrance to Town;
o Parking - Intercept Lots or Downtown Structures;
o Air Quality; and
tap,/ o Bus Terminal.
�j While it is certainly not this applicant's responsibility to
solve these problems, we believe that it is incumbent upon
the community to identify how it will solve them if it is to
continue to grow. By asking us to give out tomorrow's alloca-
tions today, this project seeks to accelerate our rate of growth,
yet does not similarly speed up our ability to solve our pro-
blems. In fact, each time we move forward with development
approvals, without putting into place the public facility
solutions to accommodate the projects, we may be foregoing
possible alternatives without ever realizing their potential. If
we haven't solved these problems during our recent era of
moderate growth, how will we do so following the downtown lodging
boom?
We recognize that the project before us offers some very appeal-
ing amenities with respect to the very dilapidated area at the
base of our mountain, just as the Aspen Mountain PUD offered us
an opportunity to upgrade the core of our lodge district and the
Hotel Jerome to repair our historic hotel. We feel that the
reconstruction of old lodging units, along with the renovation of
existing commercial space and the Aspen Mountain skiing area, are
desirable developments because they contribute to the revitali-
zation of our resort complex. However, when the Aspen Mountain
Lodge, Hotel Jerome addition and Little Nell Base Hotel are all
scheduled to come on line in a 2 or 3 year time frame, we can
anticipate a massive change in our lodge sector, which is likely
to have spinoff effects which we cannot predict for years to
come. The Growth Management Policy Plan postulated that growth
in any sector has interdependent and cyclical effects on the
other sectors, as lodge development leads to ski area and
commercial growth, which influence residential development, and
so on. As we compress the rate at which we create new lodge
units, we wonder how we will respond to the secondary impacts on
our other sectors, and where the accelerated rate will end.
The question of secondary impacts is a confusing one, and, in
fact, the GMPP noted on page 3 that "Growth is composed of a
variety of elements with connections that are only poorly
12
understood." Since we recognize that we cannot 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 hotel projects going on downtown
will not give us the chance to monitor and respond to the impacts
of growth in an orderly manner. Furthermore, it will mean that
we will be adding to our congestion and to our problems in that
portion of town which is already the most dense and exhibits many
of our problems.
As we all know, we have just approved the largest tourist
project in the history of the town, and we are in the process of
occupying the largest residential project in our history, and we
have yet to experience the impacts of either. Given the moderate
rate of growth of our recent past, and the fact that several
projects have been approved but not yet built, many in town seem
unconcerned that another large project such as this is following
right after the approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Current
residents 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. However, if we don't take this opportun-
ity to see how the town will change as a result of the impacts of
the Aspen Mountain PUD, and those of the Hotel Jerome, when
will we evaluate what happened and how we must respond? More
importantly, what kind of precedent with respect to our rate of
growth will we be setting with respect to the Aspen Meadows
development, which is likely to follow this project and which
will also be requesting a multi -year allocation?
One of the arguments made in the numerical analysis is that
we have not been growing in the lodging sector over the past
decade and that accelerated growth is therefore appropriate.
There are at least two fallacies in this argument. First, in
response to the lack of activity in the first 5 or 6 years of the
lodge quota, we increased the L-1/L-2 quota from 18 to 35 units,
and created the L-3 zone, with its ten unit quota. These actions
increased the overall City lodge quota from 18 to 45 units per
year, and help to explain some of the more recent activity in the
lodge sector.
Second, and more importantly, because of the slow growth in
lodging in this period, we felt comfortable in approving major
employee housing developments exempt from the system (Castle
Ridge and Centennial) an excess commercial growth rate, and the
expansion of the Hotel Jerome. Is it reasonable to then argue
that the slowed lodge growth of the prior years is a basis for
allowing three major projects to be built during such a confined
period of time? Moreover, do you still have a meaningful growth
management system when you are approving major projects that
are exempt from the system and others which borrow from future
years' quotas, so that you are simply accounting for rather than
phasing growth?
13
SUMMARY: The Little Nell Base Redevelopment presents the community
with a very important set of tradeoffs to consider. On the one hand,
the community is presented with an opportunity to upgrade the entry
point to its most important recreational asset. Key improvements
include the visual benefits of removing the surface parking and
maintenance functions; circulation benefits of better pedestrian
access to the lifts and ticketing function; and recreational benefits
of improved skiing and commercial facilities at the base area.
There are a variety of technical issues which must be addressed to
insure that the project "can be planned and developed in a manner
which provides the greatest public benefit" as is the purpose of its
designation as an SPA. Issues to be resolved include parking, open
space, FAR, hazards, transit, service delivery, employee housing,
utility relocations, roads, grading and visibility. None of these
issues is technically beyond resolution, although they do tend to
indicate the magnitude of the impacts this project will have on the
community.
The growth policy issue, is, in our opinion, a threshold question with
regard to this project. Although we could defer consideration of this
issue until such time as the project has been scored and an allocation
is pending, we feel this is the wrong course to take. The applicants
will be expending a great deal of time and effort if this conceptual
SPA is approved. We f eel that they deserve the f ull benefit of our
thinking at this time, before further studies are authorized.
Furthermore, we think that the issue of future allocations is crucial
to the basic concept proposed herein and is justifiably to be consid-
ered at this time.
As noted above, the Municipal Code provides a mechanism by which a
future lodge allocation can be granted to the applicants. It is the
Planning Office's finding that such an allocation is inappropriate at
this time. We feel that the Council should consider the following
four questions in its consideration of the growth rate issue, and only
give a favorable response to the ASC on this issue if it can positive-
ly answer the following:
1. Does the government have the ability to solve its service
(highway, parking, bus terminal, etc.) and environmental (air
quality) problems at an accelerated rate to address an accelerat-
ed growth rate?
2. Can you still have a meaningful growth management system when you
are approving major projects that are exempt from the system
and others which borrow from future years' quotas, so that you
are simply accounting for rather than phasing growth?
3. What kind of precedent would granting this request set with
respect to other requests which may be made for multi -year
allocations?
14
4. Can we accommodate the likely growth which will spin off from
this project in the skiing, commercial and residential develop-
ment sectors?
Based on these considerations, Council has the following alternatives
available for action:
1. Approve the conceptual SPA and provide the applicant with an
indication that you are willing to entertain a request for a
multi -year allocation.
2. Approve the conceptual SPA and provide the applicant with an
indication that you are conceptually opposed to the multi -year
allocation request.
3. Deny the entire conceptual SPA due to your conceptual opposition
to the multi -year allocation request, or for other technical
review concerns.
The Planning Office strongly supports and recommends approval of the
reconstruction of the commercial, administrative and skier support
spaces, the replacement of the base lift, the upgrade of the pedes-
trian circulation corridors and the removal of the maintenance
facilities from the base area. However, we are conceptually opposed
to the applicant's multi -year allocation request. Since the Council
cannot formally consider this request until a ' growth management
application is submitted, we recommend that you follow Alternative 2
and make your final decision on the growth issue when and if a preise
development plan is before you.
AR.12
15
90
oic ►
I I
iiiij I
IIIII ► IIIII � I II ► II ► � i ►
I "jjj jjjj a j jj jj a ji� JIIIIIIIII ► I �
ijiii� �ii �ii� i���►�
IIIII � IIIII i i ►i � ►i �� i
.-1 N N .-1 N d ► ► I ► I ► I ► ► � ► ► � �► ►
a
u
c
z v
N w v�
w c 4
ci 0 U ti
N (� C
w O cn
V F C F _ N
F c c
� ' „
.
o w to ., z;
C •• > 0 � U O .q G! U u 0p X .•ti
Ci 67 01— U v 4 O N •-+ G fn M 41
<n U U p y �r ° ° C N 0 V Cl a�i �. ro 0° H 2 w ..r ..r C U
H >> •^� v F H 7 D' C C a (ti H w N u C
G/ (u +., O �J fY. u y U H p 6 ... A. •� j, O v -�
a to En 0 �+ y O 0 a rn V) K rn L L cn G! y U) fn a M P. aj Q >., C r C ..-1
d6~i 6i 4 v •p w •.� 0+... ip ..r L' GI V O Ql [r
O 7 !n 41Z_ z y> O O
3 O W '0 U i+ (u �.a N
•• H W U C u IL C F F
Z V 3 to coi [.. a N .... C ip ••. C! rp •.. 0 E O
4 V H 4v7w a.> � zW8m fL w V
� � y
2
>�. pz O
m 11 U •D 6� U N 1] V •O N 4 ,D L U U q 0
a N
i
46 0
«i
wow
�•24•g�p
(XwjqjvlfjvlA'4 -5WA "Al
rU,Aak • 2 • 2
ti'��' o� �/un�,�e �,��9r� °i}'
� • 2 �" �P
pr"-
le DF � � te- �41em,�e
oaef 1, e ���r