Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.400 E Dean St.A078-98.,, THE CITY C7F A,SPE1'J City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER A078-98 PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735-013-12-001 PROJECT ADDRESS 515 S. Galena St. PLANNER Mitch Haas CASE DESCRIPTION Aspen Mountain PUD/Grand Aspen and Top of Mill REPRESENTATIVE Vann Associates DATE OF FINAL ACTION 8/16/02 CLOSED BY Amy DeVault MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner DATE: June 15, 1999 RE: Lots 3 and 5 -Aspen Mountain PUD, Conceptual Review -Public Hearing. SUMMARY: Savanah Limited Partnership ("the applicant," or "Savanah") is coming before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to present their Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for development of Lots 3 ("Top of Mill") and 5 ("Grand Aspen Site") of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD. While the application will require approval of requests for Conceptual and Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS Scoring and Allocations, GMQS Exemptions, Rezoning, Special Review, Text Amendments, 8040 Greenline Review, and Mountain View Plane Review, only the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application is being considered at this time. Thus, Savanah is before the Commission for the first time with a new application seeking Conceptual PUD approval for both Lots 3 and 5. The Lot 3 and 5 proposals can be summarized as follows, with greater detail provided in the main body of and exhibits to this memorandum: Proposal for Lot S, Grand Aspen site: • Lot size of 86,610 square feet, of which 13,540 square feet lie within vacated Dean Street, leaving a net lot area of 73,070 square feet; • 150 hotel units (132 standard rooms, and 18 suites); • On-site housing for 12 employees (four one-bedroom units and four studios); • 8,000 square feet of meeting space; • 2,750 square feet of restaurant space; • 800 square feet of bar space; • 2,400 square feet of kitchen space; • 500 square feet of accessory commercial space; • Customary lobby and support spaces; • 106,780 square feet of external FAR floor area; • 22,000 square feet of open space (plus an additional 25,000 square feet on Lot 6 that counts toward the Lot 5 open space total per the existing PUD Agreement); and, • 106 below grade parking spaces. rK^h d.H~ Proposal for Lot 3, Top of Mill: • Lot size of 242,810 square feet, of which 2,680 square feet lie within vacated Mill Street, 3,810 square feet lie within a Summit Street access easement, and 106,150 square feet lie within the portion of Lot 3 zoned Conservation (C), leaving a net lot area of 130,170 square feet; • Creation of 8 development parcels and 2 open space parcels, as follows: - PARCEL 1: S 1,680 square feet of land containing 2 triplexes (6 free market dwelling units) with a total of 27,000 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 2: 26,520 square feet of land containing 2 duplexes (4 deed restricted dwelling units) with a total of 7,500 square feet of FAR floor area; PARCEL 3: 14,260 square feet of land containing 1 duplex (2 free market dwelling units) with a total of 9,000 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 4: 13,290 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,200 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 5: 10,370 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 5,200 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 6: 10,380 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 5,200 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 7: 18,920 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,500 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 8: 18,390 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,500 square feet of FAR floor area; - OPEN SPACE PARCEL A: 28,740 square feet of land (of which 18,710 square feet lie within an access road easement; and, - OPEN SPACE PARCEL B: 50,230 square feet of land. • Total of 17 residential units; • Total of 73,100 square feet of FAR floor area; • Total of 60,260 square feet of land meeting the City's definition of "open space" The staff recommendations may be summarized as follows, with greater elaboration provided in the "Recommendation" section at the end of this memorandum: with regard to Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site), staff recommends approval with conditions; and, with regard to Lot 3 (Top of Mill), staff recommends tabling of the application until further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept are completed by Savanah and reviewed by staff. APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by: Vann Associates (planner), Bill Poss and Associates (architects), Lawrence Green (attorney), Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers and Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (engineers), TDA, Inc. (transportation), Alpine Surveys, and Waste Engineering, Inc. (environmental). LOCATION: (See attached Vicinity Maps, Exhibit A.) EXISTING ZONING, LOT 5: Lot 5 is zoned Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory Planned Unit Development overlay (L/TR-PUD). 2 PROPOSED ZONING, LOT 5: Same as existing, no rezoning is proposed for Lot 5. EXISTING ZONING, LOT 3: Lot 3 is zoned L/TR-PUD, Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay; R-15 (PUD)(L), Moderate-Density Residential with PUD and Lodge overlays; and, C, Conservation. Consequently, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 26.40.070 of the Municipal Code, which governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. See "Zoning" sub-section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." PROPOSED ZONING, LOT 3: Savanah proposes to rezone the 87,120 square feet of R- 15 zoned lands to L/TR-PUD, and leave the lands zoned Conservation as currently designated. The result would be 136,660 gross square feet of L/TR-PUD zoning and 106,150 square feet of Conservation zoning. LOT SIZE: See "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit F, referral comments from the City Zoning Officer. The figures contained in the cited locations will be subject to further review and verification by the City Zoning Officer during review of building permit applications. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: In addition to the following, see "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit F, referral comments from the City Zoning Officer. Additional discussion involving floor area can be found in the "Zoning" sub-section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." Lot 5, Grand Aspen Site: Pursuant to Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement, the maximum allowable floor area on Lot 5 was reduced to one-hundred fifteen thousand (115,000) square feet, with the aggregate floor area of Lots 1 and 5 limited to three-hundred five thousand (305,000) square feet. This figure (115,000) was arrived at by including Lot 6 (the Silver Circle Ice Rink) in the calculation of allowable floor area for Lot 5, the purpose of which was to compensate Savanah for the development of the public ice rink and park on Lot 6 of the PUD. The Regulations preclude the inclusion of vacated rights-of--way in the calculation of allowable density or floor area, so the Dean Street right-of--way does not increase the allowable density or floor area. Lot 3, Top of Mill: Savanah is basing their calculation of allowable floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 that would be zoned L/TR at a 1:1 (floor area :lot area) ratio to arrive at an allowable aggregate external floor area of 97,630 square feet. This figure does not assume any floor area credit for the 106,150 square foot portion of the lot zoned C, Conservation. Further, approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area would remain on Lot 5 under the current proposal, and said floor area could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the PUD regulations. If included, this would provide for 105,850 square feet of allowable floor area, exclusive of the unlimited floor area potential of the lands zoned Conservation (see pages 73-74 of application packet, Attachment 1). Although it probably will not be applicable, please note that on July 6, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a text amendment to the Conservation zone district that would place a "cap" on allowable floor area. 3 .a,,„. Staff takes a different approach to the calculation of allowable floor areas for the proposed subdivision parcels of Lot 3. Staff believes the allowable floor areas discussed in the PUD Agreement contemplate a potential maximum that could be attained, provided the proposed subdivision lots could be successfully sized and configured (and no lot area reductions were required) so that all of the floor area could be constructed while meeting all other applicable and unvaried dimensional requirements. As explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (see Exhibit F), staff feels it would be more appropriate to base its calculations of not only permitted floor area but also allowed density and required open space on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Consequently, further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. Additional discussion involving floor area can be found in the "Zoning" sub-section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." BACKGROUND: The background and history of this case is far too extensive and complex to adequately summarize in the body of this memorandum. While the "Background" section of the written application booklet (Attachment 1) provides a fairly detailed summary of the case history, staff finds it to be somewhat biased in Savanah's favor. Exhibit I, History of Aspen Mountain PUD, is a memo prepared by Savanah outlining the highlights of the case history. Staff believes this summary (Exhibit I) to be fair, but suggests also reviewing the PUD Agreement and its Section M. Amendments (included in the written application booklet, Attachment 1). PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW*: The proposal is being processed as follows: Step One: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Review (Lots 3 and 5) a. Housing Board review for recommendations regarding (1) the adequacy of the proposed housing mitigation, (2) the merits of the proposed employee generation factors, (3) the merits of the proposed unit sizes and category mixes, and (4) the appropriateness of the proposed locations for housing mitigation. b. Review for recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing; and, c. Review for decision by the Aspen City Council (two readings with a public hearing at second reading). Step Two: GMQS Scoring and Competition for Tourist Accommodations Allocations a. Growth Management Commission Scoring Recommendation at a public hearing, and recommendation regarding requested GMQS Exemptions; b. Acceptance of recommended scoring by the Board of County Commissioners; and, c. Acceptance of recommended scoring and granting of tourist accommodation allotments by City Council. Step Three: Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Text Amendments, GMQS Exemption, Special Review, 8040 Greenline, and Mountain View Plane reviews, as follows: a. Housing Board for final recommendations to City Council; b. Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendations regarding the Final PUD, Subdivision, Text Amendments, and Rezoning requests (public hearings), and decisions regarding the Special Review, 8040 Greenline, and Mountain View Plane requests (public meetings); and, 4 c. City Council for decisions regarding the GMQS Exemptions and the method by which mitigation will be provided, Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Text Amendments (two readings with a public hearing at second reading). Note that the above-provided outline provides an estimate of a likely sequence of the necessary reviews, but the exact order may be altered provided all due process requirements are met. Also, this sequence does not take into account the potential for denials and appeals. CURRENT PROPOSAL, LOT 5: See "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit B, "Lot 5, Main Issues." The PUD Agreement states that (Book 574, Page 828) "the Lot 5 component shall be comprised of not more than 50 hotel rooms (with the aggregate number of hotel rooms on Lots 1 and 5 not to exceed 342), and no more than 47 residential units between Lots 3 and 5, the exact number of such units to be established in the amended review process for Lot 5." As indicated above, while the number of residential units proposed falls below the maximum allowed, the proposed development of Lot 5 contemplates 150 hotel rooms, exceeding the 50-unit Lot 5 limitation, and when combined with the 279 units approved for Lot 1, also exceeding the overall limitation of 3421odge units (by 87 units). Savanah intends to earn the right to develop the extra 100 units on Lot 5 (and extra 87 in total) via the City's Tourist Accommodation GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. Regardless of how many hotel rooms receive final approval (if any at all), the PUD Agreement would need to be amended to reflect whatever final approvals are granted. Savanah describes the proposed facility as a 3.5-star, moderately priced, upscale hotel with a 4-star restaurant. As indicated in the Site Plans of the application, the primary mass of the proposed hotel would be located along the vacated Dean Street. Dean Street would be converted into a limited passenger and valet parking drop-off driveway (no longer a public access or through street) and landscaped pedestrian area, which would link the St. Regis Hotel and Lot 5 with the Aspen Mountain Gondola Plaza and the Little Nell Hotel. The remainder of the "inverted `J'-shaped" hotel would be located in the central and southwestern portions of the site. The rear portions of the structure would be recessed into the climbing grade of the site, maintaining a uniform height from the Dean Street facade to the southernmost portions of the building. The main entrance to the hotel would be located adjacent to the vacated Dean Street right-of- way, with a secondary pedestrian entrance at the corner of Dean and Galena Streets. The hotel's lobby and restaurant have been designed to front on former Dean Street and the ice rink. Street trees would be planted along both sides of vacated Dean Street as well as along the site's Galena and Mill Street frontages. Plantings would also be provided along the site's southern property line and within the two courtyard areas. Of the 150 proposed hotel units, 132 would be "standard" rooms and the remaining 18 units would be "suites." The standard rooms would contain approximately 390 square feet of gross area each while the average suite would contain some 650 square feet. The suites would be configured as studio units with enlarged seating areas, but in no case as separated bedrooms and living areas. The application explains that an "undetermined" amount of hotel units would be configured with lock-off doors to allow for the possibility of two adjoining units to function as a single suite. 5 The structure would also contain 8 affordable housing units (4 studio and 4one-bedroom units) on its main level. The studio units would each contain a minimum of 400 square feet of net livable area while the one-bedroom units would each contain at least 600 square feet of net livable area. In addition, the proposed hotel would contain roughly 8,000 square feet of meeting/conference space and approximately 500 square feet of accessory commercial space. Savanah represents that the kitchen and related support services are not intended or designed to accommodate large conferences or banquets, and that the accessory commercial area is intended to accommodate customary hotel support uses (i.e., newsstand, etc.) as opposed to larger retail operations. Off-street parking would be accommodated in a sub-grade garage accessed from Galena Street. The garage would contain a total of 106 parking spaces, or approximately 0.7 spaces per bedroom, limited storage areas, mechanical equipment, and stairways and elevators providing access to the lobby. The delivery and service area for the hotel would be located on the Mill Street frontage and would be covered by the building above as well as enclosed by an overhead door when not in use. On Dean Street, the 9 existing parking spaces would be lost with the proposed design of the vacated area. Savanah proposes to provide the replacement spaces within the sub-grade garage, or in some other yet-to-be-determined but mutually acceptable location. CURRENT PROPOSAL, LOT 3: Lot 3, the Top of Mill site, is proposed to be subdivided into eight (8) development parcels and two (2) open space parcels, and would contain a total of seventeen (17) dwelling units (See "Summary," above for break-down). Parcel 1 's six free market, three-story townhouse units would front on Mill Street but with vehicular access from Summit Street, and would each contain four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcel 2's four duplex units would be deed restricted with three of the four units each containing three bedrooms and approximately 1,500 square feet of net livable area, and the fourth unit containing four bedrooms and approximately 1,700 square feet of net livable area. Parcel 3 would have a single free market duplex structure with each unit containing four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcels 4, S, 6, 7, and 8 would each have a free market, detached single-family dwelling unit with five bedrooms, and the units' sizes would range from approximately 5,200 square feet to 6,500 square feet of floor area (see "Summary," above). Savanah represents that the duplex to be constructed on Parcel 3 and the five single-family residences to be developed on Parcels 4 through 8 would each contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) unless, alternatively, the owners of these lots choose to pay the applicable cash-in-lieu fees at the time of their development (see "Housing" sub-section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues"). Vehicular access to the triplex units on Parcel 1 would be provided along the rear of the lot via a common driveway from Summit Street. Vehicular access to all units on Parcels 2-8 would come from a private access road extended from the end of Mill Street. The proposed private access road would be semi-circular in shape and terminate in a roundabout variety cul-de-sac; this access road is part of the "Access and Design" discussion included within Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." 6 Open Space Parcel A would be located at the end of Mill Street, between Parcel 1 and the other development parcels, and includes the Mill Street extension cul-de-sac (access easement) described in the previous paragraph. The proposal indicates a fairly extensive landscaping treatment of Open Space Parcel A, most likely to help screen the residential development from downtown. Open Space Parcel B would reside to the west of Parcels 1, 7, and 8, and be buffered from the Parcels 7 and 8 residences by substantial amounts of coniferous and deciduous tree plantings. Open Space Parcel B contains the ski easement providing access from Aspen Mountain to Summit Street. The ski easement would be maintained and formalized. Also on Open Space Parcel B, Savanah proposes to vacate the other trail easement, known as the "Top of Mill Trail" (as indicated on the "Seventh Amended Plat, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development"), across the southern side of Parcel 1 and the northern side of Parcel 2. The Parks Department is adamantly opposed to the vacation of the Top of Mill Trail, and this issue is discussed at length in the "Trails and Easements" portion of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." MAIN ISSUES: Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and/or deserve special attention. While other issues exist, these core issues are outlined in Exhibits B (Lot 5) and C (Lot 3), and referred to elsewhere throughout this memorandum and associated exhibits. The issues discussed in Exhibits B and C are referred to, and other issues are explained in the PUD reviews (Exhibits D and E as related to Lots 5 and 3, respectively). The summaries contained in Exhibits B and C have been organized by categories of issues rather than by the review processes which deal with the issues, and are intended to provide further detail and elaboration of certain topics, as well as information related to issues not raised through review of the PUD standards. Exhibit B, "Lot S, Main Issues, " includes discussion of the following issue areas: density and lodging growth; housing; traffic and parking; design and height; and, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues, " includes discussion of the following issue areas: zoning (including rezoning, code amendments, and dimensional requirements); housing; drainage and natural hazards; trails and easements; access and traffic generation; architecture and site design; and, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: Conceptual Planned Unit Developments are reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.84.030(B), Review Standards. The PUD review standards and staff's analyses of the proposals relative thereto are contained in Exhibits D and E, with the Lot 5 review in Exhibit D and the Lot 3 review in Exhibit E. LOT 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation to grant Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Lot 5 with the following conditions: 1. Any and all Conceptual PUD approvals for Lot 5 shall be fully contingent upon receipt of the necessary GMQS allotments. 2. The recommendations of the Housing Office and Housing Board with regard to Lot 5, as contained in the June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum to Mitch Haas of the 7 Community Development Department, shall be considered part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Conceptual PUD recommendation to City Council. 3. All housing mitigation shall be provided on-site and/or in an off-site location approved by City Council after receipt of a recommendation from the Housing Board. 4. If any off-site housing receives approval, Savanah shall be required to purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on-site. 5. For Final PUD submission, a revised traffic study shall be provided, and it shall assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards and directly respond to each applicable PUD review criteria. 6. For the Final PUD and GMQS Scoring and Competition applications, the proposed 106 spaces should be augmented by the addition of 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council) of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. It might also be worthwhile to consider providing some parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on asemi-regular basis. 7. Savanah shall commit to providing a shuttle to and from the airport for the hotel's customers, and shall make a good faith effort to do so through the use of an alternative energy source vehicle. 8. A plan for the enforcement of the passenger drop-off/valet parking drive as a one way, non-through street shall be provided, and plans to provide neck-downs at the corners of said drive shall also be provided. 9. The exit from the underground garage on Galena Street shall include a means of precluding right turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan shall show no vegetation 30 feet to the south or 20 feet to the north of the exit. 10. The service/delivery area shall be provided with a means of precluding exiting vehicles from turning left onto South Mill Street. Time limitations for deliveries shall be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks shall also be provided. 11. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood concerns. 12. Any and all variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review, but prior to GMQS Scoring and Final PUD Review, Savanah shall provide accurate "story poles" at the new building corners and at roof height changes to reflect the peaks of the proposed roof. 13. A detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application, and staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. It is suggested that, in order to help buffer the visual impacts of the hotel structure from the adjoining property to the south, species for tress proposed along the site's southerly property line should be selected to provide mature heights closely approximating the height of the hotel in this area. 14. Additional lighting details will be provided with the Final PUD application, and if any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will the swimming pool area be lighted beyond the minimum required for safety reasons. 15. Any and all internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 16. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be .~,. ~. considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. LOT 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission table the Lot 3, Conceptual Planned Unit Development application until further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept are completed by Savanah and reviewed by staff. In the alternative, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation to grant Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Lot 3 with the following conditions: 1. Any and all Conceptual PUD approvals for Lot 3 shall be fully contingent upon subsequent rezoning hearings. That is, should the necessary rezoning request(s) be denied, the applicant would have to come back through the Conceptual PUD process with a proposal that meets the requirements of the existing zone districts. 2. For the Final PUD application, the applicant will, in good faith, explore and potentially pursue a rezoning request different from that currently proposed. Instead, the applicant will consider applying to rezone all portions of Lot 3 for which development is proposed to L/TR(PUD); if this is done, the request to amend Section 26.40.070 will be withdrawn. 3. If, pursuant to condition 2 (above), the applicant revises the parameters of the rezoning request and withdraws the request to amend Section 26.40.070 of the code, a new request to amend the list of permitted uses in the L/TR zone district to eliminate the "only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less" language will be included with the Final PUD application. 4. For the Final PUD application, the proposed Parcel 1 development envelope will be adjusted to eliminate the need for a front setback variance, or such a variance will be requested. 5. The Final PUD application will contain further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, to determine compliance with all applicable zone district and dimensional requirements. 6. The recommendations of the Housing Office and Housing Board with regard to Lot 3, as contained in the June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum to Mitch Haas of the Community Development Department, shall be considered part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Conceptual PUD recommendation to City Council. 7. In the Final PUD application, proposed building mass and related impermeable surface layout will closely conform with the final outcome of the AMDBMP design and construction criteria. It shall be the developer's or its successor's responsibility to fully comply with the drainage criteria and perform within the parameters set forth in the report. 8. Savanah Limited Partnership's (owner/developer) representative agreed to provide necessary drainage easements and shall continue to provide these easements for safe conveyance of surface runoff and debris through the site. 9. In the Final PUD application, the developer's representative will make necessary adjustments to building footprints to ensure that the requirements of the AMDBMP and the above mentioned conditions are met. 10. The City will use the funds put in escrow to study and develop a master plan with design and construction criteria and utilize the balance of these funds to implement an interim drainage mitigation project to control runoff only to the extent the remaining escrow funds will support. 11. In the Final PUD application, the site layout must be such that it will in no way pose a significant blockage in the natural stream bed or drainage path. 12. The development must comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The existing site must be carefully studied and evaluated to ensure a proper design and correct selection of BMP(s). 13. The Final PUD application shall include, further grading and excavation plans as well as geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the current design concept with suggested conditions for development. 14. For the Final PUD application, Savanah shall work cooperatively with the Parks Department to relocate and replat the Top of Mill Trail, where Savanah further agrees to have any agreed upon alignment of the relocated trail staked and approved by the Parks Department. The relocated trail must have a legal description, be shown on the Final Amended Plat, and be dedicated/conveyed to the City of Aspen Parks Department. 15. With the Final PUD application, plans must be provided for the construction phase and after to address any and all problems associated with the grade of South Mill Street. 16. Savanah shall commit, in the Final PUD application, to construct adetached/separated sidewalk along the South Mill Street frontage of Lot 3, and to plant appropriately spaced street trees in the area between the sidewalk and the curb. 17. For Final PUD submission, a revised traffic study shall be provided, and it shall assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards and directly respond to each applicable PUD review criteria. 18. All residential structures will be subject to the provisions of the Residential Design Standards. When more detailed architectural renderings are submitted in conjunction with the Final PUD application, staff will conduct the Residential Design Standards review under the provisions applicable at that time. Staff suggests a different roof form for the Parcel 3 duplex. 19. Prior to Final PUD review, the applicant will provide staff with at least two site plan alternatives that would eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac layout. While the alternatives should be more consistent with mountain community design and .that traditionally associated with the area at the base of Aspen Mountain, it is also essential that the alternatives take into account soil conditions, geotechnical findings, drainage patterns and mitigation needs, fire and emergency access, and neighborhood impacts. 20. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood concerns. 21. Any and all variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review. 22. A detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application, and staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 23. Additional lighting details will be provided with the Final PUD application, and if any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not .cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will any light be directed up the mountain. 24. Any and all internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 25. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. 10 ~~. .~ EXHIBITS: • Exhibit A: Vicinity Maps • Exhibit B: Lot 5, Main Issues • Exhibit C: Lot 3, Main Issues • Exhibit D: Lot 5, PUD Review • Exhibit E: Lot 3, PUD Review • Exhibit F: Referral Memos • Exhibit G: Housing Office Memos, Housing Board Recommendations • Exhibit H: Letters from Neighbors/Citizens • Exhibit I: History of Aspen Mountain PUD memo, prepared by Savanah ATTACHMENTS: • One: Written Application Materials • Two: Proposed Plan Sets • Three: TDA, Inc. Transportation Report 11 ., _l ~~`"~ --C~I ~ - - l F~ ~ ~~~~ y `-~~ ` t~ ~ ~ _ ;r- ; __`` h /- _ ~, " /. ~ "~ ~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~ ~. _ -.. r` r ~~%~ i ^~NT AvF y ~ i =r, ~ 4~~ t ~' urr.~ ~ ' ,4. f ,- r `~ ~ "~~ .c ~ I - i i I( I t - '` ~ ~ - ~~-; ._ ~ ~ ,- ar ,- _ i :Z - ,1/~ ~~ Eon ~ J j~ .- ~. - T ;; ~.: - _ i ,\ ,- -. -. .... -. -tip SST ~' - --- _ ~, - _, , ; ~ ~ - - Silver Circle ~ ~1 ~ `I A~~ ~`~, ~t '+~ ~,` -may ~ ~; ~ /~ - ~, C ~'+~+~ _ '~ `_~J /~ r ~ ,z_ - f;- -- ,,. ~ ~, ~-~ ~_ ~~- -~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~~ r ~~ Gondola ~ ~ ~~ ~-1 ~ l - _ ~--~- ._._ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ,' i' ~ ~ ~~ 1~ ",--_ - ~ j ~ y ~ t ~ / ~ ;~ . ~~ ~- ~.~~ J ,~ -~. ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~~ r ~' /~ --/-_-- -! u~-- _- ,.i `~~ ,.~~~ ~~ f.~ ~ i ~_} ; { I ~ - ~ 1~' ~~;,_ ~__ ~`~: L ASS ~~ ~ 1J ~ ~~~_~ !" r~. ,~ ~ ~~ ~1 r _- l~ _ ~ ~, _ - ~ ;, -- ,`~ '> ,_ - ~; -.-~ t ~ ~-. / `~ ~ _~ _ ,, ~, ~ _ ~ . ~ _ ,~._ 1aT ~.. 1 T --.. ( _ ~ ~~~ r;' ` ,, 5 ~~ ,; i--~~; r ..1.~, _ ~ ,,; ~, ~ ~ ~~ j j - 1 __ ~ ~ , Buck, , ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~ PG , _ ~ - icy '~`~`~-~ ,~" ~';~ C~a,;~~; ~ ~\, , ... L ,, :~ ,, 1 ,~ r $LMA~f i ' ~u' i C4- ', ^- ~~ ~~` ~ 1. Q~ ~ -L"~ _ Cote i ~ -- ~~; -~ _ Cwt - _ - ~' ~~ `_, i~ ~ ~ __ ~-4/S~p ~ ~ ~~ ~" -- 1 ~ ~ J / \~~ ~ / ` V \ \ \ ~ \ \ ` \ y \ ~/ l ~, C\~ ~~ EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues Main Issues Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 5 Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and/or deserve special attention. While other issues exist, the core issues are outlined in this Exhibit and referred to elsewhere throughout the main body of the staff memorandum and its associated exhibits. The summaries contained in this Exhibit have been organized by categories of issues rather than by the review processes which deal with the issues, and are intended to provide further detail and elaboration of certain topics, as well as information related to issues not raised through review of the PUD standards. This Exhibit includes discussion of the following Lot 5 issue areas: density and lodging growth, housing, traffic and parking, design and height, and consistency with the AACP. When reading this Exhibit B, it will be important to keep in mind that Savanah will need to apply for GMQS Scoring and Competition (see Exhibit D, criterion number 4) prior to proceeding with a Final PUD application, and that any and all Conceptual approvals for Lot 5 would be fully contingent upon receipt of the necessary allotments, including a finding that the proposal constitutes an "Exceptional Project" to qualify for amulti-year allocation. Density and Lodging Growth Savanah explains their basic design concept for Lots 3 and 5 as an attempt to vary the density and massing of development so as to reflect the location of the parcels within the context of the surrounding area and the City. Thus, the highest density and the largest structure (the hotel) is proposed adjacent to vacated Dean Street on the northernmost portion of Lot 5. As summarized in the main body of the staff memorandum, Savanah proposes to develop a 150 unit hotel (132 standard rooms and 18 suites) on Lot 5. The structure would also include 8 employee units (4 studio units and 4one-bedroom units); 8,000 square feet of meeting space; 2,750 square feet of restaurant space; 800 square feet of bar space; 2,400 square feet of kitchen space; 500 square feet of accessory commercial space; customary lobby and support spaces; and, 106 underground parking spaces. There is no minimum lot area requirement for the development of hotel units in the L/TR zone district; therefore, the number of units that may be accommodated on a specific site is a function of the amount of available floor area and the proposed unit sizes. Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement limits Lots 3 and 5 to a combined total of 47 free market residential units, with the actual number of units to be determined in connection with a development application for Lot 5. In addition, Lot 5 is limited to a maximum of 50 lodge units with the aggregate number of lodge units on Lots 1 (St. Regis) and 5 not to exceed 342. The proposed 150 hotel units exceeds the 50-unit Lot 5 limitation (by 100), and when combined with the 279 units approved for Lot 1, also exceeds (by 87) the overall limitation of 342 lodge units. Savanah intends to earn the right to develop the extra 100 units on Lot 5 via the City's Tourist Accommodations GMQS Scoring and Competition Procedures (see "Procedural Overview" in the main body of the staff memorandum). Irrespective of the procedural obstacles, there are a few perspectives from which to view the proposed 150 unit hotel development. From the standpoint of anticipated growth and density, the community had valid reason to believe the Ritz/St. Regis was the end of B-1 ` ~` EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues significant lodge growth, and the Grand Aspen would be eliminated and replaced with no more than 50 hotel units. From this perspective, all impacts and increased densities would be considered new growth (no netting out of existing conditions) irrespective of both the Grand Aspen's continued existence and subsequent, incremental changes in the community's small lodge bed base. From the perspective of actual growth, on the other hand, the community has more or less absorbed the impacts of the Ritz/St. Regis development with the Grand Aspen continuing to operate. Prior to the winter of 1995-`96, the Grand Aspen Hotel provided 150 unrestricted lodge rooms while the Ritz-Carlton began operation in December of 1992 (as the "Continental Inn," the Grand Aspen structure contained 178 units until its 1988 renovation). The Grand Aspen also included 1,510 square feet of restaurant space, 860 square feet of bar space, and 3,060 square feet of kitchen space, for a total of 5,430 square feet of food and beverage space (520 square feet less than that proposed). Since the winter of 1995-'96 and through present day, the Grand Aspen Hotel's 150 units have been restricted as follows: in the winter, 50 can be rented without restriction, 38 are reserved for Savanah employees, and 62 can be rented only to groups needing a minimum of 20 rooms; and, in the summer, 50 can be rented without restriction, and 100 are reserved for music students or Savanah employees (minimum of 75 for music students). Therefore, the Grand Aspen operated at its full, unrestricted capacity for almost three years (December of '92 through Fall of '95) while the Ritz-Carlton was open for business, and in its restricted capacity for another three years since then. Given these facts, the proposed density on Lot 5 could be looked at in terms of the new proposal versus the facility it would replace. Under such an approach, the density of hotel units would be a wash, and there would be an increase of 8 employee dwelling units, 520 square feet of food and beverage space, and 8,000 square feet of meeting space. While not specific to the subject site but still important from acommunity-wide perspective, it should be noted that while the St. Regis and the Grand Aspen continued to operate at the same time, there has been a considerable reduction in small lodge rooms. For instance, since 1990 a total of 264 lodge rooms have been added (7 at L'Auberge and 257 at the Ritz) to Aspen's lodging bed base while Community Development Department records indicate the following losses to the Aspen lodging bed base since the start of the 1990s: Alpine Lodge 11 units Copper Horse 13 units Cortina 16 units Little Red Ski Haus 20 units Fireside Lodge 20 units Northstar 22 units Aspen Country Inn 84 units Aspen Manor 21 units Bell Mountain Lodge 22 units Brass Bed Inn 29 units Alpina Haus Lodge 40 units Buckhorn Lodge 9 units Carriage House 10 units TOTAL 317 units B-2 ~~ EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues These numbers do not account for changes in: (1) the lodging bed base of the unincorporated Metro Area of Pitkin County (such as the Heatherbed Lodge - 40 units, the Highlands Inn - 46 units, or the Maroon Creek Lodge - 11 units), which staff believes to represent a net loss, too; nor, (2) facilities such as the Bavarian Inn (15-20 units) or the Red Roof Inn, a/k/a Trsucott (50 units) that have been included in other similar counts/analyses. Consequently, staff believes the numbers provided in the tabulation represent a conservative estimate. Given the numbers above, there have been 264 lodging units added in Aspen since 1990 while at least 317 units have been lost, resulting in a net loss of at least 53 lodging rooms. This still does not account for the October, 1999, scheduled demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel's 150 units, which will bring the net loss for the 1990s up to at least 203 lodging units ([317 + 150] - 264). Furthermore, all of the hotel units lost (including those to be demolished at the Grand Aspen) were in the economy-to-moderate categories while all of the Ritz/St. Regis rooms are in the deluxe/luxury category. It should also be noted that the 22 units in the Christiania Lodge were leased to the Aspen Ski Company last winter and will likely be converted to employee housing in the near future while the Christmas Inn (26 units) and the Ullr Lodge (23 units) are both listed for sale; the Christiania Lodge, the Christmas Inn, and the Ullr Lodge are all in the economy-to-moderate categories. Similarly, an "Aspen Area Pillow Count Survey" was recently completed by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) and Aspen Central Reservations. This survey included the following findings (quoted from a Diane Moore memorandum to the ACRA Board of Directors dated March 2, 1999): - "...the number of pillows available for short term occupancy have decreased over the past few years by approximately 100-200 pillows. While ... [their information] reflects that 393 pillows (economy properties) have been lost, there have been some gains in the number of pillows via property management companies, specifically with the rental of single family homes. The loss of 393 pillows is significant because these rooms were probably more accessible and affordable than a single family home rental." - "Conversations with local property management companies indicate that the owners of condominiums are reducing the number of days that their condo's are available for short term vacation rentals." - "All of the properties that have been converted from lodge use to another use were economy properties." - "There is increased pressure to convert older, `economy properties' to affordable housing units due to the strong need for employee housing." - "Only a few properties, such as the L'Auberge de Aspen and the Beaumont Inn, have added rooms to their properties (total of 16 additional pillows). Both of these properties are considered moderate lodging." The existing infrastructure is sufficient to support the proposal and the cost of any upgrades that might be required would be borne by Savanah. Furthermore,-the adopted "Purpose" of the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist-oriented detached, duplex and multi family residential dwellings." Considering all the factors discussed above and the stated purpose of the L/TR zone district, it is staff s opinion that the proposed density does not represent an unacceptable level of growth. Of course, density-related impacts include traffic and design concerns as well, and these topics are addressed below. In total, though, staff supports the proposed density on Lot 5, provided all B-3 EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues housing mitigation requirements are met. Meeting the housing mitigation requirements may result in the elimination of a few hotel units which, in turn, would result in less employee generation, but these issues are addressed at length below, under "Housing." As mentioned in the first paragraph of this sub-section, the amount of floor area to be developed is also related to the topics of density and lodging growth. Pursuant to Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement, the maximum allowable floor area on Lot 5 was reduced to one-hundred fifteen thousand (115,000) square feet, with the aggregate floor area of Lots 1 and 5 limited to three-hundred five thousand (305,000) square feet. As per the provisions of the PUD Agreement, this figure (115,000) was arrived at by including Lot 6 (the Silver Circle Ice Rink) in the calculation of allowable floor area for Lot 5, the purpose of which was to compensate Savanah for the development of the public ice rink and park on Lot 6 of the PUD. The Land Use Code precludes the inclusion of vacated rights-of--way in the calculation of allowable density or floor area, so the Dean Street right-of--way does not increase the allowable density or floor area. There are no applicable reductions associated with slopes. The proposal calls for the development of approximately 106,780 square feet of external FAR floor area, which is 8,220 square feet less than that allowed. The L/TR zone district also requires compliance with an internal FAR requirement stating that the maximum lodge rental space is capped at 0.5:1, but may be increased to 0.75:1 provided one-third of the additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The minimum internal FAR for non-unit space is limited to 0.25:1. As summarized in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (Exhibit F), the minimum non-unit space to be provided is 28,750 square feet. The proposed non-unit space of 35,840 square feet exceeds this minimum and, therefore, complies with the requirement. As also explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (Exhibit F), the 0.5:1 maximum internal rental space limitation results in 57,500 square feet of allowable rental space (based on a permitted floor area of 115,000 square feet), which can be increased to 0.75:1 (86,250 square feet) provided that one-third of the additional floor area is restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The proposal indicates that 65,940 square feet of rental space would be developed, requiring that 2,813 square feet be restricted to affordable housing ([65,940 - 57,500] - 3). With approximately 5,000 square feet of affordable housing proposed, the hotel meets the requirements .for the increased internal FAR as it pertains to rental space. Since these rental space calculations are undoubtedly confusing, try thinking of the calculation as follows: to figure out how many square feet of affordable housing would be required to permit the increase in allowable rental space to the level of 0.75:1, subtract the maximum amount of rental space under the 0.5:1 ratio (57,500 square feet, or 115,000 x 0.5) from the proposed amount of rental space (65,940). This results in a figure of 8,440 square feet. Thus, the affordable housing requirement to increase the FAR is at least one-third of the additional 8,440 square feet, or 2,813 square feet (8,440 - 3). 5,000 square feet of affordable housing is proposed, thereby exceeding the requirement by 2,187 square feet (almost 78%). B-4 "~ EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues Housing See Exhibit G, Housing Office memos and Housing Board Recommendations. Exhibit G includes three separate Housing Office memos dated May 5, May 14, and June 4, 1999. Exhibit G also includes the employment projection figures provided by Savanah as an attachment to the May 5, 1999 Housing Board memorandum. The June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum contains the Housing Office .and Housing Board's final recommendations with regard to the Conceptual PUD for Lots 3 and 5. The Lot 5 recommendations start on page 3 of said memorandum, and may be summarized as follows: Housing Office staff and the Housing Board recommend approval of the proposed Lot 5 development based on the understanding that the applicant has agreed to an obligation to provide housing for the new net number of employees generated by the development (40.9 net new employees to be housed). That number is based on the total employment generated by the new hotel, minus the employment attributable to the existing hotel, which is outlined in the table provided on page 3 of the June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum (Exhibit G). The Housing staff and Board recommendation of approval comes with the following conditions: 1. The numbers provided by the applicant will be accepted subject to an audit system, with the provision of additional housing should actual employment exceed projected employment, and "penalty" housing requirements. For a description of the audit and penalty systems, please refer to pages 4-5 of the June 4th memorandum (Exhibit G). 2. The Board recommends that no provision be made for the applicant to obtain a credit should the number of actual employees fall short of the projected number of employees. They recommend that no credit be possible as it would be difficult to identify at what point of the audit sequence the credits would be granted, and due to the fact that staff and the Board are relying on the applicant to provide an accurate projection of net new employees generated. 3. The Bavarian Inn was proposed by the applicant in the 1990 ballot language as an additional benefit unrelated to any mitigation of Phase 1 or Phase 2. The Bavarian Inn was an additional affordable housing inducement to_ the voters to pass the Amended Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. The ballot language was approved stating that a suitable affordable housing project must be built at the Bavarian Inn site regardless of whether or not anything is ever built in Phase 2. There was nothing found in the record regarding the use of the Bavarian Inn for future mitigation; therefore, the Bavarian Inn site should not be available for use of any employee mitigation. The Housing Board and staff agreed that the Bavarian Inn is part of along-overdue obligation to the electorate and recommends denial of the use of the Bavarian Inn for any kind of mitigation. Of course, Savanah disagrees with the Housing Board's position regarding the ability to use the Bavarian Inn site to help meet its housing mitigation requirements. Savanah's position on the Bavarian Inn issue is too lengthy to adequately summarize here, but is outlined in detail in a memorandum from Savanah to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board, which is included with Exhibit G. B-5 EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues In summary, should City Council accept the Housing Board recommendations, Savanah would be required to provide housing for 40.9 employees. Since none of these employees could be housed at the Bavarian Inn site, Savanah would need to house them on-site and/or in another off-site location approved by City Council upon recommendation of the Housing Board. The current proposal would provide housing for 12 employees in the hotel, leaving a shortfall of housing for an additional 28.9 employees. Housing some or all of these employees on-site would likely require a reduction in the proposed number of hotel units. Should the proposed number of hotel units be reduced, one effect would be a proportional reduction in the number of employees generated (at a rate of .31 employees per bedroom). There are numerous ways the numbers could be crunched to arrive at an acceptable way to house the employees. For instance, if the hotel proposal were to be decreased by 20 units with an average size of 400 square feet per unit eliminated, the 130 unit hotel's employee generation would be reduced from 40.9 to 34.7 (@ .31 employees per bedroom). As the existing proposal provides housing for 12 employees, the remaining shortfall would be 22.7 employees (34.7 - 12). Assuming an average hotel unit size of 400 square feet, the 20 eliminated units would provide roughly 8,000 square feet of space that could be used to provide housing. The average minimum size for Categories 1-4 studio units is 450 square feet; thus, approximately 17 studio units could be provided within the space vacated by 20 hotel units. 17 studio units would provide housing for 21.25 employees under the provisions of the Housing Guidelines. The remaining 1.45 employees could be accommodated by varying the unit mix within the space described. Similarly, credit for housing 1.75 employees is gained for each one-bedroom unit provided and the average minimum size for Categories 1-4 one-bedroom units is 650 square feet; thus, twelve (12) one-bedroom units could be provided within the space vacated by 20 hotel units. 12 one-bedroom units would provide housing for 21 employees (1.7 employees short of total requirement). Given these examples, staff is fairly confident that the entire housing mitigation requirement can be met on-site by eliminating 20 hotel units and converting the space to a mix of studio and one- bedroom units. On-site housing is clearly a goal of the AACP, and given that the proposed development will need up to 100 tourist accommodations allocations through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures, it would seem that complying with this staff position (and thereby providing greater consistency with the provisions of the AACP) should greatly aid Savanah in its bid for the additional allocations, especially since amulti-year allotment available only for "Exceptional Projects" will be needed. Note that the numbers and very basic analysis provided in the preceding paragraph are purely hypothetical. The unit sizes and mix would be subject to the final recommendation of the Housing Board and the approval of City Council. This sort of methodology may very well be unacceptable to the Housing Board and City Council, but is included here just as a basic way of explaining that compliance with the housing requirements is certainly possible. Nevertheless, one-bedroom and studio units may make the most sense since, as discussed above in reference to the internal FAR requirements, the additional FAR must be used to house employees of the lodge. On-site housing within a lodge is probably not appropriate for families. Traffic and Parking The Roaring Fork Transit Agency (BETA) provides both city. and down valley transit service. The Rubey Park transit station is located across Durant Avenue from and within one block of B-6 EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues the proposed Lot 5 development. The transit station is served by all summer and winter routes run by RFTA, and service is available from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. RFTA recommends (see Exhibit F) that Savanah be required to purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on site. Employees housed on site will not have to commute, but the purchase of bus passes for those housed elsewhere will encourage the use of transit. The Savanah-commissioned TDA, Inc., Transportation Report assumed no net gain in trip generation from the existing Grand Aspen Hotel to the proposed hotel. For instance, page 25 of the report shows a summer p.m. peak hour trip generation rate of 21 trips in and 27 trips out per hour for the existing hotel and the exact same projections for the replacement hotel. The TDA Report uses the Sixth Edition of ITE to establish trip generation rates for the various uses. Under ITE rates, the classification of "Hotel" includes such accessory uses as restaurants, bars, meeting rooms, and accessory shops. However, there does not appear to be any accounting for the amount of space dedicated to these accessory uses, or net increases in such spaces as may be applicable under the current proposal, which includes 3,550 square feet of 4-star restaurant/bar space, 8 employee units, 500 square feet of accessory commercial space, and 8,000 square feet of meeting space. Under City standards, hotels that de-emphasize automobile usage by providing hotel transit service can reduce the overall trip generation by basing it on the number of parking spaces provided rather than on the number of rooms. For example, a 150 room hotel with just 106 guest parking spaces and a hotel transit service could apply for a thirty (30) percent reduction before using any of the standard reductions (proximity to shopping and transit, affordable housing, etc.), although the automobile disincentive reduction factor would probably not apply if the underground parking became available to the general public. Nevertheless, the Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit F) has determined that the proposed development on Lots 3 and 5 (combined) will generate 743 trips per day, but the Environmental Health Department has not netted out any existing/background trips or credits for demolished structures, nor applied any potentially applicable reductions. Even though there has been no netting out of existing trips or credits and City standards allow for trip reductions applicable to Lots 3 and 5 for being conveniently located to the Rubey Park transit stop, the commercial shopping core, and the Aspen Mountain ski lift, there is still a large discrepancy between the findings of the Savanah-commissioned Transportation Report and the preliminary expectations and data of the City's Engineering and Environmental Health Departments. In their referral memo (see Exhibit F), the Engineering Department comments that, for final submission,. a revised traffic study needs to be provided and it needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards; this memo also states that the report, "as is," predicts a net increase of only 18 trips for Lots 3 and 5 combined, which seems to be underestimated. The Community Development Department agrees that a projected net increase of just 18 trips per p.m. peak hour (summer and winter) for Lots 3 and 5 combined seems exceedingly low. Furthermore, staff believes the hotel should provide an airport shuttle, perhaps using an alternative energy source. While the subject site is conveniently located to transit and the downtown, and City standards allow for reductions in projected trip generation rates for automobile disincentives such as a limited amount of on-site parking, staff of the Community Development Department is concerned that the proposed 106 underground parking spaces may be insufficient to meet demand and offset the loss of spaces on Dean Street. There are nine (9) existing spaces on B-7 ~,..,.. ,,,.;, EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues Dean Street dedicated for use by Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons. The Land Use Code requires at least 0.7 off-street parking spaces per bedroom for lodge uses in the L/TR zone district. With the 150 hotel units proposed, 105 parking spaces are the minimum required: There is no provision in the code stating that accessory uses and spaces are included in the 0.7 off- street parking spaces required per bedroom for lodge uses in the L/TR zone district. However, the L/TR zone district does require 4off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area (which may be provided via payment in lieu). Under the formula of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area, the 8,000 square feet of meeting space, 500 square feet of accessory commercial space, and 3,550 square feet of restaurant and bar space could be said to generate a requirement of 48 off-street parking spaces. The nine (9) Dean Street parking spaces must be replaced, and approximately ,8 parking/car storage spaces should be provided on site for the 12 employees to be housed. The 48 spaces for net leasable area, 9 Dean Street spaces, and the 8 employee unit spaces, combine for an additional demand of 65 off-street parking spaces. Some percentage of the net leasable area's demand for parking would undoubtedly overlap with the lodge rooms' demand for parking, and commercial spaces in the downtown area usually do not have designated parking but, instead, utilize the paid parking in the streets. Consequently, and considering the excellent access to transit, staff does not believe the applicant should be made to provide 170 (105 + 9 + 8 + 48) parking spaces. Rather, the proposed 106 spaces should be augmented by the addition of 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Commission and Council) of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. It might also be worthwhile to consider providing some parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on a semi-regular basis. The final topic related to traffic circulation and parking involves access: to/from the hotel, the garage, and the service and delivery areas. As proposed, vehicular access in front of the hotel would be limited to passenger drop-off and valet parking. No through traffic would be permitted. The underground parking garage would be accessed from South Galena Street via a ramp located wholly within the property, and the service/delivery area would be accessed from South Mill Street (approximately half way between vacated Dean Street and the St. Regis garage access). The service area would be covered by the building above and enclosed by an overhead door when not in use. Freight elevators would be provided to accommodate deliveries and oversized luggage. While the use of Dean Street for a passenger drop-off and valet area seems reasonable, there remain concerns. First, enforcement of maintaining limited use and preventing through traffic will require preventative measures and planning. Second, the proposed layout could be problematic if stacking distances for valet services prove too short, or if service is not fast enough to prevent the drop-off area from becoming a virtual parking lot. This area should be signed for one-way traffic only (from west, to east --- from Mill Street to Galena Street) and neck-downs should be provided at the corners to discourage improper vehicular turning movements while shortening pedestrian crossing distances. Staff believes the proposed locations for the garage access and service/delivery areas to be appropriate, but feels that a few minor adjustments should be made. For instance, exiting movements from the garage on South Galena Street should be limited to left turns only. This B-8 EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues would funnel all traffic directly toward Durant Avenue, which provides access to the downtown and all other destinations. If right turns from the garage exit onto Galena Street are allowed, unnecessary traffic would flow through the steeper and more narrow streets and intersections of a predominantly residential neighborhood just to wind back around to Durant Avenue. To maintain adequate sight distances for these left turning movements out of the garage, no trees or other vegetation should be planted within thirty (30) feet to the south or twenty (20) feet to the north of the exit. Similarly, but with regard to the service/delivery area, exiting vehicles should be restricted to right turns only back onto South Mill Street. Time limitations for deliveries should be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks should also be provided. Both access points would be located toward the foot of the hill, before the grades of Galena and Mill Streets begin to substantially climb. In addition, the final application should include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan should consider neighborhood concerns. This "Traffic and Parking" discussion provides multiple recommendations for Savanah, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council, which can be summarized as follows: • Savanah should purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on-site. • A revised traffic study assessing impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards should be provided with the Final PUD/GMQS application. • Commitment to provide an airport shuttle, perhaps using an alternative energy source, should be provided. • Additional off-street parking spaces should be provided, including 105 spaces dedicated to hotel guests, 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink and park patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Commission and Council) of spaces dedicated to the hotel's accessory uses. It might also be worthwhile to provide parking for contractors that would be present at the hotel on a semi-regular basis. • A plan for the enforcement of the passenger drop-off/valet parking drive as a one way, non-through street should be provided, and plans to provide neck-downs at the corners of said drive should also be provided. • The exit from the underground garage on Galena Street should include a means of precluding right turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan should show no vegetation 30 feet to the south or 20 feet to the north of the exit. • Similarly, the service/delivery area should be provided with a means of precluding exiting vehicles from turning left onto South Mill Street. • Time limitations for deliveries should be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks should also be provided. • Finally, the Final application should include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan should consider neighborhood concerns. Given that the proposed development will need up to 100 tourist accommodation allocations through the 1999-2000 GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures and the criteria include revitalizing the permanent community, providing transportation alternatives, promoting environmentally sustainable development, and maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character, it would seem that complying with these staff recommendations should greatly aid Savanah in its bid for the additional allocations, B-9 ~. , ~' '° EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues especially since amulti-year allotment available only for "Exceptional Projects" will be needed. Design and Height Lot 5 is relatively flat with its topography rising gently from Dean Street to the rear of the parcel, and bears few encumbrances or other site specific design constraints. There is a twenty (20) foot utility easement and an "Alpine Trail" easement on the southerly end of the Lot 5 property. The utility easement abuts the southern boundary of Lot 5 and accommodates an eight inch sanitary sewer line. The eight foot "Alpine Trail" easement, intended to provide pedestrian access between Lots 4 and 5 of the PUD and Aspen Mountain, runs within the utility easement and to its north, but Savanah proposes to straighten the "Alpine Trail" easement to coincide with the utility easement. As indicated in the Site Plans of the application, the primary mass of the proposed hotel would be located along the vacated Dean Street. The proposed layout would maintain the historic alignment of the Grand Aspen Hotel along Dean Street. Dean Street would be converted into a limited passenger and valet parking drop-off driveway (no longer a public access or through street) and landscaped pedestrian area, which would link the St. Regis Hotel and Lot 5 with the Aspen Mountain Gondola Plaza and the Little Nell Hotel. The remainder of the "inverted `J'-shaped" hotel (a "J" shape spun 180° clockwise) would be located in the central and southwestern portions of the site. The rear portions of the structure would be recessed into the climbing grade of the site, maintaining a uniform height from the Dean Street facade to the southernmost portions of the building. To help buffer the visual impacts of the new structure from the adjoining property to the south, species for the trees proposed along the site's southerly property line would be selected to provide mature heights closely mirroring the height of the hotel in this area. The main entrance to the hotel would be located adjacent to the vacated Dean Street right-of- way, with a secondary pedestrian entrance at the corner of Dean and Galena Streets. The hotel's lobby and restaurant have been designed to front on former Dean Street and the ice rink in an effort to enhance the vitality of the area while providing a more interesting pedestrian experience. The hotel structure would be set back further than required from the ice rink and park located on Lot 6 in order to visually reduce the perceived mass of the structure from Durant Avenue. Street trees would be planted along both sides of vacated Dean Street as well as along the site's Galena and Mill Street frontages. The inverted "J" shape of the hotel allows for open terrace areas along both Mill Street and Galena Street. The terrace area along Mill Street would contain a swimming pool and hot tub, landscaping in raised planters, and a pergola structure between the terrace and the street. This would result in a substantial portion of the Mill Street elevation being recessed or set back more than 100 feet from the street. Another landscaped courtyard would encompass more than 100 feet of the Galena Street frontage. The architectural style of the proposed hotel has been selected to reflect the Victorian character of Aspen's older structures, albeit at a somewhat larger scale. Fronting on Dean Street and framing the ice rink from Durant Avenue, the hotel design has been given a symmetrical form with central massing to provide an interesting and pleasing visual backdrop for the area. The roof contains multiple and symmetrically balanced dormers and is steeply B-10 EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues pitched throughout, with the bulk of the upper floor units integrated into the roof form. With the central massing and symmetrical design, the hotel steps down along the Dean Street frontage as it approaches Galena and Mill Streets. The central Dean Street mass is framed by matching turrets, and the entire Dean Street facade is similarly framed with set back turrets that front on Galena and Mill Streets. Arcades provide for covered pedestrian areas while also varying the wall planes to help further break up the mass of the structure. Relatively small portions of the structure front on Mill and Galena Streets due to the placement of large courtyards. For instance, climbing Galena Street from north to south, the street frontage would be developed as follows: a ninety (90) or so foot segment of the building would front on the street, followed by almost 130 feet of courtyard (including the garage ramp), and finally, a 70 foot portion of the building. The South Mill Street frontage would be developed in a very similar manner. Sufficient open space would be provided to meet the 25% requirement of the L/TR zone district. A minimum of 18,270 square feet of area (25%) meeting the City's definition of "open space" is required for Lot 5. The proposal would provide for approximately 22,010 square feet of "open space" on Lot 5 and another 25,730 square feet of open space on Lot 6 (Silver Circle Ice Rink and park), for a combined total of 47,740 square feet of open space. Savanah's ability to utilize Lot 6 for open space purposes is specifically provided for in the February, 1993 Section M. Amendment to the PUD Agreement. The proposal meets the minimum requirement for open space without including Lot 6, but exceeds the requirement by more than 38% when included. With the exception of maximum building height, the proposal complies with all applicable dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district. The L/TR zone district has a maximum height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, and the proposed structure would have a peak height of forty-seven (47) feet --- nineteen (19) feet above the limit. As mentioned above, the proposed structure would be cut into the rising grade of Mill and Galena Streets to maintain a uniform height from front to back while the measurable height would decrease along this path; nonetheless, the height of the hotel at the rear (south side) of the site would range from approximately twenty-one (21) to thirty-four (34) feet above existing grade, with the tallest portion in the center. The extent of the additional height is minimized to the degree that fourth floor hotel units would be built into the roof form. Permission to vary the L/TR zone district's height limitation is requested as part of the PUD review. The surrounding structures include, from east to west, the Little Nell, the North of Nell, and the St. Regis Hotel. All of these structures are more than 28 feet in height and combine to form a visual break between the downtown commercial area and the residential and ski areas behind. The proposed hotel would make this "visual break" continuous while providing an attractive urban form and transitioning into the residential uses to the south. The proposal includes a fourteen (14) foot tall first floor, which is consistent with the .way older "Victorian" commercial spaces were designed. Staff believes this helps to maintain a high degree of architectural integrity while aiding in the creation of a strong street presence; staff feels that this portion of the proposed design should not be compromised for the sake of maintaining a height limitation. In general, staff is prepared to support a height variance at this location, but the extent of such a variance remains an outstanding issue. That is, staff is recommending that more employee housing be provided on site, which may result in the loss of some lodge rooms. B-11 EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues Staff is also recommending that additional parking be provided in the underground garage. Given the conceptual nature of the design and the potential for it to change based on staff, Commission, Council, and neighborhood concerns, staff advises that the Commission and then Council not take formal action on the height variance request until review of a Final PUD application. However, the Commission and Council should provide the applicant with an indication (without reliance) as to what may or may not be acceptable. In the interim and to help make an educated decision on the height issue, staff suggests that, prior to GMQS Scoring and Final PUD Review, Savanah be required to provide "story poles" at the new building corners and at roof height changes to reflect the peaks of the proposed roof. There will also be a Mountain View Plane review proceeding concurrently with the Final PUD application, provided all necessary prior approvals are obtained, including the need to obtain a multi-year tourist accommodations allotment as an "exceptional project" through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. "Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character" is one of the scoring categories. Consistency With The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) The 1993 AACP contains no specific recommendations with respect to Lot 5 of the PUD, but does contain statements that support the proposal as well as statements that support many of the staff recommendations. The text below contains statements from the AACP in italics, followed by staff's description of how the statement relates to the Lot 5 proposal. "It is this unique balance between all sectors of the community that we are striving to retain and enhance.... Our goal is to be a community that is environmentally responsible and economically sustainable. Tourism is the economic force of the community. Recognizing the interdependence between the local community and the tourism industry is a valuable key to understanding this community. " (Page 5, Community Vision.) Similarly, the "Intent" of the Growth Action Plan, as stated on page 16 of the AACP, is to "Encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and the tourist base." Also, while the specific words are not included, the AACP's "Commercial/Retail Action Plan" hints at the need for managed strategic growth in the community's lodging sector. Given the changes in Aspen's lodging inventory since the beginning of the 1990s and earlier, as described above in the "Density and Lodging Growth" section of this Exhibit, staff believes the proposed hotel would help to reestablish some of the losses to the unique balance between all sectors of the community while increasing economic sustainability. One-hundred percent of the net new employees would be provided with affordable housing, and the loss of the Grand Aspen's 150 economy-moderately priced lodge units would be countered by the development of a new 150 unit "moderately priced, upscale hotel." Guests at the hotel would help support local merchants, dining establishments, the ski industry, the arts, and other important sectors of the community and local economy. Similarly, while the Growth Action Plan includes a "Policy" of not permitting "development beyond the projected peak buildout of 30,000 persons (inclusive of permanent and visitor population)," the new 150 unit hotel would replace the 150 unit Grand Aspen Hotel, which is scheduled for demolition in October of 1999. Thus, the proposed hotel is not expected to add to the permanent and visitor population. The AACP Housing Action Plan contains statements encouraging "infill development within the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more B-I2 ~: EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues employees ... ~toJ live close to where they work," and "promoting more on-site affordable housing." It is also stated in the "Growth Action Plan" that the community should "Give a higher priority to on-site housing in the commercial core, such as providing additional points, in the Growth Management scoring system." Since the Grand Aspen will be demolished before a replacement would be approved or built, the proposed hotel should be considered an infill development request. The proposal includes on-site housing for twelve (12) employees with a suggestion that all other net new employees could be housed at the Bavarian Inn redevelopment. As explained above in the "Housing" section of this Exhibit, it is staff and the Housing Board's position that the Bavarian Inn site is not available for mitigation purposes. Rather, staff is of the opinion that all of the net new employees can and should be housed on the hotel site. Given that the proposal will need up to 100 tourist accommodations allocations through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures, it would seem that complying with the staff position, and thereby providing greater consistency with the provisions of the AACP, should greatly aid Savanah in its bid for the additional allocations, especially since amulti-year allotment as an "exceptional project" will be needed. The "Philosophy" of the Transportation Action Plan suggests that "reducing dependency on the automobile requires offering alternatives both for automobile use and storage and other means of transport." The staff recommendations provided above, in the "Traffic and Parking" section of this Exhibit, are supported by this goal of the AACP. For instance, staff has recommended that the underground garage include designated car storage spaces for the employee units to be located on site. Staff and RFTA have also recommended that Savanah provide all employees that are not housed on site with monthly bus passes. Another staff recommendation would require that the hotel have its own airport shuttle, perhaps utilizing an alternative energy source. Note that complying with these recommendations will also greatly help with meeting the minimum thresholds of the GMQS Scoring and Competition criteria. The "Philosophy" of the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan states that, "Implicit in development and growth of the other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is the continued acquisition and preservation of open space within our developed area, as well as the further development and management of parks and trails." As explained above, sufficient open space would be provided to meet the requirements of the L/TR zone district. A minimum of 18,270 square feet of area meeting the City's definition of "open space" is required for Lnt 5. The proposal would provide for approximately 22,010 square feet of "open space" on Lot 5 and another 25,730 square feet of open space on Lot 6 (Silver Circle Ice Rink and park}, for a combined total of 47,740 square feet of open space. Savanah's ability to utilize Lot 6 for open space purposes is specifically provided for in the February, 1993 Section M. Amendment to the PUD Agreement. The proposal provides both open space and a park, meets the minimum requirement for open space without including Lot 6, and provides 138% of the required open space when all available lands are included. With regard to trails, the "Alpine Trail" easement would be retained and improved by Savanah. Finally, the Intent of the "Design Quality and Historic Preservation" section of the AACP is "To ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features. " Also, the Philosophy of this section states that, "The importance of quality infill design within the larger historic setting is recognized as being a vital component to our economic well being. " See the "Design and Height" section of this Exhibit, above, for a complete discussion of the proposed design. Consistency with this portion of the AACP B-13 ~. -+-~ EXHIBIT B Lot 5, Main Issues will be required in order to meet the minimum thresholds necessary to obtain the needed tourist accommodations allocations through the Growth Management scoring and competition procedures, especially since amulti-year allotment as an "exceptional project" will be needed. B-14 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues Main Issues Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 3 Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and/or deserve special attention. While other issues exist, the core issues are outlined in this Exhibit and referred to elsewhere throughout the main body of the staff memorandum and its associated exhibits. The summaries contained in this Exhibit have been organized by categories of issues rather than by the review processes which deal with the issues, and are intended to provide further detail and elaboration of certain topics, as well as information related to issues not raised through review of the PUD standards. This Exhibit includes discussion of the following Lot 3 issue areas: zoning (including rezoning, code amendments, and dimensional requirements); housing; drainage and natural hazards; trails and easements; access and traffic generation; architecture and site design; and, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. As there are many recommendations provided throughout this Exhibit, all recommendations are indicated by the use of underlining, and the logic behind the particular recommendation can be found just before of after the underlined portion. Also, the beginning of sub-topic areas are indicated by the use of bold print. Zoning (including Rezoning, Code Amendments, and Dimensional Requirements) Lot 3 is zoned L/TR(PUD), Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay; R-15 (PUD)(L), Moderate-Density Residential with PUD and Lodge overlays; and, C, Conservation. Consequently, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 26.40.070 of the Municipal Code, which governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. Section 26.40.070(B)(1) requires that the dimensional requirements of each underlying zone district be compared and. that the most restrictive be utilized in the development of the parcel. In addition, Section 26.40.070(A)(2) requires that the allowable density and floor area of the proposed development be based solely on the land area of the zone district in which the use is a permitted or conditional use. When a proposed development is not allowed in all of the underlying zone districts, Section 26.40.070(A) limits the location of the use to those portions of the parcel in which the proposed development is either a permitted or conditional use. As a portion of proposed Parcel 1 (the area containing the two sets of triplexes) lies within the area of Lot 3 that is presently zoned R-15(PUD)(L), and multi-family residential is not a permitted or conditional use in the R-15 zone, a rezoning is required. For this reason, Savanah proposes to rezone all R-15 portions of Lot 3 to L/TR(PUD). Even if the rezoning is approved, subdivided Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 would continue to have portions in the Conservation zone and other portions in the L/TR zone while Parcels 6 and 7 would be wholly within the Conservation zone. For purposes of the proposed Conceptual PUD application, Savanah has assumed that the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district will govern the development of Lot 3. The minimum lot area per single-family dwelling unit is 6,000 square feet in the L/TR zone district, and ten (10) acres (435,600 square feet) in the Conservation district (the maximum lot area per single-family dwelling unit in the L/TR zone is also 6,000 square feet). Since the above-cited code section requires that the most restrictive dimensional requirements of the various applicable zone districts shall apply, the minimum lot area requirement per dwelling unit in the Conservation zone (10 acres) would arguably govern the development of single- family dwelling units on Lot 3. Since more than 75% of Lot 3 is and would continue to be (after approval of the requested rezoning) zoned Conservation and Lot 3 contains less than ten acres, this provision would limit the total development of Lot 3 to one (1) single-family residence. This limitation would effectively preclude the applicant from achieving both the G1 `"" EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues proposed development mix and the forty-seven dwelling units previously agreed to in the Amended PUD Agreement, and upheld by the voters. Thus, a code amendment is proposed by Savanah as a means of addressing this issue. The proposed code amendment would provide City Council with discretion in determining which dimensional requirements shall apply when a parcel is encumbered by multiple zone districts, and the application of the most restrictive requirements would be unreasonable given the circumstances, or would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. To provide some measure of control, the applicant proposes to make this flexibility available to Council only if the project in question is being processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In summary, Savanah believes the portion of Lot 3 that is presently zoned R-15 would have to be rezoned to L/TR(PUD) in order to accommodate the proposed development. That is, the proposed density exceeds that allowed in the existing underlying zone district. Thus, if approval of the proposed Conceptual PUD for Lot 3 is granted, it should only be done conditioned upon the outcome of the ensuing rezoning hearings. To clarify, should the rP~nninu rerniest he denied_ the anplicant would have to come back through the Conceptual a nronosal that meets Rezoning and Code Amendment. zone Staff believes the only reason Savanah needs to request a code amendment is the fact that the parameters of the rezoning request are not adequate. That is, Savanah is requesting to rezone all portions of Lot 3 currently zoned R-15(PUD)(L) to L/TR(PUD). The rezoning of the R- 15(PUD) lands to L/TR(PUD) is probably appropriate, but would still leave portions of subdivided Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 in the Conservation zone with other portions of these parcels in the L/TR(PUD) zone (i.e., remaining as parcels with more than one underlying zone district). Also, Parcels 6 and 7 would remain wholly within the Conservation zone. Thus, even if the proposed rezoning is approved, the proposed development plan still would not comply with the provisions of the Land Use Code unless the requested code amendment is approved and Council subsequently allows for the use of the L/TR dimensional requirements based on a finding that application of the most restrictive requirements (those of the Conservation zone) would be unreasonable given the circumstances, would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. This would leave the Lot 3 proposal riddled with contingencies. Instead, staff is of the opinion that all portions of Lot 3 for which development is proposed should be rezoned to L/TR(PUD), thereby eliminating the applicability of Section 26.40.070 of the Municipal Code, which governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. This would require that some of the lands currently zoned Conservation, along with all the lands currently zoned R-15(PUD)(L), be rezoned to L/TR(PUD). Given staffs position with regard to the application of dimensional requirements, as explained below and in the City Zoning Officer's referral comments, it would be advisable to place all development lands within the same zoning and thereby eliminate both the applicability of Section 26.40.070 and the need for the proposed code amendments. Furthermore, the staff recommended rezoning would effectively eliminate two sets of contingencies: first, review of the proposed code amendment, and second, the need for Council to allow use of the L/TR dimensional requirements based on a finding that application of the most restrictive requirements (those of the Conservation zone) would be unreasonable given the circumstances, would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. Note that if Conceptual PUD approval is granted, the rezoning request would be reviewed concurrently with the Final PUD application. In summary, staff recommends that the parameters of the rezoning request be changed and the C-2 ~..«.. ``" EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues code amendment request be withdrawn since, if the staff recommended rezoning is pursued and approved, the code amendment becomes unnecessary. Dimensional Requirements. A site specific building envelope has been proposed for each of the development parcels on Lot 3. These envelopes would provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate future architectural refinement. The proposed building envelopes for Parcels 2-8 meet or exceed all applicable setback requirements of the L/TR zone district, but not necessarily those of the current/existing zone districts. The proposed building envelope for Parcel 1, however, would provide a seven (7) foot front setback where a minimum of ten (10) feet is required. As no variance is requested to accommodate the Parcel 1 envelope and the plan has enough room to simply move the front setback portion of the envelope back by three feet, start is assuming the apnlicant will provide a comnlving envelope m the >~ma1 YUll application. utnerwise, a variance will need to be requested. The lot area of atI eight proposea parcels also substantially exceeds the L/TR district's minimum lot size requirement. All structures proposed on Lot 3 would comply with the L/TR zone district's maximum height limitation. It should be pointed out that, in planning for compliance with the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district, the applicant is relying heavily on approval of their rezoning request. The L/TR zone district's list of permitted uses includes "detached residential or duplex dwellings, only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less." While this sets a de facto maximum lot area of 6,000 square feet for single-family residential uses (including duplexes), it is not a dimensional requirement, but a use. Parcels 2-8 would include detached residential or duplex dwellings and be greater than 6,000 square feet. As this would entail a variance from the list of permitted uses, and not from a dimensional requirement, this requirement cannot be varied through the PUD process. Rather, a code amendment would be required to eliminate the "only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less" language. Savanah is basing their calculation of allowable floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 that would be zoned L/TR at a 1:1 (floor area :lot area) ratio to arrive at an allowable aggregate external floor area of 97,630 square feet. This figure does not assume any floor area credit for the 106,150 square foot portion of the lot zoned C, Conservation (there is no floor area limitation in the Conservation zone district). Further, approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area would remain on Lot 5 under the current proposal, and said floor area could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the PUD regulations. If included, this would provide for 105,850 square feet of allowable floor area, exclusive of the unlimited floor area potential of the lands zoned Conservation (see pages 73- 74 of application packet, Attachment 1). Staff takes a different approach to the calculation of allowable floor areas for the proposed subdivision parcels of Lot 3. Staff believes the allowable floor areas discussed in the PUD Agreement contemplate a potential maximum that could be attained, provided the proposed subdivision lots could be successfully sized and configured (and no lot area reductions were required) so that all of the floor area could be constructed while meeting all other applicable and unvaried dimensional requirements. As explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (see Exhibit F), staff feels it would be more appropriate to base its calculations of not only permitted floor area but also allowed density and required open space on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Consequently, further information, including a C-3 ~`~" EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues Based on individual lot sizes of the subdivided parcels, as opposed to the total size of Lot 3, the proposed floor areas for the duplex and single family dwellings are well in excess of the permitted floor areas for parcels of equal size in the L/TR zone district, and would likely be even further in excess once slope reductions are accounted for. For example, the proposed floor area for Parcel 4 is 6,200 square feet on a 13,290 square foot lot. However, the allowed floor area for a single family residence on that size lot in the L/TR zone district would be 3,917 square feet, less any applicable slope reductions (Parcel 4 would contain slopes in excess of 20 and 30 percent). Similarly, the L/TR zone district requires that at least 25% of each building site remain as "open space" meeting the City's definition. The proposal contemplates a 25% open space requirement for Lot 3 rather than for each subdivided parcel. Thus, further information will be required from the applicant before staff can accurately assess each of the proposed subdivision parcels' compliance with the dimensional requirements, especially those associated with floor area, density, and open space. The required open space can be varied thr~u~h the PUD nrocess. and uiven the size and configuration of the proposed open space a request if found to be necessary. Housing For a summary of Savanah's position and proposal with regard to Housing mitigation requirements for Lot 3, please refer to pages 81 through 86 of the written application booklet (Attachment One). The Housing Office and Board's recommendation with regard to housing mitigation for Lot 3 is summarized on the first two pages of the June 4, 1999 memo included with Exhibit G, attached hereto. To summarize, although Savanah's position has held that no further mitigation is required for the PUD's residential reconstruction credits, they have nonetheless proposed to mitigate the Lot 3 development in a manner that complies with the City's current regulatory requirements with respect to the demolition and reconstruction of existing single-family, duplex, and multi- family residential units. Thus, four (4) deed restricted duplex units have been proposed to mitigate the prior demolition of various multi-family dwelling units located throughout the PUD, and six (6) accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are proposed to mitigate the seven reconstruction credits that would be utilized to develop the five detached single-family residences and one duplex proposed on Lot 3. The proposed housing replacement units would, in total, consist of 13 bedrooms and approximately 6,200 square feet in four (4) duplex units. The four units would be divided as follows: three 3-bedroom units and one 4-bedroom unit, where one 3-bedroom unit would be deed restricted to Cate o 2, the other two 3-bedroom units would be deed restricted to Category 3, and the 4- edroom unit would be deed restricted to Category 4. As proposed, all four units would be sold pursuant to applicable APCHA Guidelines in effect at the time of Final PUD approval. The six (6) ADUs would be deed restricted pursuant to applicable regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance for their associated free market residence. The Housing Office and Housing Board discussed the proposal on May 5, 1999, and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Floor plans of the deed restricted units shall be reviewed and approved by Housing Office Staff. 2. The units shall be deed restricted prior to building permit approval with the deed restriction provided by the Housing Office. C-4 ,,~,,~ '"` EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues 3. All deed restricted units shall be sold by the Housing Office under the general lottery system. 4. All accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted according to the Land Use Code in effect at the time of building permit approval. 5. Site visits by the Housing Office staff shall be done on all deed restricted units prior to approval of Certificate of Occupancy. Drainage and Natural Hazards Drainage. New thirty-six (36) inch storm sewers have been installed in Mill Street between Cooper Avenue and Durant Avenue; in Durant Avenues between Mill and Galena Streets; and, in Galena Street between Durant Avenue and the southern boundary of Lot 5. The Galena Street storm sewer has also been extended approximately one hundred and fifty (150) feet to the south to tie-in the storm sewers which had been installed by the City in connection with the implementation of the Galena Street Improvement District. Additional storm sewers and detention structures have subsequently been installed in Dean Street, Monarch Street and Durant Avenue to accommodate storm water flows attributable to the Ritz-Carlton/St. Regis Hotel. Additional improvements will likely be required in connection with Savanah's development of Lots 3 and 5 should such developments be approved. In 1989, Savanah contributed $250,000 to the City toward the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive drainage plan for Aspen Mountain. This contribution was required pursuant to Section H.10. of the Amended PUD Agreement (Book 574, Pages 835-837), and relieved the applicant of Roberts' prior commitment to provide on-site detention facilities on Lot 3 of the PUD. That is, the contribution was provided in lieu of providing storm water detention facilities on Lot 3. This contribution, which until recently had been held in escrow by the City, is presently being used to prepare the "Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Plan." While this new plan has yet to be completed, a substantial amount of work has been performed to date (see the Exhibit F "Report on Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development (PUD Lot #3, known as `Top of Mill')"). Drainage and natural hazard concerns are not specifically identified in the criteria for Planned Unit Development review, but are more closely related to Subdivision review. Nevertheless, drainage and natural hazard concerns remain important issues for the review of the Lot 3 proposal. With regard to the PUD criteria, drainage and natural hazards are related to potential affects on the future development of the surrounding area. Please refer to the Exhibit F for a detailed review of drainage concerns as related to the proposed development. As mentioned above and in Exhibit F, the Engineering Department is currently preparing its final phase of the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (AMDBMP) and mitigating criteria that will assist in identifying potential hazards resulting from the Aspen Mountain basin runoff and its impact on downstream developments situated within the naturally developed flow patterns. The Engineering report contained in Exhibit F explains that buildings, walls, and solid structures above ground would perform as blockage in the drainage flow ways and would result in flood rise and alteration of flow patterns that could impact adjacent and especially downstream properties and developments. One of the goals of the AMDBMP is to develop a set of reasonable mitigation criteria that can acceptably minimize and mitigate the potential hazards resulting from development of any parcel of land within the drainage basin, GS ~~~~"~ EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues considering typical development practices and surface runoff (whether from snow melt, rainfall, or a combination of rain on snow for a given return frequency). The final phase of the AMDBMP report and drainage criteria is scheduled for completion in the fall, which should substantially precede submission and review of a Final PUD/Subdivision application for Lot 3. Promoting environmentally sustainable developments in Aspen must be given a high priority. In the opinion of the City Engineering Department, developments at the bottom of a slope that meets a relatively flatter plain are generally subject to potential hazards. Such hazards become more serious when evidence of property damage in the surrounding areas have been observed. Examples of these types of observations include the mudslide at the Aspen Music School and localized landslide/caving events on the slope directly southwest of the proposed development site and west of Aspen Street. The Engineering Department believes that developments with moderate densities can be implemented with adequate mitigation for the above-mentioned potential hazards. In previous submittals and public hearings for the development of Lot 3, the Planning and Zoning Commission set certain conditions that would protect the proposed development as well as adjacent and downstream properties, including the City's infrastructure, from flood and debris flow damages. After completion of the AMDBMP, a new set of mitigation criteria will be recommended as conditions of Final PUD and Subdivision approval, but staff of the Community Development and Engineering Departments feel that, in the interim until the final phase of the AMllI3MY is completed and until rmai rulJi~unarvision reviews ana to adequately address dramage retatea concerns: 1. Proposed building mass and related impermeable surface layout will closely conform with the final outcome of the AMDBMP design and construction criteria. It shall be the developer's or its successor's responsibility to fully comply with the drainage criteria and perform within the parameters set forth in the report. 2. Savanah Limited Partnership's (owner/developer) representative agreed to provide necessary drainage easements and shall continue to provide. these easements for safe conveyance of surface runoff and debris through the site. The developer's representative will make necessary adjustments to building footprints to ensure that the requirements of the AMDBMP and the above mentioned conditions are met. 4. The City will use the funds put in escrow to study and develop a master plan with design and construction criteria and utilize the balance of these funds to implement an interim drainage mitigation project to control runoff only to the extent the remaining escrow funds will support. Also, the Engineering memo provided in Exhibit F suggests the following additional conditions of Conceptual PUD approval: • The site layout must be such that it will in no way pose a significant blockage in the natural stream bed or drainage path; and, • The development must comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The existing site must be carefully studied and evaluated to ensure a proper design and correct selection of BMP(s). C-6 `~"` EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues Grading & Site Disturbance. The applicant states that the areas proposed for development are essentially flat and can accommodate the proposed site plan. No development is proposed on the steeply sloping hillside which occupies the southwestern portion of the parcel. The proposed developments' grading plan, to accommodate building foundations and the proposed access road, would be designed to minimize, to the extent practical, any adverse impact on existing mature vegetation and original landforms. While grading would certainly be required to remove portions of the prior fill material, the resulting grades would more closely approximate the parcel's original topography. Grading would be reviewed in detail in connection with the 8040 Greenline Review that would proceed concurrently with a Final PUD application, should all nrereauisite annrovals be obtained. Geologic and Geotechnical Studies. The PUD Agreement (Book 574, Page 794) states that "Lot 3 ... requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration." It can be argued that this language is in effect, is binding on the applicant, and determines that the Top of Mill parcel can receive no further preliminary development consideration until such geologic studies have been completed. To date, further geologic studies and evaluations have not been done. Instead two firms, as discussed below, have been hired by Savanah to review the numerous reports that have been prepared since 1983, but these firms have not completed "further geologic study and evaluation." The Land Use Code, at Section 26.84.070, provides that development of the property is limited by the conditions of the PUD Agreement. Following is a summary. of the key points from the Geologic and Geotechnical Review for the Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Redevelopment Project, prepared b • Soil and foundation conditions have not been specifically studied at the Grand Aspen site. • Fills on the Top of Mill site are not suitable for foundation support and should be removed. • The structures of Lot 3 may be founded on spread footings designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 2,500 psf (pounds per square foot). • Grading plans for Lot 3 should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. • Mine dump materials which may contain lead may be present on the Lot 3 site. [reclamation should be completed before development commences, if needed] • It is recommended that additional soil and foundation studies be done at the Top of Mill to evaluate site-specific subsurface and foundation conditions at the proposed building sites. A soil and foundation study should also be made at the Grand Aspen site. • There may be a mining tunnel at a bearing of about S22°E, and its portal may be located near the eastern side of the proposed building site on Parcel #3 of Lot 3; the possibility of this tunnel portal should be further evaluated. If a tunnel portal is present, then mitigation of potential subsidence hazards may be needed. • It is recommended that debris flow hazard mitigation be evaluated in conjunction with development of the storm water management plan. • The previous hazard studies and Colorado Geological Survey reviews concluded that the potential flash flood and debris flow hazard at the Top of Mill and elsewhere on the Pioneer Gulch fan, including the. existing development in the city, was severe enough to warrant hazard mitigation. • Both sites [Lots 3 and 5] are in potential flash flood and debris flow hazard areas. Mitigation should be considered in project planning and design for both lots. • Site-specific debris flow mitigation plans should be developed for both sites. The previous debris flow mitigation concepts and design recommendations should be reviewed and updated if necessary. C-7 ~~.v `` .,~ EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues • Slope movements which increase in rate during the spring snowpack melt are known to be present on Aspen Mountain upsweep of the project area. Long-term movement monitoring at Strawpile has been done between 1987 and 1995. The Aspen Skiing Company has also done some work to improve slope stability during this period. However, most of the remedial actions recommended in 1985 for Strawpile have not been implemented. The skiing company should be approached to determine if they are willing to cooperate by making available the information they have developed over the years to the redevelopment project. • Rockfall hazards were not discussed in the previous studies. We are a aware of a potential rockfall source area in mine dump material in a road cut along the summer road upslope of the redevelopment project. Temporary concrete barriers were placed along the road last spring. It is our understanding that a rockfall barrier engineering company has been contacted to design and construct a permanent cable fence barrier for the site which may be installed next spring when the site is accessible. • We do not anticipate major problems with on-site construction-related slope instability for the proposed construction at either Lot 3 or Lot 5, if the grading is properly designed and extensive grading is not done on the steeper slopes. Site-specific grading recommendations should be developed as part of geotechnical studies at both sites. • All occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. • The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon review of previous studies and experience in the area. These studies reviewed are now about 11 years old, address a different design concept and do not cover parts of the currently proposed redevelopment projects. Additional site specific studies should be done to address the geotechnical and geologic aspects of the two sites for the proposed site-specific building plans. Staff feels that an updated study, based on today's conditions and the current design concept, covering all parts of the current proposal, should be done to address the geotechnical and ~eolo~ic aspects of the site. The May 17, 1996, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Lot 3 -Top of Mill study that was prepared for Savanah by Waste Engineering, Inc., had the following conclusion/recommended action: • We believe the methods and cleanup should be established for the Top of Mill site to criteria established at the Smuggler Mountain Superfund site adopted by the City of Aspen. On-site management of contaminated material should take precedence over possible off-site disposal. Should a balance of material exist following calculation of cut/fill quantities, off-site disposal may then be considered. Based on the various environmental analyses that have been completed to date, Savanah claims to be aware of no environmental problems which cannot be either avoided or reasonably mitigated in connection with the development of the proposed project. However, based on the applicant's submittal and the findings of the studies cited above, there is no certainty that the area can or should accommodate the proposed site plan. Specifically, the required grading and excavation has not been studied, nor have the necessary, updated geologic and geotechnical studies been completed. In summary, the applicant has adequately dealt with storm drainage concerns, but further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the current design concept must be completed before compliance with Subdivision standards can be ensured, and under the terms of the PUD Agreement, before the proposal "can receive preliminary and final development consideration." Given the "Lot 3 ... requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration" language of the PUD agreement and the fact that it is well known and C-8 p« .. n,,,, EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues documented that the adjacent Fifth Avenue Condominiums have structural problems, including cracking walls, due in large part to the soils of the area, staff recommends that the Citv err on the conservative side by deciding not to consider the Lot 3 Conceptual PUD move rorwara wt review process, state recommends as an alternattve and as a mmtmum, that the Ytamm~g ana Zoning Commission and City Council require Savanah to complete all necessary studies, as su~aested by the ~eotechnical en~ineerin~ study that was commissioned by the applicant, and tston Trails and Easements As depicted on the Seventh Amended Plat, Lot 3 is encumbered by several easements. An open space easement was dedicated on the original Roberts subdivision plat for the use and benefit of the owners of the lands within the PUD, subject to certain easement rights which were granted to the Aspen Skiing Company for skiing purposes. Two separate trail easements are also depicted on the plat: the "Aspen Mountain Trail" easement, which traverses Lot 3 within the open space easement, was dedicated to the public for skiing and pedestrian purposes; and, the "Top of Mill Trail," which traverses Lot 3 from east to west and was dedicated to the public for pedestrian purposes only. The "Top of Mill Trail" dedication does not become effective until such time as public trail easements have been procured through adjacent lands; no such easements are presently available. Finally, a twenty-five (25) foot road easement was dedicated to the public to accommodate the extension of Summit Street. With respect to the "Top of Mill Trail," Savanah proposes to vacate the previously dedicated easement across Lot 3 "due to topographic limitations and the City's apparent decision to relocation of the proposed trail to a new alignment." Savanah bases its belief that the City apparently decided to relocate the trail on the 1993 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map and the 1990 Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan which depict the trail alignment within the Summit Street and Galena Street right-of--ways. Savanah postulates that. the decision to locate the trail in these right-of- ways may have been due to the severe topographic constraints which presently exist at the terminus of the existing Top of Mill Trail easement. Regardless of location, the Top of Mill Trail easement does not become effective until such time as additional, connecting trail easements are obtained across adjacent parcels. The applicant concludes this introduction to their argument by stating on page 58 of Attachment One that, "Given the original intent of the Top of Mill trail (i.e., the creation of a pedestrian link between Shadow Mountain and Ute Avenue), the topographic limitations which exist within Lot 3, and the absence of adjacent connecting easements, the logical alignment for the proposed trail would appear to be in the vicinity of one of the existing access roads which presently traverse the lower Aspen Mountain hillside. Savanah will agree to work with the City and the Aspen Skiing Company to accomplish the proposed relocation in exchange for the proposed vacation of the existing trail easement." No trail alignments are presently proposed across Lot 3. The Parks Department's referral memorandum included with Exhibit F explains that the Parks Department has conveyed to the applicants on several occasions that vacation of the Top of Mill Trail easement is not acceptable and that there is no logical reason for the City to accept the vacation as proposed. The Parks memo goes on to explain that it is an existing platted easement and remains valid even though the trail cannot be constructed until connecting easements are acquired. The proposal for Lot 3, Parcel 1 shows a building on top of the easement (the southernmost triplex building). Throughout the years, City Council has C-9 ,. ~~n~ °"~' EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues directed staff to maintain existing trail easements and to ensure their viability for future development needs. If Savanah agrees to relocate and re-plat the easement, then the proposed building layout for Lot 3, Parcel 1 may be acceptable. It appears as though there may be opportunity to relocate a trail between proposed Parcels 1 and 8, then cut across Open Space Parcel A and the street to, finally, connect with and cross the construction and utility easement between proposed Parcels 2 and 3. If the trail is relocated, the applicants will be required to grade an 8-10 foot platform for the trail. and no planting of vegetation would be permitted within the easement. Additionally, a rough graded trail needs to have proper drainage and any necessary retammg structures. If the applicants do not agree to relocate the trail, then the Parks Department strongly recommends the Conceptual PUD be denied based on the fact that a proposed building is shown on top of an existing trail easement. The Parks Department would like to work with Savanah to relocate the trail, but any agreed upon alignment of a relocated trail needs to be staked and approved by the Parks Department. A relocated trail must include a legal description. be shown on the final amended plat, and be dedicated/conveyed to the City The Lot 3 proposal contains two open space easements. Open Space Parcel A is located at the end of Mill Street between the triplexes and the remainder of the development parcels. Open Space Parcel B is located in the southwest corner of Lot 3. While the open space easement that was dedicated on the original plat (described in the first paragraph of this section, above) for the use and benefit of the PUD's residents would be retained, its description would be revised to more accurately reflect the boundaries of Open Space Parcel B and the ski run located thereon. Likewise, the ski easement that was previously granted to the Aspen Skiing Company would be formalized as provided for in the original easement grant. On page 57 of their submittal, the applicant states that the "Aspen Mountain Trail Easement will also be retained and improved by Savanah in connection with the development of Lot 3." The applicants have committed, on page 102 of their submittal, that "easements to accommodate utility extensions will be provided in compliance with the applicable provisions of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(b) of the Regulations as may be required by the individual utility companies." All utility easements to be conveyed by Savanah would be depicted on the project's final subdivision plat. Access and Traffic Generation Access. All of the proposed dwelling units on Lot 3 would have access to a public street. Vehicular access to the two triplexes and their parking (Parcel 1) would be provided via a private, common driveway from Summit Street, and said driveway would be owned and maintained by their condominium association. Vehicular access to the remaining parcels on Lot 3 would be gained via a private access road which would extend from the end of Mill Street and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The new road extending from the end of S. Mill Street would be semi-circular in shape to accommodate the required grade change and to increase vehicular safety. Both proposed access roads are designed to accommodate fire protection and snow removal vehicles. It is a well known fact that the grade of South Mill Street in the subject area is fairly steep. As Mill Street acts as a sort of conveyance route for the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin and there remains a substantial amount of fill material on the Top of Mill site, gravel and drainage are often washing down the north-facing street. As a result, and as explained in C-10 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues multiple testimonies and letters from neighbors that live in the area, S. Mill Street is often very icy during the winter months and cars regularly have tremendous difficulty traveling up or down the street without sliding. During the summer of 1998, while the Ski Company used the Top of Mill as a construction staging site, silt-like debris flowed in large quantities from the site all the way down the hill across Durant Street and into the pedestrian mall. Once dried, the silt-like material results in dust in the air and pm 10 generation. Although the proposed development would remove the fill material from the Top of Mill, the drainage flows would continue to run down the north-facing slope and the winter icing conditions would not be alleviated. Additionally, the construction phase of the project would require significant measures to eliminate or at least minimize the impacts on the neighborhood. Staff can find no plans, either for the construction phase or after, in the submitted application materials that would address any or all of the problems related to the grade of South Mill Street. Staff recommends that Savanah be required to provide such plans as described in the previous sentence with their Final PUD application. Potential plans/solutions might include, but are in no way limited to rebuilding South Mill Street from the bottom of the slope upward to smooth the grade and/or providing geothermal (energy efficient) heating/melting for the street. Geothermal street heating would also greatly aid in the reduction of pm 10 generation from the area. In terms of pedestrian access, it appears as though there are sidewalks proposed only along the west side of Mill Street, in front of the triplexes on Parcel 1, with no sidewalks up to or around the proposed cul-de-sac. Trails and sidewalks provide enhanced pedestrian facilities that foster and are conducive to walking. Enhanced pedestrian facilities and decreased dependency upon the automobile are both important goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, as discussed below. The proposed sidewalks appear to be of the attached variety, immediately adjacent to the curb. As mentioned above, Mill Street is exceptionally steep and fairly narrow, making it essential that pedestrians have a safe place to walk. Thus, a separated/detached sidewalk should be constructed on both sides of Mill Street, if feasible, and extend around the cul-de-sac area on the side of the street with the houses. Provision of such sidewalks should be required as part of the proposed development; however, Savanah cannot be held responsible for providing sidewalks along those portions of the Mill Street right-of--way that their property does not abut (i.e., the west side). Along with the detached walks. annronriately spaced street trees should be planted between the sidewalk and curb. Traj~c Generation. The Savanah-commissioned TDA, Inc., Transportation Report assumed no net gain in trip generation from the existing Grand Aspen Hotel to the proposed hotel. For instance, page 25 of the report shows a summer p.m. peak hour trip generation rate of 21 trips in and 27 trips out per hour for the existing hotel and the exact same projections for the replacement hotel. For further discussion of this issue, refer to the "Traffic" section of Exhibit B, but with regard to the TDA study's analysis of Lot 3, it was concluded that the "total development would generate twelve (12) new trips in and six (6) new trips out during the summer, p.m. peak hour, for a total net increase of 18 trips during the summer, p.m. peak hour. The same conclusions were reached for the winter p.m. peak hour, and all analyses were based on an assumed 90% occupancy rate. The Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit F) has determined that the proposed development on Lots 3 and 5 (combined) will generate 743 trips per day, but the Environmental Health Department has not netted out any existing/background trips or credits for demolished structures, nor applied any potentially applicable reductions. Even though there has been no netting out of existing trips or credits and City standards allow for trip reductions applicable to Lots 3 and 5 for being conveniently located to the Rubey Park transit Gll ~~ EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues stop, the commercial shopping core, and the Aspen Mountain ski lift, there is still a large discrepancy between the findings of the Savanah-commissioned Transportation Report and the preliminary expectations and data of the City's Engineering and Environmental Health Departments. In their referral memo (see Exhibit F), the Engineering Department comments that, for final submission, a revised traffic study needs to be provided and it needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards; this memo also states that the report, "as is," predicts a net increase of only 18 trips for Lots 3 and 5 combined, which seems to be underestimated. The Community Development Department agrees that a projected net increase of just 18 trips per a.m. and p.m. peak hour for Lots 3 and 5 combined seems exceedingly low. Architecture and Site Design Architecture. As presently envisioned, Savanah proposes to construct and sell the residential units proposed on Lot 3. Conceptual floor plans and elevations for the townhouse units proposed on Parcel 1 and the duplex units proposed on Parcels 2 and 3 are provided with the application (see Attachments One and Two). Conceptual floor plans and elevations have also been provided for one of the single-family residences that would be developed on Parcels 4 through 8. The purpose of the submitted architectural drawings is to illustrate the basic design concepts which Savanah proposes to utilize in the development of Lot 3. More detailed architectural drawings would be provided in connection with the Final PUD application. The intent of the architectural treatment of the proposed triplexes on Lot 3 is to provide a transition to the proposed single-family homes to the south by making the triplexes appear less-urban in character than the hotel proposed for Lot 5. That is, the proposed design of the triplex units reflects their location between the existing high-density multi-family structures to the north and west and the low-density single-family and duplex units which are proposed for the upper portion of Lot 3. The proposed triplexes would have articulated, barn-like roofs with facades that step up the slope of the site in an effort to help create the appearance of smaller scale massing in amulti-family building configuration. These articulated roof forms would be different from those of the surrounding structures, but considering the fact that the surrounding structures utilize a variety of architectural styles, the proposed townhouse styles would fit within the varied yet basic, eclectic character of the neighborhood. The proposed architecture of the duplex units on Parcels 2 and 3 is intended to maintain a single-family scale by breaking the forms into smaller masses, or "modules." Parcel 2 would contain the deed restricted units (two duplexes), and their architecture would not be a "downgrade" from that of the free market units. In fact, the proposed architecture for Parcel 2 would employ what might be best described as the "Colorado mountain vernacular," and would be highly compatible with the architecture approved for the yet to be constructed Tippler Townhomes. Parcel 3 would contain the free market duplex, and it would have steeply pitched roofs that are fairly simple in shape, but in the opinion of staff, the roofs will dominate the overall form. While the Parcel 3 duplex structure would be broken up into two smaller modules in an attempt to avoid the appearance of being one large residential mass, use of multiple exterior materials is proposea on ai breaking down the scale and mass of the structures. or completely thwart to aid in The applicant is attempting to use siting techniques and topography to generate sensitive architectural treatments for the single-family residences proposed on Parcels 4 through 8. For instance, they have attempted to locate the structures snugly into the hillside at the upper C-12 ~„ ~..., "° ~` EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues end of the lot to allow the grade of the foreground and proposed landscaping to obscure and screen the residences from town. Furthermore, the single family residences would utilize design techniques to fragment the primary masses, or break them up into "modules" by connecting them with low linkages intended to result in a site and buildings with a more visually open feeling. The proposal attempts to further minimize the scale and mass of these residences through the employment of multiple exterior materials and the inclusion of a lower level that would appear as a landscape wall or foundation base. The overall intention of the design considerations is to produce a resulting architecture, in combination with landscaping, that would minimize visual impacts on the surrounding area. No height variances are requested in connection with the Lot 3 proposal. The structures will be subiect to the provisions of the Residential Design Standards. ..When more detailed are suemtttea m will conduct the Residential Design Standards review under the provisions applicable at that time Tn ueneral terms. the nronosed architecture seems acceptable for Conceptual PUD review Site Design. a The applicant has attempted to cluster the proposed development in an effort to preserve site features and to reduce its impact on neighboring properties. The resulting site plan preserves a significant amount of open space. Once the fill material on Lot 3 is removed, the areas proposed for development would be essentially flat and able to accommodate the proposed site plan. No development is proposed on the steeply sloping hillside which occupies the southwest portion of the parcel. Staff feels that the proposed site plan does not represent an appropriate layout or development pattern for the base of Aspen Mountain. The plan proposes a cul-de-sac design typical of modern suburban developments, but contrary to typical mountain community design, in general, and to traditional Aspen development patterns, specifically. While it is true that cul-de-sacs can be found in Aspen, staff believes it would be particularly inappropriate at the given location, being close to the downtown and the base area of Aspen Mountain. Fire and emergency access can be provided and maybe even improved with alternative, more appropriate design solutions. For instance, while drainage, grading and other functionality concerns would have to be studied, staff can envision a plan concept where the driveway behind the Parcel 1 townhomes could extend to follow the perimeter of the development parcels (but fully to the east of Open Space Parcel "B") around to where it could loop back into the private road connecting with the top of South Mill Street. Such a design could; theoretically, provide aflow-break and conveyance path for drainage from Aspen Mountain while protecting the homes from property damage. To accommodate the climbing grade from the top of South Mill Street to the home sites, the access road could curve up to its connection with the suggested "alley" behind the homes. This type of design would also provide the ability to locate garages to the rear of structures, thereby improving the streetscape for pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists alike. Such a design would certainly be more in keeping with Aspen's traditional layout and development patterns. Even if not using the suggested concept, staff recommends that, prior to Final PUD review, the applicant be required to provide at least two site plan alternatives that would eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac layout. While the alternatives should be more consistent with mountain community design and that traditionally associated with the area at the base of Aspen Mountain, it is also essential that the alternatives take into account soil conditions, geotechnical findings, drainage patterns and mitigation needs, fire and emergency access, and C-13 EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues of course, neighborhood impacts. To the degree that the shape and layout of the proposed subdivision lots must change, the construction and permanent impacts on residents of the Fifth Avenue Condominiums must be considered (i.e., the greatest setback from these structures that can be reasonably accommodated). Also, given staff s position with regard to the application of dimensional requirements (as explained above), the applicant is advised to configure and dimension the proposed lots such that compliance with all requirements (including FAR) can be achieved. Consistency With The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) [On September 3, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the proposed Conceptual PUD for Lot 3 (Top of Mill), largely based on a finding of inconsistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Note that the 1996 plan was different than that currently proposed: it did not contain the four "for sale" Category units, but instead contained free market duplexes in their place, and the new plan proposes the development of six accessory dwelling units where none were proposed previously.] The 1993 AACP contains no specific recommendations with respect to Lot 3 of the PUD, but does contain statements that support the proposal as well as statements that support many of the staff recommendations. The text below contains statements from the AACP in italics, followed by staff's description of how the statement relates to the Lot 3 proposal. The stated vision which underlies the AACP is "to revitalize the permanent population, to bring back local serving businesses into the Aspen Area and to revive the vitality that previously characterized Aspen." The AACP Housing Action Plan also contains statements encouraging "infall development within the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more employees ... [to] live close to where they work, " and `promoting more on-site affordable housing." Given the location of the proposed development and its inherent ability/opportunity to ~ significantly advance this vision, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan is a review standard of paramount importance. The current Lot 3 proposal would provide thirteen (13) free market units, four (4) deed restricted single-family homes, and up to six deed restricted accessory dwelling units, for a total of ten (10) deed restricted units. As mentioned above, in the "Housing" section of this exhibit, the Housing Office and Board have found the proposal to meet with their standards, which provides a strong indication of consistency with the "Housing" element of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The "Growth Action Plan" states that its intention is to "encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and tourist base." The free market homes could serve wealthier individuals/families that would live in, relocate to, or retire to Aspen on a year-round basis. If not all, some of the free market units would certainly be used as second homes, occupied on a somewhat sporadic basis, but these same units would have accessory dwelling units that could be occupied by residents on a year-round basis. Many second homes are occasionally rented out to visiting tourists. Thus, the second homes with accessory dwelling units would serve both the local community and the tourist base. Also, with regard to the goal of managing the rate of and overall numbers associated with growth, the development allotments proposed for utilization on Lot 3 come from reconstruction credits obtained by demolition of previously existing units; therefore, at least in theory, the proposed development represents change, but not growth. The "Philosophy" of the Transportation Action Plan suggests that "reducing dependency on the automobile requires offering alternatives both for automobile use and storage and other means of transport." The staff recommendations provided above, in the "Access and Traffic Generation" and "Trails and Easements" sections of this Exhibit, are supported by this C-14 ..,~ ,. .~.'~'~ EXHIBIT C Lot 3, Main Issues section of the AACP. Sufficient parking is proposed. Trail easements and connections would have to be maintained and enhanced, and detached sidewalks would have to be provided. Trails and sidewalks provide enhanced pedestrian facilities that foster and are conducive to walking. Enhanced pedestrian facilities and decreased dependency upon the automobile are both important goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Also, by virtue of the site's proximity to the downtown shopping and dining, the gondola plaza, and the Rubey Park Transit Center, reducing dependency on the automobile is inherently facilitated. The "Philosophy" of the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan states that, "Implicit in development and growth of the other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is the continued acquisition and preservation of open space within our developed area, as well as the further development and management of parks and trails." As explained above, two significant open space parcels would be retained and the Parks Department will insist upon the preservation and improvement of trail easements and connections. The "Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan" also states that its intention is to encourage "the exploration of `combination' projects which integrate the development of affordable housing and maintenance of open space." The proposal would achieve an integration of affordable housing and maintenance of open space. The Intent of the "Design Quality and Historic Preservation" section of the AACP is "To ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features. " Also, the Philosophy of this section states that, "The importance of quality infill design within the larger historic setting is recognized as being a vital component to our economic well being. "Staff is of the opinion that the proposed cul-de-sac layout runs counter to these goals. See the "Architecture and Site Design" section of this Exhibit, above, for a complete discussion of the proposed design. Consistency with this portion of the AACP will be required prior to and in connection with Final PUD review. Finally, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 98-11 adopted the "Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan" as an update to the Housing Element of the 1993 AACP. The Citizen Housing Plan set policies with regard to the locational philosophies and criteria for affordable housing developments by way of establishing priorities. Since the proposed development is within the Metro Area; is in close proximity to multiple mass transit options; is self-contained and surrounded by existing development; can be served by existing and available utilities and public services; would fit within the existing community fabric and character; does not propose under utilization of the site; and is consistent with the housing needs identified in the APCHA Guidelines, staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the Housing Element of the AACP and the priorities of the Citizen Housing Plan. C-15 ` ,. ~, ~, MEMORANDUM TO: The Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director DATE: October 25, 1999 RE: Summary--Lot 5 -Aspen Mountain PUD, Conceptual Review In order to assist City Council in the independent review of Lot 5, staff has compiled this memo which summarizes the development proposal, the specific actions being requested, the P&Z and Housing Board recommendations, and the staff recommendation. Staff also provides other clarifying information as may have been requested by various City Council members. Most of the previous attachments have again been included. Due to the magnitude of the information being presented and discussed, staff believes that City Council is likely to only get through Lot 5 (or a portion thereof). Therefore, this memo is addressing just Lot 5. Staff encourages City Council to bring the previous staff memo dated September 27th for reference, particularly if associated Lot 3 issues are raised. Applicant: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by: Vann Associates (planner), Bill Poss and Associates (architects), Lawrence Green (attorney), Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers and Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (engineers), TDA, Inc. (transportation), Alpine Surveys, and Waste Engineering, Inc. (environmental). Location: Dean St., between S. Galena and S. Mill Sts. (See attached Vicinity Maps, Exhibit A.) Development Proposal for Lot 5, Grand Aspen site: • Lot size of 86,610 square feet, of which 13,540 square feet lie within vacated Dean Street, leaving a net lot area of 73,070 square feet; • 150 "moderately priced, upscale" hotel units (132 standard rooms, and 18 suites); • On-site housing for 12 of 40.9 total employees (four one-bedroom units and four studios); • 8,000 square feet of meeting space; • 2,750 square feet of restaurant space; • 800 square feet of bar space; • 2,400 square feet of kitchen space; • 500 square feet of accessory commercial space; • Customary lobby and support spaces; ,~ r ~..w • 106,780 square feet of external floor area (FAR); • 22,000 square feet of open space (plus an additional 25,000 square feet on Lot 6 that counts toward the Lot 5 open space total per the existing PUD Agreement); • 106 below grade parking spaces; and • Maximum height: 47' (would require a variance from the 28' allowed). Proposed Hotel Site Description: 1. Mass and scale Savanah describes the proposed facility as a 3.5-star, moderately priced, upscale hotel with a 4-star restaurant. The primary mass of the proposed hotel would be located along the vacated Dean Street. Dean Street would be converted into a limited passenger and valet parking drop-off driveway (no longer a public access or through street) and landscaped pedestrian area, which would link the St. Regis Hotel and Lot 5 with the Aspen Mountain Gondola Plaza and the Little Nell Hotel. The remainder of the "inverted `J'-shaped" hotel would be located in the central and southwestern portions of the site. The rear portions of the structure would be recessed into the climbing grade of the site, maintaining a uniform height from the Dean Street facade to the southernmost portions of the building. 2. Entrance and Landscaping The main entrance to the hotel would be located adjacent to the vacated Dean Street right-of--way, with a secondary pedestrian entrance at the corner of Dean and S. Galena Streets. The hotel's lobby and restaurant have been designed to front on former Dean Street and the ice rink. Street trees would be planted along both sides of vacated Dean Street as well as along the site's S. Galena and S. Mill Street frontages. Plantings would also be provided along the site's southern property line and within the two courtyard areas. 3. Rooms and Suites Of the 150 proposed hotel units, 132 would be "standard" rooms and the remaining 18 units would be "suites." The standard rooms would contain approximately 390 square feet of gross area each while the average suite would contain some 650 square feet. The suites would be configured as studio units with enlarged seating areas, but in no case as separated bedrooms and living areas. The application explains that an "undetermined" amount of hotel units would be configured with lock-off doors to allow for the possibility of two adjoining units to function as a single suite. 4. Affordable Housing and other uses The structure would also contain 8 affordable housing units (4 studio and 4one-bedroom units) on its main level. The studio units would each contain a minimum of 400 square feet of net livable area while the one-bedroom units would each contain at least 600 square feet of net livable area. In addition, the proposed hotel would contain roughly 8,000 square feet of meeting/conference space and approximately 500 square feet of accessory commercial space. Savanah represents that the kitchen and related support services are not intended or designed to accommodate large conferences or banquets, and 2 • ~-y.. , ,~~ that the accessory commercial area is intended to accommodate customary hotel support uses (i.e., newsstand, etc.) as opposed to larger retail operations. 5. Parking Off-street parking would be accommodated in a sub-grade garage accessed from S. Galena Street. The garage would contain a total of 106 parking spaces, or approximately 0.7 spaces per bedroom, limited storage areas, mechanical equipment, and stairways and elevators providing access to the lobby. The delivery and service area for the hotel would be located on the S. Mill Street frontage and would be covered by the building above as well as enclosed by an overhead door when not in use. On Dean Street, the nine (9) existing parking spaces would be lost with the proposed design of the vacated area. Savanah proposes to provide the replacement spaces within the sub-grade garage, or in some other yet-to-be-determined but mutually acceptable location. 6. Open Space Requirements Sufficient open space would be provided to meet the 25% requirement of the L/TR zone district. A minimum of 18,270 square feet of area (25%) meeting the City's definition of "open space" is required for Lot 5. The proposal would provide for approximately 22,010 square feet of "open space" on Lot 5 and another 25,730 square feet of open space on Lot 6 (Silver Circle Ice Rink and park), for a combined total of 47,740 square feet of open space. ~Savanah's ability to utilize Lot 6 for open space purposes is specifically provided for in the February, 1993 Section M. Amendment to the PUD Agreement.) The proposal meets the minimum requirement for open space without including Lot 6, but exceeds the requirement by more than 38% when included. ~At the request of City Council, the applicant has indicated that they will provide spray- painted markings on the site and provide story poles indicating the approximate height of the corners of the proposed hotel prior to this meeting. J Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission voted six to zero (6-0) to recommend approval of the Conceptual PUD application for Lot 5, with the conditions outlined in Resolution 99-25. Housing Board Recommendation: The Housing Board recommended approval of the proposed Lot 5 development based on the understanding that the applicant has agreed to an obligation to provide housing for the new net number of employees generated by the development (40.9 net new employees to be housed). That number is based on the total employment generated by the new hotel, minus the employment attributable to the existing hotel. Note that the Housing Board recommendation would require that 100% of the net new employees generated (40.9 employees) be housed by Savanah (not 60% as required through GMQS), and Savanah has agreed to meet this requirement. Other conditions also apply (see Use of Bavarian site for Housing Mitigation, below). 3 Existing Zoning: Lot 5 is zoned Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory Planned Unit Development Yeti overlay (L/TR-PUD). Proposed Zoning: Same as existing, no rezoning is proposed for Lot 5. Allowable Floor Area (FAR): Pursuant to Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement, the maximum allowable floor area on Lot 5 was reduced to one-hundred fifteen thousand (115,000) square feet, with the aggregate floor area of Lots 1 (St. Regis) and 5 limited to three-hundred and five thousand (305,000) square feet. *[includes Lot 6 (the Silver Circle Ice Rink) in the calculation of allowable floor area for Lot 5, the purpose of which was to compensate Savanah for the development of the public ice rink and park on Lot 6 of the PUD; and deducting the Dean St. right-of--way] Proposed Floor Area (FAR): 106,780 square feet of external floor area (FAR) is proposed, which is 8,220 square feet less than that allowed. [This additional 8, 220 square feet could be transferred to Lot 3 Top of Mill, under the Amended PUD Agreement]. GMQS Request under Current Proposal: The existing PUD Agreement (Book 574, Page 828), states that "the Lot 5 component shall be comprised of not more than SO hotel rooms (with the aggregate number of hotel rooms on Lots 1 and S not to exceed 342), and no more than 47 residential units between Lots 3 and S, the exact number of such units to be established in the amended review process for Lot S." While the number of residential units proposed falls below the maximum allowed, the proposed development of Lot 5 contemplates 150 hotel rooms, exceeding the 50-unit Lot 5 limitation, and when combined with the 279 units approved for Lot 1, also exceeds the overall limitation of 342 lodge units by 87 units. Savanah intends to earn the right to develop the extra 100 units on Lot 5 (an extra 87 in total) via the City's Tourist Accommodation GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures, unless City Council agrees to allow Savanah to convert unused residential credits to tourist accommodation allocations. If Savanah has to earn all 100 additional tourist accommodation allocations through the GMQS scoring and competition procedures, they will need to request all 55 allotments available (44 available from past years and another 11 added for this year) in this year's "bucket." The 47 credits Savanah already has a right to, combined with the 55 available allotments through this year's scoring and competition procedures (if obtained), would result in 102 tourist accommodation allocation. 150 units are proposed, leaving a shortfall of 48 allocations. Savanah can either apply for these allocations "from future years," in which case the proposal 4 • ~~,, ~~ would need to be found to qualify as an "Exceptional Project" pursuant to specified standards, or City Council can decide to grant permission to convert unused residential credits to tourist ~'' accommodation allocations. Use of the Bavarian Site as Housing Mitigation for Lot 5: The Housing Board has taken the position that "the Bavarian Inn was proposed by the applicant in the 1990 ballot language as an additional benefit unrelated to any mitigation of Phase 1 (St. Regis) or Phase 2 (Lot 3 and 5). The Bavarian Inn was an additional affordable housing inducement to the voters to pass the Amended Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. The ballot language was approved stating that a suitable affordable housing project must be built at the Bavarian Inn site regardless of whether or not anything is ever built in Phase 2. There was nothing found in the record regarding the use of the Bavarian Inn for future mitigation; therefore, the Bavarian Inn site should not be available for use of any employee mitigation. The Housing Board and Housing staff agreed that the Bavarian Inn is part of along-overdue obligation to the electorate and recommends denial of the use of the Bavarian Inn for any kind of mitigation." The recommendation summarized above provides a clear indication of the Housing Board's opinion with regard to the issue of Savanah's ability to use the Bavarian Inn site to meet mitigation requirements associated with the Lot 5 hotel proposal. Savanah disagrees with this Housing Board position (please refer to Exhibit G, attached, which more fully discusses both sides of this issue by the Housing staff and Savanah).. Neither Planning staff nor the Planning and Zoning Commision have taken a position with regard to this Bavarian Inn issue, and therefore make no specific recommendation for Council's decision on said issue. This discussion should be considered as a threshold issue. At the request of the mayor, the minutes from the Section M amendments hearing from May 11, 1998 and May 26, 1998 are attached for council's information. Lot 5 Recommendation: Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council grant Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Lot 5 with the following conditions: 1. This Conceptual PUD approval for Lot 5 shall be fully contingent upon receipt of the necessary GMQS allotments. Council (shall/shall not) allow the conversion of unused residential credits to tourist accommodation allocations using the conversion factor of 2.5 lodge units per three-bedroom free market residence. All remaining GMQS allocation needs will have to be earned through the GMQS scoring and competition procedures. 2. The Final PUD application shall provide elaboration of how Savanah will comply with the recommendations of the Housing Office and Housing Board with regard to Lot 5, as contained in the June 4, 1999, Housing Office memorandum to Mitch 5 Haas of the Community Development Department, (including/not including) the portion of the Housing Board recommendation regarding the use of the Bavarian Inn site for affordable housing mitigation purposes. 3. All affordable housing mitigation shall be provided (on-site and/or in an off-site location approved by City Council after receipt of a recommendation from the Housing Board). 4. If any off-site (metro area) housing receives approval, Savanah shall be required to purchase and make available at all times valley bus passes for all employees not housed on-site. 5. For the Final PUD and GMQS Scoring and Competition applications: a total of (number) off-street parking spaces shall be provided, including an appropriate number of parking spaces designated for dedicated use by the on-site employee dwelling units; 9 spaces in an appropriate location dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons; and, an appropriate amount of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. The remaining spaces shall be available to hotel guests. The applicant should also consider providing short-term parking (for restaurant, bar, etc.) as well as parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on asemi-regular basis. 6. Savanah shall commit to providing a shuttle to and from the airport for the hotel's customers, and shall make a good faith effort to use an alternative energy source vehicle for such shuttle purposes. 7. Savanah shall reexamine the garage entrance plan with consideration given to affects on the Tipple properties across S. Galena Street. A plan for vehicular and pedestrian circulation between and amongst the passenger drop-off area, main hotel entrance, and the parking garage shall be provided (both directions). Said plan shall, at a minimum, provide an analysis and consideration o£ potential conflicts (vehicular-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-pedestrian, etc.); impacts on neighborhood-wide and site-specific traffic circulation; visual impacts; signage required; and, enforcement mechanisms required to make the plan properly and consistently function over time. 8. If the exit from the underground garage is to remain on S. Galena Street, it shall include a means of precluding right turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan shall maintain a site distance triangle open and clear to view both to the north and to the south. A plan for minimizing impacts on neighboring properties from headlights panning across them shall also be included. 9. The service/delivery area shall be provided with a means of precluding exiting vehicles from turning left onto South Mill Street. Time limitations for deliveries shall be set, and a plan indicating how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks shall also be provided. All service/delivery functions shall comply with regulations currently in effect, as may be amended from time to time. 10. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood concerns, including timelines. Meetings with the noticed neighbors shall be held in preparation of the management plan required pursuant to this condition. 6 '~tetia" e 11. A model and/or simulated three-dimensional photograph of the proposed hotel relative to the St. Regis and other surrounding structures, with Aspen Mountain in "`~ the back-drop, shall be provided prior to presentation of the Final PUD application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 12. Any and all variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review. 13. Prior to this conceptual approval being acted on, Savanah shall provide accurate "story poles" at roof height changes to reflect the peaks of the proposed roof as well as new building corner indicators. 14. A detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. The applicant shall work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. In order to help buffer the visual impacts of the hotel structure from the adjoining property to the south, species for trees proposed along the site's southerly property line shall be selected to provide mature heights closely approximating the height of the hotel in this area. 15. Additional lighting details will be required with the Final PUD application, and if any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it shall not cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will the swimming pool area be lighted beyond the minimum required for safety reasons. The lighting details to be provided with the Final PUD application shall be consistent with the Community Development Department's currently proposed/pending outdoor lighting ordinance or such regulations in effect at the time of Final PUD submission. 16. In the Final PUD application, proposed building mass and related impermeable surface layout will closely conform with the final outcome of the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (AMDBMP) design and construction criteria. It shall be the developer's or its successor's responsibility to fully comply with the drainage criteria and perform within the parameters set forth in the report. 17. Savanah shall be responsible for implementation of such on-site drainage improvements as necessitated by their development and typically required of new developments in the City of Aspen. 18. Any and all internal driveways and access roads shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 19. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 7 ~~ EXHIBITS: %~ • Exhibit A: Vicinity Maps ., • Exhibit B: Lot 5, Main Issues • Exhibit D: Lot 5, PUD Review • Exhibit F: Referral Memos • Exhibit G: Housing Office Memos, Housing Board Recommendations • Exhibit H: Letters from Neighbors/Citizens • Exhibit I: History of Aspen Mountain PUD memo, prepared by Savanah • Exhibit J: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 99-25 • Exhibit L: Minutes from City Council meetings May 11 and 26, 1998 (Section M) ATTACHMENTS: (Previously forwarded) • One: Written Application Materials • Two: Proposed Plan Sets • Three: TDA, Inc. Transportation Report 8 2 ' ~~ A Division of East West Resorts September 6, 1999 City of Aspen - Planning and Zoning Members RE: Aspen Mountain PUD Dear Commission Members: On Tuesday, September 7, 1999 you will again be holding hearings on the Aspen Mountain PUD. Our company represents eleven (11) condominium associations in the immediate area of the PUD, all of which have concerns to one degree or another with the current conceptual plan. Lot 3 Overall density of the proposed Lot 3 development is too high and the location of the employee housing could be better. Our associations believe that it would be better to replace the two triplexes in parcel #1 with the two employee housing duplexes from parcel #2. Lot #2 should then have one triplex, thereby reducing the overall density of Lot 3 by three units. If the existing plan is to be approved, then the Fifth Avenue Association prefers the two employee housing duplexes to be placed as far south on parcel #2 as possible, with all visitor (outside) parking to be on the west side of the duplexes, "heading in" toward the south. This will reduce the amount of light pollution on the existing Fifth Avenue first floor units. The entrance to parcel #1 should be moved from Summit Street to Mill Street. Summit Street is too narrow, and automobile lights will shine into Summit Place units as they exit parcel #l. Trails and easements are of great concern on Lot 3. It was our understanding after the August 10, 1999 hearing that a meeting would occur with Savannah, the Parks Department and a Fifth Avenue Condominium Association representative to talk about the trails issue, and that this meeting would occur before the September 7, 1999 P&Z meeting. No such meeting has occurred to date and John Sarpa has stated that such a meeting will not occur in the conceptual phase of the approval process. Agreement on • 747 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970.925.2260 800.321.7025 Fax: 970.925.2264 http://www.aspenlodgingco.com E-mail: lodging@csn.net Page 2 of 2 »., September 6, 1999 the trail locations is of concern to the Fifth Avenue and the Parks Department. In fact, the Parks Department recommends that the conceptual PUD be denied if trail locations are not agreed to at the conceptual level in the approval process. Drainage and grading are of concern. It is important that the increased surface water flows that development will bring are handled correctly. We are hopeful that the City of Aspen will assure that proper storm drainage is provided on Mill Street. Lot 5 While the underground parking being provided in the conceptual plan may meet code, we are concerned that it is not enough. With 150 rooms, 8,000 square feet of meeting space, restaurant space, bar space and employee housing, the 106 parking spaces are inadequate, especially during the summer "drive market". We manage the Inn at Aspen with 122 rooms, 5,000 square feet of meeting space and a small restaurant and bar area. Our General Manager at the Inn reports that the 240 parking spaces he has available are well over %2 full many days during the summer months. We believe the number of parking spaces for Lot 5 should be increased to keep overflow parking out of the surrounding residential areas. The Tipple Inn Association wants to make sure that any parking spaces lost at the ice rink due to the new hotel development are replaced. In addition, the Tipple Inn would like to see the entrance to underground parking moved to Dean Street from Galena Street so that automobile lights do not shine into the Tipple Inn units. Heights, setbacks, and mass are of concern to neighboring properties. tback markings should he made and "story poles" should be erected so that neighbors can get a feel for the impact of the new hotel. We are concerned that this has not been done to date, despite our repeated requests for the same. We believe it is a very important step in the conceptual approval process. We believe that most neighbors are in support of the hotel concept, but they remain skeptical about the impact of such a large structure. Thank you for your consideration of the above thoughts and concerns. We will remain active in the public hearing process and appreciate your tireless efforts in making this a development we can all live with. Sincerely, ASPEN LODGING COMPANY, LLC c~ Q ~_ David H. Booth, CPM® General Manager C ~ Plan^inC; Cn_,~,~I~_.r~t~, August 6, 1999 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Julie Ann Woods Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, Floor Area Calculations Dear Julie Ann: As requested by the City planning staff, I have recalculated the allowable floor area for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. I have discussed the staff's preferred approach regarding this matter in detail with Mitch Haas, and we have agreed as to the methodology to be utilized in the revised calculations. Background The cumulative floor area of the various residential units which are proposed for Lot 3 is presently 73,100 square feet. While Lot 3's allowable floor area under existing zoning is difficult, if not impossible, to determine, I attempted to address the proposed floor area's compliance with applicable regulatory requirements in Savan- ah's March 1, 1999, conceptual PUD application (see pages 73 and 74). I concluded that sufficient floor area would be available, following the rezoning of the existing R- 15 portion of the property to LT/R, to accommodate the proposed development. The approach which I used to calculate Lot 3's allowable floor area assumed a floor area ratio of 1:1 for the portion of the property to be zoned L/TR. This approach yielded an allowable floor area of 97,630 square feet after adjustment for slopes greater than twenty percent and the presence of vacated and proposed road right-of- ways. Utilizing this methodology, the allowable floor area clearly exceeds Savanah's proposed floor area. I also noted that additional allowable floor area could theoreti- cally be derived from the portion of the property zoned C, Conservation, as this zone district does not presently contain a floor area limitation. In addition, there remains approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area on Lot 5 which could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the City's PUD regulations. In reviewing our application, staff concluded that it would be more appropriate to calculate the allowable floor area for Lot 3 based on the lot area of the individual 230 East Hopkins Ave. Asuen. Colorado 816' . 970/925-6958 Fax 970/920-9310 C Ms. Julie Ann Woods August 6, 1999 Page 2 parcels which will contain the various residential uses. Staff has also recommended that Savanah revise its rezoning request to include all portions of Lot 3 that are proposed for development. Both of these recommendations are acceptable to Savanah, and our revised floor area calculations are based on these two concepts. Floor Area Calculations Paragraph F. under the definition of "Floor Area" in Section 26.04.100 of the 1996 Aspen Land Use Regulations states as follows: "For planned unit development (PUD) applications where land is held as common open space, and more than one lot is proposed for development, the total floor area for each lot shall be determined in the following manner: The total area of each lot in the planned unit development (PUD) shall be increased by an amount equal to the total area of the land held as com- mon open space divided by the total number of lots proposed for develop- ment. Notwithstanding the above methodology for determining floor area ratio for each lot, applicants may suggest different methods for allocating the total floor area allowed for the PUD to individual lots; provided, that the total floor area allowed for the PUD does not exceed the cumulative total of the floor areas for each lot as calculated by the above reference meth- od." In discussing the above provision, Mitch and I agreed that the required calculations should be based on the definition of "Lot Area" contained in Section 26.04.100 of the Regulations. To determine lot area, each parcel's gross land area must be adjusted to reflect the presence of slopes greater than twenty percent and any vacated or proposed road right-of-ways. The gross area of each of the eight residential parcels and the two common open space parcels which are proposed for Lot 3 and their respective lot areas is summarized in Table 1, below. Table 1 Parcel Areas Gross Area Lot Area Parcel 1 51,680 35,850 Parcel 2 26,520 19,890 Parcel 3 14,260 10,700 -` Ms. Julie Ann Woods August 6, 1999 Page 3 Parcel 4 13,290 9,970 Parcel 5 10,370 7,870 Parcel 6 10,380 8,600 Parcel 7 18,920 14,190 Parcel 8 18,390 14,600 Open Space Parcel "A" 28,740 8,270 Open Space Parcel "B" 50,230 37,670 All areas rounded to the nearest ten square feet. As Table 1 indicates, Open Space Parcels "A" and "B" contain approximately 8,270 ` and 37,670 square feet of lot area, respectively. Based on the formula described above, the sum of these two areas, or 45,940 square feet, is available for distribution among the eight parcels that are proposed for development. The relevant calculation is as follows: 45,940 Sq. Ft. Lot Area _ 8 Residential Lots = 5,742.5 Sq. Ft./Lot The adjusted lot areas for the purpose of calculating allowable floor area for each of the eight development parcels on Lot 3 are summarized in Table 2, below. Table 2 Adjusted Lot Areas Lot Area Adjustment Total Area Parcel 1 38,850 5,740 44,590 Parcel 2 19,890 5,740 25,630 Parcel 3 10,700 5,740 16,440 Parcel 4 9,970 5,740 15,710 Parcel 5 7,870 5,740 13,610 Parcel 6 8,600 5,740 14,340 Parcel 7 14,190 5,740 19,930 Parcel 8 14,600 5,740 20,340 1 All areas rounded to the nearest ten square feet. Six free market multi-family residential units are proposed on Parcel 1. The applica- ble floor area ratio for this parcel, therefore, is 1:1. Four affordable housing units configured as two duplexes were originally proposed for Parcel 2. Savanah, however, has agreed to attach the two duplexes to form a single multi-family structure as Ms. Julie Ann Woods August 6, 1999 Page 4 recommended by the staff. Consequently, the applicable floor area ratio for Parcel 2 is also 1:1. A free market duplex is proposed for Parcel 3, while each of Parcels 4 through 8 is earmarked for a free market single-family residence. The staff has recommended that the allowable floor areas for these parcels be calculated based on the L/TR zone district's sliding scale formula. The proposed and allowable floor areas for the eight development parcels are summarized in Table 3, below. Table 3 Allowable Floor Areas Proposed Allowable Parcel 1 27,000 44,590 Parcel 2 7,500 25,630 Parcel 3 9,000 4,510 Parcel 4 6,200 4,060 Parcel 5 5,200 3,940 Parcel 6 5,200 3,980 Parcel 7 6,500 4,270 Parcel 8 6,500 4,290 Total 73,100 95,270 All areas rounded to the nearest ten square feet. As Table 3 indicates, the cumulative floor area which is allowed on Parcels 1 through 8 substantially exceeds the sum of each parcel's proposed floor area. Similarly, the allowable floor areas on Parcels 1 and 2 are more than adequate to accommodate the structures proposed thereon. The proposed floor areas on Parcels 3 through 8, however, exceed each parcel's allowable floor area. To resolve this issue, Savanah proposes to allocate the unused floor area on Parcels 1 and 2 to remaining Parcels 3 through 8 as necessary to accommodate each of these parcels' proposed floor area. Inasmuch as a total of 70,220 square feet of floor area is allowed on Parcels 1 and 2, and only 34,500 square feet are proposed, approximate- ly 35,720 square feet of allowable floor area remains which can be allocated to Parcels 3 through 8. This allocation approach is permitted pursuant to the definition of "Floor Area" as the total floor area proposed for Lot 3 does not exceed the cumulative total of the allowable floor area for each individual parcel. The proposed approach to the allocation of allowable floor area, however, must be approved in connection with the approval of Savanah's PUD development plan. ~~ ~,,~,~, '..r- Ms. Julie Ann Woods August 6, 1999 Page 5 Assuming that the unused floor area on Parcels 1 and 2 is allocated proportionately, the amount of additional floor area which would be available for each of Parcels 3 through 8 would be calculated as follows. 35,720 Sq. Ft. Unused Floor Area - 6 Parcels = 5,953.3 Sq. Ft./Parcel The approximately 5,950 square feet of additional floor area which would be available for each of Parcels 3 through 8 is more than adequate to accommodate the parcels' proposed floor areas. As Table 3 indicates, a total of approximately 22,170 square feet of allowable floor area would remain unused on Lot 3. In summary, the application of the staff s preferred allowable floor area calculation methodology for Lot 3 does not preclude Savanah's achievement of the previously proposed floor areas. In fact, the two different approaches (i.e., staff vs. Savanah) result in virtually the same total allowable floor area. While Savanah's original approach resulted in an allowable floor area of 97,630 square feet, the staffs ap- proach would permit a total of 95,270 square feet, a difference of only 2,630 square feet. While the methodology required to derive the various numbers contained in the above tables is not particularly complex, the calculations themselves are quite extensive. In the interest of brevity, the bulk of the calculations have been omitted from this letter. Savanah, however, will provide all of the required calculations for verification by the staff under separate cover prior to completion of the Planning and Zoning Commission's conceptual PUD review. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VdNN ASSOCIA, LLC ~ann, AICP SV c:\bus\city.ltrUtr37598.j a 1 °~~ r. EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review Staff Review of Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD Application for Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) The applicant is requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval pursuant to the regulations of Section 26.84.030(B) of the Land Use Code, with a variance from the maximum height limitation of the underlying L/TR zone district. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staff's evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. 1 a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: Please refer to pages B-11 through B-12 of Exhibit B. Staff finds that, with the recommended conditions, the proposal is consistent enough with the AACP to support Conceptual PUD approval. Prior to Final PUD review, the applicant will have to proceed through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures and consistency with the AACP will be required to receive the needed development allotments. 1 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Neighboring development includes the St. Regis and Little Nell hotels, the Mountain Chalet, numerous multi-family condominium structures, various duplexes, and a few scattered single-family residences. More specifically, the site is bound to the north by the Silver Circle Ice Rink and park, then the Rubey Park Transit Center; to the south by multi-family residential/condominium structures (Alpenblick and Fasching Haus); to the west by the St. Regis and Mountain Chalet hotels; and, to the east by the Galena Place townhomes, the Tipple Lodge, the Tipple Inn, the Tippler (approved for redevelopment as an 8-unit free market and affordable townhome structure), and the North of Nell building. Also, the Aspen Mountain gondola plaza and ski area is just one block away. The proposed 150 unit hotel would replace the 150 unit Grand Aspen Hotel slated for demolition in October of 1999. Lot 5 is located within the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district, and the adopted "Purpose" of the L/TR zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist-oriented detached, duplex and multi family residential dwellings." The proposed development of a 150 unit hotel is consistent not only with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area but also with the purpose of the zone district in which it is located as well as with the structure/use it would replace. Ic. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The surrounding area is more or less fully developed; thus, the proposed development should have little if any effect on the development potential of surrounding properties. In fact, it is expected that the proposed redevelopment would have positive D-1 EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review effects on the potential for future redevelopment of the surrounding area since utility upgrades completed by the applicant would serve to aid in and better facilitate redevelopment in/of the surrounding neighborhood. Id. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: The eight proposed employee units would be exempt from GMQS. As mentioned earlier, the proposal entails the development of 150 hotel units. Under the terms of the existing PUD Agreement, Savanah has credits for the development of 50 lodging units. Therefore, Savanah will need to apply for and earn 100 additional tourist accommodation allocations through the 1999-2000 GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. The GMQS provides for two types of allotment "buckets:" the first is the number of allotments available in a given GMQS year, and the second is the total number of allotments available for full buildout by 2015. Lodge unit allotments have a total cap set at 253 units at full buildout (2015). Eleven (11) of these were used as part of the Hines Aspen Highlands development, leaving 242 remaining. There are currently 44 available lodge unit allotments (unused from past years), and another 11 allotments will be added to the bucket for the 1999 to 2000 competition, for a total of 55 available tourist accommodation allotments in the coming GMQS year. If this one-year allotment of 55 units is granted, Savanah will have 105 tourist accommodation allotments (50 + 55) and need another 45 from future year allocations. Future year allocations are removed from the 2015 total buildout "bucket" described above. The Land Use Code has a provision for Multi-Year Allotments for "Exceptional Projects," and provides "community planning criteria" to determine whether or not a proposal is "exceptional." Savanah's proposal will need to satisfy these criteria in order to qualify for the needed multi-year allocation. Also, should the allocations be granted, the proposal would still have to obtain all necessary and outstanding land use approvals before the PUD Agreement could be amended. All said, any and all Conceptual PUD approvals granted would need to be fully contingent upon Savanah's obtaining all necessary GMQS Allotments. 2. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Density and Lodging Growth" section of Exhibit B for a complete discussion of density-related issues. As explained in the referenced section, there is no minimum lot area requirement for the development of hotel units in the L/TR zone district; therefore, the number of units that may be accommodated on a specific site is a function of the amount of available floor area and the proposed unit sizes. Pursuant to Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement, the maximum allowable floor area on Lot 5 was reduced to one-hundred fifteen thousand (115,000) square feet, with the aggregate floor area. of Lots 1 and 5 limited to three-hundred five thousand (305,000) square feet. As per the provisions of the PUD Agreement, this figure (115,000) was arrived at by D-2 EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review including Lot 6 (the Silver Circle Ice Rink) in the calculation of allowable floor area for Lot 5, the purpose of which was to compensate Savanah for the development of the public ice rink and park on Lot 6 of the PUD. The Regulations preclude the inclusion of vacated rights-of--way in the calculation of allowable density or floor area, so the Dean Street right- of-way does not increase the allowable density or floor area. There are no applicable reductions associated with slopes. The proposal calls for the development of approximately 106,780 square feet of external FAR floor area, which is 8,220 square feet less than that allowed. The L/TR zone district also requires compliance with an internal FAR requirement stating that the maximum lodge rental space is capped at 0.5:1, but may be increased to 0.75:1 provided one-third of the additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The minimum internal FAR for non-unit space is limited to 0.25:1. As summarized in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (Exhibit F), the minimum non-unit space to be provided is 28,750 square feet. The proposed non-unit space of 35,840 square feet exceeds this minimum and, therefore, complies with the requirement. As also explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (Exhibit F), the 0.5:1 maximum internal rental space limitation results in 57,500 square feet of allowable rental space (based on a permitted floor area of 115,000 square feet), which can be increased to 0.75:1 (86,250 square feet) provided that one-third of the additional floor area is restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The proposal indicates that 65,940 square feet of rental space would be developed, requiring that 2,813 square feet be restricted to affordable housing ([65,940 - 57,500] _ 3). With approximately 5,000 square feet of affordable housing proposed, the hotel meets the requirements for the increased internal FAR as it pertains to rental space. 3. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house conftguration, but multi family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: "Lodge units," "Hotel," "Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines," and "Accessory uses" are all listed as a permitted uses in the L/TR zone district. 4. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district; provided, that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); c. Minimum front yard,• d. Minimum rear yard,• e. Minimum side yard,• f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash area access; i. Internal floor area ratio; and, j. Minimum percent open space. D-3 EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review RESPONSE: As explained in the "Design and Height" section of Exhibit B, the proposal complies with all applicable dimensional requirements except maximum height (please refer to said exhibit for a complete discussion). The discussion regarding the height variance request concludes as follows: In general, staff is prepared to support a height variance at this location, but the extent of such a variance remains an outstanding issue. That is, staff is recommending that more employee housing be provided on site, which may result in the loss of some lodge rooms. Staff is also recommending that additional parking be provided in the underground garage. Given the conceptual nature of the design and the potential for it to change based on staff, Commission, Council, and neighborhood concerns, staff advises that the Commission and then Council not take formal action on the height variance request until review of a Final PUD application. However, the Commission and Council should provide the applicant with an indication (without reliance) as to what may or may not be acceptable. There will also be a Mountain View Plane review (can be varied as part of this PUD criterion) proceeding concurrently with the Final PUD application, provided all necessary prior approvals are obtained, including the need to obtain amulti-year tourist accommodations allotment as an "exceptional project" through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. "Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character" is one of the scoring categories. S. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on ... [six enumerated] considerations. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Traffic and Parking" section of Exhibit B for 'a complete discussion of parking-related issues. A total of 106 off-street parking spaces are proposed. In general, staff is recommending that the proposed 106 spaces should be augmented with the addition of 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Commission and Council) of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. It might also be worthwhile to consider providing some parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on asemi-regular basis. 6. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefrt of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. RESPONSE: Sufficient open space would be provided to meet the 25% requirement of the. L/TR zone district. A minimum of 18,270 square feet of area (25%) meeting the City's definition of "open space" is required for Lot 5. The proposal would provide for approximately 22,010 square feet of "open space" on Lot 5 and another 25,730 square feet of open space on Lot 6 (Silver Circle Ice Rink and park), for a combined total of 47,740 square feet of open space. Savanah's ability to utilize Lot 6 for open space purposes is specifically provided for in the February, 1993 Section M. Amendment to the PUD Agreement. The proposal provides both open space and a park, meets the minimum requirement for open D-4 ~;, "'~" EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review space without including Lot 6, and provides 138% of the required open space when all available lands are included. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: A conceptual landscape plan has been prepared as part of the application, and a detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. Also, please refer to the Parks Department's memorandum included with Exhibit F. Staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is shed in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well as conceptual architectural elevations. A full discussion of the proposed architecture can be found in the "Design and Height" section of Exhibit B. More detailed architectural plans and further review under this criterion will be required for the Final PUD application. Also, "Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character" is one of the scoring categories the proposal will have to satisfy to obtain the necessary GMQS allotments. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed to meet this criterion and to submit additional lighting details with the Final PUD application. If the application is approved, staff would suggest the following condition(s) of approval: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will the swimming pool area be lighted beyond the minimum required for safety reasons." 10. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. D-5 ,... ~,, EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review RESPONSE: While clustering of a single hotel structure is not feasible, the building has been sited to provide significant open areas adjacent to Dean, Galena, and Mill Streets. Given that this criterion does not mandate clustering, but instead encourages it, staff feels that the spirit of the criterion is met with the proposed development plan. 11. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: Public facilities are already in place to serve the existing structure. The costs of any necessary upgrades to existing systems and facilities will be borne by Savanah. The structure has been arranged in a manner that would permit access by emergency fire or medical vehicles, with emergency access available from Dean, Galena, and Mill Streets. 12a.Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: All of the hotel units and employee dwellings will have access to the public street system via Mill and Galena Streets as well as vacated Dean Street. 12b.Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traj~c. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. RESPONSE: There are no minor streets, per se, within the PUD, but Dean Street would be converted to a passenger and valet drop-off area. Please refer to the "Traffic and Parking" section of Exhibit B for a complete discussion of vehicular access points, turning movements, traffic flows, and related issues, but the staff recommendations from said section, as they relate to this PUD criterion, may be summarized as follows: • Savanah should purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on-site. • A revised traffic study assessing impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards should be provided with the Final PUD/GMQS application. • Commitment to provide an airport shuttle, perhaps using an alternative energy source, should be provided. • Additional off-street parking spaces should be provided, including 105 spaces dedicated to hotel guests, 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink and park patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Commission and Council) of spaces dedicated to the hotel's accessory uses. It might also be worthwhile to provide parking for contractors that would be present at the hotel on asemi-regular basis. • A plan for the enforcement of the passenger drop-off/valet parking drive as a one way, non-through street should be provided, and plans to provide neck-downs at the corners of said drive should also be provided. D-6 ®"` ~`~" EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review • The exit from the underground garage on Galena Street should include a .means of precluding right turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan should show no vegetation 30 feet to the south or 20 feet to the north of the exit. • Similarly, the service/delivery area should be provided with a means of precluding exiting vehicles from turning left onto South Mill Street. • Time limitations for deliveries should be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks should also be provided. • Finally, the Final application should include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan should consider neighborhood concerns. 12c.The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Traffic and Parking" section of Exhibit B for a complete discussion of traffic-related issues. The Savanah-commissioned TDA, Inc., Transportation Report concludes that in the summer p.m. peak hour, the northbound left-through-right shared movement at Aspen Street/Main Street remains at Level of Service (LOS) *, which means that the projected volumes for this movement exceed the calculated capacity. All other intersections operate at LOS B or better during the summer p.m. peak hour. In the winter p.m. peak hour, intersection operations remain unchanged from background conditions. With minor adjustments to signal timing at the Aspen/Main intersection, the LOS for the northbound leg of said intersection can be improved to LOS D, while maintaining overall intersection operations at LOS B. The TDA study also concludes that the proposed development of Lots 3 and 5 combined would generate a total of 18 new trips per peak hour. Having stated TDA's conclusions, it should be pointed out that the Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit F) has determined that the proposed development on Lots 3 and 5 (combined) will generate 743 trips per day, but the Environmental Health Department has not netted out any existing/background trips or credits for demolished structures, nor applied any potentially applicable reductions. Even though there has been no netting out of existing trips or credits and City standards allow for trip reductions applicable to Lots 3 and 5 for being conveniently located to the Rubey Park transit stop, the commercial shopping core, and the Aspen Mountain ski lift, there is still a large discrepancy between the findings of the Savanah-commissioned Transportation Report and the preliminary expectations and data of the City's Engineering and Environmental Health Departments. In their referral memo (see Exhibit F), the Engineering Department comments that, for final submission, a revised traffic study needs to be provided and it needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards; this memo also states that the report, "as is," predicts a net increase of only 18 trips for Lots 3 and 5 combined, which seems to be underestimated. The Community Development Department agrees that a projected net increase of just 18 trips per day for Lots 3 and 5 combined seems exceedingly low. Furthermore, staff believes the hotel should provide an airport shuttle, perhaps using an alternative energy source. D-7 ~, `'"~ EXHIBIT D Lot 5, PUD Review 12d.Every residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: Only a hotel is proposed on Lot 5, but the hotel would contain 8 employee dwelling units. These units will have access to the parking garage via an elevator, and the garage would have direct access to Galena Street. 12e.All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. RESPONSE: All portions of the Lot 5 development would have direct access to Dean Street, Galena Street, and/or Mill Street. Also see responses to criteria 12b. and 12c., above. 12f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. RESPONSE: The internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. D-8 . .~ ` ~'"~ EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review Staff Review of Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD Application for Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) The applicant is requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval pursuant to the regulations of Section 26.84.030(B) of the Land Use Code. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staffs evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. 1 a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: Please refer to pages C-14 through C-15 of Exhibit C. Staff finds that, with the recommended conditions, the proposal is consistent enough with the AACP to support Conceptual PUD approval. 1 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: See "Site Design" on pages C-13 through C-14 of Exhibit C. With the exception of the proposed cul-de-sac and resulting site layout, staff finds the proposed development to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Neighboring development includes numerous multi-family condominium structures (Alpenblick, Fasching Haus, Fifth Avenue Condominiums, Mountain Queen Condos, Summit Place, 700 S. Monarch Condos, and more), various duplexes, and a few scattered single-family residences. Lot 3 is located within the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district, and the adopted "Purpose" of the L/TR zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist-oriented detached, duplex and multi family residential dwellings." The proposed development is consistent not only with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area but also with the purpose of the zone district in which it would be located should the staff-suggested rezoning be accomplished (see page C-2, Exhibit C). 1 c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The surrounding area is more or less fully developed; thus, the proposed development should have little if any effect on the development potential of surrounding properties. In fact, it is expected that the proposed re/development would have positive effects on the potential for future redevelopment of the surrounding area since utility upgrades completed by the applicant would serve to aid in and better facilitate redevelopment in/of the surrounding neighborhood. Also, the S. Mill Street grade and drainage would have to be improved, natural hazards would need to be mitigated, easements would be maintained, sidewalks would be extended, and trails would be improved. Also see the "Drainage and Natural Hazards" section of Exhibit C on pages C-5 through C-9. E-1 EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review 1 d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: The proposed employee units would be exempt from GMQS. The thirteen (13) free market residential units proposed for Lot 3 would be developed utilizing reconstruction credits previously approved by the City and confirmed in both the Amended PUD Agreement and the most recent Section M. Amendment. 2. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Zoning" section of Exhibit C (pages C-1 through C-4) for a complete discussion of compliance issues related to the underlying zone district. The proposed density exceeds that allowed in the currently existing underlying zone district. Thus, if approval of the proposed Conceptual PUD for Lot 3 is granted, it should only be done conditioned upon the outcome of the ensuing rezoning hearings. To clarify, should the rezoning request be denied, the applicant would have to come back through the Conceptual PUD process with a proposal that meets the requirements of the existing zone districts. 3. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: Again, please refer to the "Zoning" section of Exhibit C (pages C-1 through C- 4) for a complete discussion of compliance issues related to the underlying zone district. Multi-family residential, such as that proposed on Parcel 1 of Lot 3, is not permitted in the R-15 zone district. Savanah and staff respectively propose and suggest a rezoning to L/TR, albeit in different formats. Should the staff-suggested rezoning to L/TR be accomplished, the L/TR zone district's list of permitted uses would still include "detached residential or duplex dwellings, only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less." While this sets a de facto maximum lot area of 6,000 square feet for single-family residential uses (including duplexes), it is not a dimensional requirement, but a use. Parcels 2-8 would include detached residential or duplex dwellings and be greater than 6,000 square feet. As this would entail a variance from the list of permitted uses, and not from a dimensional requirement, this requirement cannot be varied through the PUD process. Rather, a code amendment would be required to eliminate the "only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less" language. 4. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district; provided, that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); c. Minimum front yard,• d. Minimum rear yard,• e. Minimum side yard; f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash area access; i. Internal floor area ratio; and, E-2 ~,, `~"""~ EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review j. Minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Dimensional Requirements" sub-section of Exhibit C (pages C-3 to C-4). S. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on ... [six enumerated] considerations. RESPONSE: As proposed, forty-six (46) parking spaces would be provided on Lot 3. One space per bedroom would be provided for the six multi-family units proposed on Parcel 1, while two garage spaces per dwelling unit would be provided for the three duplexes and five single-family units on Parcels 2-8. Parcels 2 through 8 would also contain off-street driveways capable of accommodating vehicle parking. Any accessory dwelling units (ADUs) proposed in the future for Parcels 3-8 would require conditional use approval which, in turn, generally requires one off-street space per ADU. 6. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. RESPONSE: Similar to the other dimensional requirements discussed above, the L/TR zone district requires that at least 25% of each building site remain as "open space" meeting the City's definition. The proposal contemplates a 25% open space requirement for Lot 3 rather than for each subdivided parcel (and assumes approval of the requested rezoning and code amendment). Thus, further information will be required from the applicant before staff can accurately assess each of the proposed subdivision parcels' compliance with the dimensional requirements, especially those associated with floor area, density, and open space. The required open space can be varied through the PUD process, and given the size and configuration of the proposed open space parcels, staff would likely (but cannot guarantee) support such a request if found to be necessary. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: A conceptual landscape plan has been prepared as part of the application, and a detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. Also, please refer to the Parks Department's memorandum included with Exhibit F. Staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. Also, the Parks Department suggests that the applicant address impacts to the existing grove of Aspen trees on Lot 3. Many of those trees were under code during an initial inspection of the trees in 1997, but may be close to requiring mitigation now and/or when final development would occur. E-3 ~. °"'~` EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is shed in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well as conceptual architectural elevations. A full discussion of the proposed architecture and site plan can be found in the "Architecture and Site Design" section of Exhibit C. More detailed architectural plans and further review under this criterion will be required for the Final PUD application. The structures will be subject to the provisions of the Residential Design Standards. When more detailed architectural renderings are submitted in conjunction with the Final PUD application, staff will conduct the Residential Design Standards review under the provisions applicable at that time. In general terms, the proposed architecture seems acceptable for Conceptual PUD review purposes, but staff would suggest a different roof form for the Parcel 3 duplex. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed to meet this criterion and to submit additional lighting details with the Final PUD application. If the application is approved, staff would suggest the following condition(s) of approval: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will any light be directed up the mountain." 10. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. RESPONSE: This criterion does not mandate clustering, but instead encourages it. Nonetheless, staff feels that the spirit of the criterion is met with the proposed development plan. I1. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: There are existing public facilities already in place. The costs of any necessary upgrades to existing systems and facilities will be borne by Savanah. The structures have been arranged in a manner that would permit access by emergency ,fire or medical vehicles, with emergency access available from Mill Street. E-4 .;,..~ ~~"'~ EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review 12a.Every dwelling. unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: All of the proposed residential units would have access to the public street system via South Mill Street. Also; see the "Access and Traffic Generation" section of Exhibit C. 12b.Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. RESPONSE: There are no minor streets, per se, within the PUD, but a private access road easement would extend from the top of Mill Street to provide access to Parcels 2-8. Please refer to the "Access and Traffic Generation" section of Exhibit C for a complete discussion of vehicular access points, traffic flows, and related issues. In general, the submitted Transportation Report is inadequate to conduct a full review, and a revised report will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. 12c.The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Access and Traffic Generation" section of Exhibit C for a complete discussion of traffic flows and related issues. In general, the submitted Transportation Report is inadequate to conduct a full review, and a revised report will be required in connection with a Final PUD application. Pages B-6 and B-7 of Exhibit B, as well as page D-7 of Exhibit D provide a detailed discussion of issues related to the submitted Transportation Report. For final submission, a revised traffic study needs to be provided, and it needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards. 12d.Every residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: Development of the proposed site plan would provide compliance with this standard. 12e.All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. RESPONSE: No nonresidential uses are proposed for Lot 3. E-5 an` `~~" EXHIBIT E Lot 3, PUD Review 12f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to the two triplexes and their parking (Parcel 1) would be provided via a private, common driveway from Summit Street, and said driveway would be owned and maintained by their condominium association. Vehicular access to the remaining parcels on Lot 3 would be gained via a private access road which would extend from the end of Mill Street and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. E-6 ------ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~a~ ~r- ~ 13 ~~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRL~: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director , Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner DATE: June 15, 1999 -a ~~"'-p "Co x(29 -'~ ~~~3-~ 8(~~ --~ 9/~ RE: Lots 3 and 5 -Aspen Mountain PUD, Conceptual Review -Public Hearing. SUMMARY: Savanah Limited Partnership ("the applicant," or "Savanah") is coming before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to present their Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for development of Lots 3 ("Top of Mill") and 5 ('`Grand Aspen Site") of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD. While the application will require approval of requests for Conceptual and Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS Scoring and Allocations, GMQS Exemptions, Rezoning, Special Review, Text Amendments, 8040 Greenline Review, and Mountain View Plane Review, only the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application is being considered at this time. Thus, Savanah is before the Commission for the first time with a new application seeking Conceptual PUD approval for both Lots 3 and 5. The Lot 3 and 5 proposals can be summarized as follows, with greater detail provided in the main body of and exhibits to this memorandum: Proposal for Lot 5, Grand Aspen site: • Lot size of 86,610 square feet, of which 13,540 square feet lie within vacated Dean Street lmeavm~ a~ne~lo~ ar~ea~ f 73,070 square feet; • 150Ahotel units (132 standard rooms, and 18 suites); • On-site housing for 12 employees (four one-bedroom units and four studios); • 8,000 square feet of meeting space; • 2,750 square feet of restaurant space; • 800 square feet of bar space; • 2,400 square feet of kitchen space; • 500 square feet of accessory commercial space; • Customary lobby and support spaces; • 106,780 square feet of external FAR floor area; • 22,000 square feet of open space (plus an additional 25,000 square feet on Lot 6 that counts toward the Lot 5 open space total per the existing PUD Agreement); and, • 106 below grade parking spaces. )- A Proposal for Lot 3, Top of Mill: • Lot size of 242,810 square feet, of which 2,680 square feet lie within vacated Mill Street, 3,810 square feet lie within a Summit Street access easement, and 106,150 square feet lie within the portion of Lot 3 zoned Conservation (C), leaving a net lot area of 130,170 square feet; • Creation of 8 development parcels and 2 open space parcels, as follows: - PARCEL 1: 51,680 square feet of land containing 2 triplexes (6 free market dwelling units) with a total of 27,000 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 2: 26,520 square feet of land containing 2 duplexes (4 deed restricted dwelfing uttils) with a total oi; 7,500 square'feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 3: 14,260 square feet of land containing 1 duplex (2 free market dwelling units) with a total of 9,000 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 4: 13,290 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,200 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 5: 10,370 -square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 5,200 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 6: 10,380 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 5,200 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 7: 18,920 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,500 square feet of FAR floor area; - PARCEL 8: 18,390 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,500 square feet of FAR floor area; - OPEN SPACE PARCEL A: 28,740 square feet of land (of which 18,710 square feet lie within an access road easement; and, - OPEN SPACE PARCEL B: 50,230 square feet of land. • Total of 17 residential units; • Total of 73,100 square feet of FAR floor area; • Total of 60,260 square feet of land meeting the City's definition of "open space" The staff recommendations may be summarized as follows, with greater elaboration provided in the "Recommendation" section at the end. of this memorandum: with regard to Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site), staff recommends approval with conditions; and, with regard to Lot 3 (Top of Mill), staff recommends tabling of the application until further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept are completed by Savanah and reviewed by staff. APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by: Vann Associates (planner), Bill Poss and Associates (architects), Lawrence Green (attorney), Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers and Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (engineers), TDA, Inc. (transportation), Alpine Surveys, and Waste Engineering, Inc. (environmental). LOCATION: (See attached Vicinity Maps, Exhibit A.) EXISTING ZONING, LOT 5: Lot 5 is zoned Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory Planned Unit Development overlay (L/TR-PUD). 2 _ ~t, . ~:.. ~„< PROPOSED ZONING, LOT 5: Same as existing, no rezoning is proposed for Lot 5. EXISTING ZONING, LOT 3: Lot 3 is zoned L/TR-PUD, Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay; R-15 (PUD)(L), Moderate-Density Residential with PUD and Lodge overlays; and, C, Conservation. Consequently, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 26.40.070 of the Municipal Code, which governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. See "Zoning" sub-section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues.'' PROPOSED ZONING, LOT 3: Savanah proposes to rezone the 87,120 square feet of R- 15 zoned lands to L/TR-PUD, and leave the lands zoned Conservation as currently designated. The result would be 136,660 gross... square feet of L/TR-PUD zoning and 106,150 square feet of Conservation zoning. LOT SIZE: See "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit F, referral comments from the City Zoning Officer. The figures contained in the cited locations will be subject to further review and verification by the City Zoning Officer during review of building permit applications. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: In addition to the following, see "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit F, referral comments from the City Zoning Officer. Additional discussion involving floor area can be found in the "Zoning" sub-section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." Lot S, Grand Aspen Site: Pursuant to Section E. of the Amended PUD Agreement, the maximum allowable floor area on Lot S was reduced to one-hundred fifteen thousand (115,000) square feet, with the aggregate floor area of Lots 1 and 5 limited to three-hundred five thousand (305,000) square feet. This figure (115,000) was arrived at by including Lot 6 (the Silver Circle Ice Rink) in the calculation of allowable floor area for Lot 5, the purpose of which was to compensate Savanah for the development of the public ice rink and park on Lot 6 of the PUD. The Regulations preclude the inclusion of vacated rights-of--way in the calculation of allowable density or floor area, so the Dean Street right-of--way does not increase the allowable density or floor area. Lot 3, Top of Mill: Savanah is basing their calculation of allowable floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 that would be zoned L/TR at a 1:1 (floor area :lot area) ratio to arrive at an allowable aggregate external floor area of 97,630 square feet. This figure does not assume any floor area .credit for the 106,150 square foot portion of the lot zoned C, Conservation. Further, approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area would remain on Lot 5 under the current proposal, and said floor area could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the PUD regulations. If included, this would provide for 105,850 square feet of allowable floor area, exclusive of the unlimited floor area potential of the lands zoned Conservation (see pages 73-74 of application packet, Attachment 1). Although it probably will not be applicable, please note that on July 6, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a text amendment to the Conservation zone district that would place a "cap" on allowable floor area. 3 ,~ Staff takes a different approach to the calculation of allowable floor areas for the proposed subdivision parcels of Lot 3. Staff believes the allowable floor areas discussed in the PUD Agreement contemplate a potential maximum that could be attained, provided the proposed subdivision lots could be successfully sized and configured (and no lot area reductions were required) so that all of the floor area could be constructed while meeting all other applicable and unvaried dimensional requirements. As explained in the referral memo from the City Zoning Officer (see Exhibit F), staff feels it would be more appropriate to base its calculations of not only permitted floor area but also allowed density and required open space on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Consequently, further information. including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. Additional discussion involving floor area can be found in the "Zoning" sub-section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." BACKGROUND: The background and history of this case is far too extensive and complex to adequately summarize in the body of this memorandum. While the "Background" section of the written application booklet (Attachment 1) provides a fairly detailed summary of the case history, staff finds it to be somewhat biased in Savanah's favor. Exhibit I, History of Aspen Mountain PUD, is a memo prepared by Savanah outlining the highlights of the case history. Staff believes this summary (Exhibit I) to be fair, but suggests also reviewing the PUD Agreement and its Section M. Amendments (included in the written application booklet, Attachment 1). PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW': The proposal is being processed as follows: Step One: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Review (Lots 3 and 5) a. Housing Board review for recommendations regarding (1) the adequacy of the proposed housing mitigation, (2) the merits of the proposed employee generation factors, (3) the merits of the proposed unit sizes and category mixes, and (4) the appropriateness of the proposed locations for housing mitigation. b. Review for recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing; and, c. Review for decision by the Aspen City Council (two readings with a public hearing at second reading). Step Two: GMQS Scoring and Competition for Tourist Accommodations Allocations a. Growth Management Commission Scoring Recommendation at a public hearing, and recommendation regarding requested GMQS Exemptions; b. Acceptance of recommended scoring by the Board of County Commissioners; and, c. Acceptance of recommended scoring and granting of tourist accommodation allotments by City Council. Step Three: Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Text Amendments, GMQS Exemption, Special Review, 8040 Greenline, and Mountain View Plane reviews, as follows: a. Housing Board for final recommendations to City Council; b. Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendations regarding the Final PUD, Subdivision, Text Amendments, and Rezoning requests (public hearings), and decisions regarding the Special Review, 8040 Greenline, and Mountain View Plane requests (public meetings); and, 4 ~. ,~ F c. City Council for decisions regarding the GMQS Exemptions and the method by which mitigation will be provided, Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Text Amendments (two readings with a public hearing at second reading). Note that the above-provided outline provides an estimate of a likely sequence of the necessary reviews, but the exact order may be altered provided all due process requirements are met. Also, this sequence does not take into account the potential for denials and appeals. CURRENT PROPOSAL, LOT ~: See "Summary," above, as well as Exhibit B, "Lot ~, Nlain Issues." The PUD Agreement states that (Book 574, Page 828) ``the Lot 5 component shall be comprised of not more than 50 hotel rooms (with the aggregate number of hotel rooms on Lots 1 and 5 not to exceed 342), and no more than 47 residential units between Lots 3 and 5, the exact number of such units to be established in the amended review process for Lot 5." As indicated above, while the number of residential units proposed falls below the maximum allowed, the proposed development of Lot 5 contemplates 150 hotel rooms, exceeding the 50-unit Lot 5 limitation, and when combined with the 279 units approved for Lot 1, also exceeding the overall limitation of 342 lodge units (by 87 units). Savanah intends to earn the right to develop the extra 100 units on Lot 5 (and extra 87 in total) via the City's Tourist Accommodation GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. Regardless of how many hotel rooms receive final approval (if any at all), the PUD Agreement would need to be amended to reflect whatever final approvals are granted. Savanah describes the proposed facility as a 3.5-star, moderately priced, upscale hotel with a 4-star restaurant. As indicated in the Site Plans of the application, the primary mass of the proposed hotel would be located along the vacated Dean Street. Dean Street would be converted into a limited passenger and valet parking drop-off driveway (no longer a public access or through street) and landscaped pedestrian area, which would link the St. Regis Hotel and Lot 5 with the Aspen Mountain Gondola Plaza and the Little Nell Hotel. The remainder of the "inverted `J'-shaped" hotel would be located in the central and southwestern portions of the site. The rear portions of the structure would be recessed into the climbing grade of the site, maintaining a uniform height from the Dean Street facade to the southernmost portions of the building. The main entrance to the hotel would be located adjacent to the vacated Dean Street right-of- way, with a secondary pedestrian entrance at the corner of Dean and Galena Streets. The hotel's lobby and restaurant have been designed to front on former Dean Street and the ice rink. Street trees would be planted along both sides of vacated Dean Street as well as along the site's Galena and Mill Street frontages. Plantings would also be provided along the site's southern property line and within the two courtyard areas. Of the 150 proposed hotel units, 132 would be "standard" rooms and the remaining 18 units would be "suites." The standard rooms would contain approximately 390 square feet of gross area each while the average suite would contain some 650 square feet. The suites would be configured as studio units with enlarged seating areas, but in no case as separated bedrooms and living areas. The application explains that an "undetermined" amount of hotel units would be configured with lock-off doors to allow for the possibility. of two adjoining units to function as a single suite. 5 ,+ ~"'~~, The structure would also contain 8 affordable housing units (4 studio and 4one-bedroom units) on its main level. The studio units would each contain a minimum of 400 square feet of net livable area while the one-bedroom units would each contain at least 600 square feet of net livable area. In addition, the proposed hotel would contain roughly 8,000 square feet of meeting/conference space and approximately 500 square feet of accessory commercial space. Savanah represents that the kitchen and related support services are not intended or designed to accommodate large conferences or banquets, and that the accessory commercial area is intended to accommodate customary hotel support uses (i.e., newsstand, etc.) as opposed to larger retail operations. Off-street parking would be accommodated in a sub-grade garage accessed from Galena Street. The garage would contain a total of 106 parking spaces, or approximately 0.7 spaces per bedroom, limited storage areas, mechanical equipment, and stairways and elevators providing access to the lobby. The delivery and service area for the hotel would be located on the Mill Street frontage and would be covered by the building above as well as enclosed by an overhead door when not in use. On Dean Street, the 9 existing parking spaces would be lost with the proposed design of the vacated area. Savanah proposes to provide the replacement spaces within the sub-grade garage, or in some other yet-to-be-determined but mutually acceptable location. CURRENT PROPOSAL, LOT 3: Lot 3, the Top of Mill site, is proposed to be subdivided into eight (8) development parcels and two (2) open space parcels, and would contain a total of seventeen (17) dwelling units (See "Summary," above for break-down). Parcel 1 's six free market, three-story townhouse units would front on Mill Street but with vehicular access from Summit Street, and would each contain four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcel 2's four duplex units would be deed restricted with three of the four units each containing three bedrooms and approximately 1,500 square feet of net livable area, and the fourth unit containing four bedrooms and approximately 1,700 square feet of net livable area. Parcel 3 would have a single free market duplex structure with each unit containing four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcels 4, S, 6, 7, and 8 would each have a free market, detached single-family dwelling unit with five bedrooms, and the units' sizes would range from approximately 5,200 square feet to .6,500 square feet of floor area (see "Summary," above). Savanah represents that the duplex to be constructed on Parcel 3 and the five single-family residences to be developed on Parcels 4 through 8 would each contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) unless, alternatively, the owners of these lots choose to pay the applicable cash-in-lieu fees at the time of their development (see "Housing" sub-section of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues"). Vehicular access to the triplex units on Parcel I would be provided along the rear of the lot via a common driveway from Summit Street. Vehicular access to all units on Parcels 2-8 would come from a private access road extended from the end of Mill Street. The proposed private access road would be semi-circular in shape and terminate in a roundabout variety cul-de-sac; this access road is part of the "Access and Design" discussion included within Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." 6 Open Space Parcel A would be located at the end of Mill Street, between Parcel 1 and the other development parcels, and includes the Mill Street extension cul-de-sac (access easement) described in the previous paragraph. The proposal indicates a fairly extensive landscaping treatment of Open Space Parcel A, most likely to help screen the residential development from downtown. Open Space Parcel B would reside to the west of Parcels 1, 7, and 8, and be buffered from the Parcels 7 and 8 residences by substantial amounts of coniferdus and deciduous tree plantings. Open Space Parcel B contains the ski easement providing access from Aspen Mountain to Summit Street. The ski easement would be maintained and formalized. Also on Open Space Parcel B, Savanah proposes to vacate the other trail easement, known as the "Top of Mill Trail" (as indicated on the "Seventh Amended Plat, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development"), across the southern side of Parcel I and the northern side of Parcel 2. The Parks Department is adamantly opposed to the vacation of the Top of Mill Trail, and this issue is discussed at length in the "Trails and Easements" portion of Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues." MAIN ISSUES: Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and/or deserve special attention. White other issues exist, these core issues are outlined in Exhibits B (Lot 5) and C (Lot 3), and referred to elsewhere throughout this memorandum and associated exhibits. The issues discussed in Exhibits B and C are referred to, and other issues are explained in the PUD reviews (Exhibits D and E as related to Lots 5 and 3, respectively). The summaries contained in Exhibits B and C have been organized by categories of issues rather than by the review processes which deal with the issues, and are intended to provide further detail and elaboration of certain topics, as well as information related to issues not raised through review of the PUD standards. Exhibit B, "Lot 5, Main Issues, " includes discussion of the following issue areas: density and lodging growth; housing; traffic and parking; design and height; and, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Exhibit C, "Lot 3, Main Issues, "includes discussion of the following issue areas: zoning (including rezoning, code amendments, and dimensional requirements); housing; drainage and natural hazards; trails and easements; access and traffic generation; architecture and site design; and, consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: Conceptual Planned Unit Developments are reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 26.84.030(B), Review Standards. The PUD review standards and staff's analyses of the proposals relative thereto are contained in Exhibits D and E, with the Lot 5 review in Exhibit D and the Lot 3 review in Exhibit E. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning o~iissio o cil a recommendation to grant Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Lot 5 with the following conditions: 1. Any and all Conceptual PUD approvals for Lot 5 shall be fully contingent upon receipt of the necessary GMQS allotments. 2. The recommendations of the Housing Office and Housing Board with regard to Lot 5, as contained in the June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum to Mitch Haas of the ,; 7 ~;~; ~yjrNUS ~~a~ ~~, ,~ Community Development Department, shall be considered part of the Planning and ~~~ .Zoning Commission's Conceptual PUD recommendation to City Council. 3. All housing mitigation shall be provided on-site and/or in an off-site location approved by City Council after receipt of a recommendation from the Housing Board. 4. If any off-site housing receives approval, Savanah shall be required to purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on-site. --~5. For Final PUD submission, a revised traffic study shall be provided, and it shall assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards and directly respond to each applicable PUD review criteria. 6. For the Final PUD and GMQS Scoring and Competition applications, the proposed 106 spaces should be augmented by the addition of 8 spaces dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council) of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. It might also be worthwhile to consider providing some parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on asemi-regular basis. 7. Savanah shall commit to providing a shuttle to and from the airport for the hotel's customers, and shall make a good faith effort to do so through the use of an alternative energy source vehicle. 8. A plan for the enforcement of the passenger drop-off/valet parking drive as a one way, non-through street shall be provided, and plans to provide neck-downs at the corners of said drive shall also be provided. 9. The exit from the underground garage on Galena Street shall include a means of precluding right turns out of the garage, and the landscape plan shall show no vegetation 30 feet to the south or 20 feet to the north of the exit. 10. The service/delivery area shall be provided with a means of precluding exiting vehicles from turning left onto South Mill Street. Time limitations for deliveries shall be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks shall also be provided. 11. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood concerns. 12. Any and all variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review, but prior to GMQS Scoring and Final PUD Review, Savanah shall provide accurate "story poles" at the new building corners and at roof height changes to reflect the peaks of the proposed roof. 13. A detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application, and staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. It is suggested that, in order to help buffer the visual impacts of the hotel structure from the adjoining property to the south, species for tress proposed along the site's southerly property line should be selected to provide mature heights closely approximating the height of the hotel in this area. 14. Additional lighting details will be provided with the Final PUD application, and if any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will the swimming pool area be lighted beyond the minimum required for safety reasons. 15. Any and all internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 16. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be Apo ~ ~~~cam ~~~ GAS ~~a~ P(,Ft~1 ~~ Cmt~5r~io-J ~~ J~ -iro s' considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. LOT 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission table the Lot 3, Conceptual Planned Unit Development application until further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept are completed by Savanah and reviewed by staff. In the alternative, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation to grant Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Lot 3 with the following conditions: 1. Any and all Conceptual PUD approvals for Lot 3 shall be fully contingent upon subsequent rezoning hearings. That is, should the necessary rezoning request(s) be denied, the applicant would have to come back through the Conceptual PUD process with a proposal that meets the requirements of the existing zone districts. 2. For the Final PUD application, the applicant will, in good faith, explore and potentially pursue a rezoning request different from that currently proposed. Instead, the applicant will consider applying to rezone all portions of Lot 3 for which development is proposed to L/TR(PUD); if this is done, the request to amend Section 26.40.070 will be withdrawn. 3. If, pursuant to condition 2 (above), the applicant revises the parameters of the rezoning request and withdraws the request to amend Section 26.40.070 of the code, a new request to amend the list of permitted uses in the L/TR zone district to eliminate the "only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less" language will be included with the Final PUD application. For the Final PUD application, the proposed Parcel 1 development envelope will be adjusted to eliminate the need for a front setback variance, or such a variance will be requested. 5. The Final PUD application will contain further information, including a slope analysis ~~ for each subdivided parcel, to determine compliance with all applicable zone district and dimensional requirements. 6. The recommendations of the Housing Office and Housing Board with regard to Lot 3, as contained in the June 4, 1999 Housing Office memorandum to Mitch Haas of the Community Development Department, shall be considered part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Conceptual PUD recommendation to City Council. 7. In the Final PUD application, propose building mass and related impermeable surface layout will closely conform with the final outcome of the AMDBMP design and construction criteria. It shall be the developer's or its successor's responsibility to fully comply with the drainage criteria and perform within the parameters set forth in the report. 8. Savanah Limited Partnership's (owner/developer) representative agreed to provide necessary drainage easements and shall continue to provide these easements for safe conveyance of surface runoff and debris through the site. 9. In the Final PUD application, the developer's representative will make necessary adjustments to building footprints to ensure that the requirements of the AMDBMP and the above mentioned conditions are met. 10. The City will use the funds put in escrow to study and develop a master plan with design and construction criteria and utilize the balance of these funds to implement an interim drainage mitigation project to control runoff only to the extent the remaining escrow funds will support. 11. In the Final PUD application, the site layout must be such that it will in no way pose a significant blockage in the natural stream bed or drainage path. 12. The development must comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The existing site must be carefully studied and evaluated to ensure a proper design and correct selection of BMP(s). 13. The Final PUD application shall include, further grading and excavation plans as well as .geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the current design concept with suggested conditions for development. 14. For the Final PUD application, Savanah shall work cooperatively with the Parks Department to relocate and replat the Top of Mill Trail, where Savanah further agrees to have any agreed upon alignment of the relocated trail staked and approved by the Parks Department. The relocated trail must have a legal description, be shown on the Final Amended Plat, and be dedicated/conveyed to the City of Aspen Parks Department. 15. With the Final PUD application, plans must be provided for the construction phase and after to address any and all problems associated with the grade of South Mill Street. 16. Savanah shall commit, in the Final PUD application, to construct adetached/separated sidewalk along the South Mill Street frontage of Lot 3, and to plant appropriately spaced street trees in the area between the sidewalk and the curb. ~' 17. For Final PUD submission, a revised traffic study shall be provided, and it shall assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards and directly respond to each applicable PUD review criteria. 18. All residential structures will be subject to the provisions of the Residential Design Standards. When more detailed architectural renderings are submitted in conjunction with the Final PUD application, staff will conduct the Residential Design Standards review under the provisions applicable at that time. Staff suggests a different roof form for the Parcel 3 duplex. 19. Prior to Final PUD review, the applicant will provide staff with at least two site plan alternatives that would eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac layout. While the alternatives should be more consistent with mountain community design and .that traditionally associated with the area at the base of Aspen Mountain, it is also essential that the alternatives take into account soil conditions, geotechnical findings, drainage patterns. and mitigation needs, fire and emergency access, and neighborhood impacts. 20. The Final application shall include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan shall consider neighborhood concerns. 21. Any and all variance requests shall remain outstanding until Final PUD review. 22. A detailed landscape plan will be required in connection with a Final PUD application, and staff suggests that the applicant work cooperatively with the Parks Department to ,arrive at an acceptable Final landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 23. Additional lighting details will be provided with the Final PUD application, and if any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not .cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp .cut-off fixtures. There will be no lighting of landscape materials or building facades, nor will any light be directed up the mountain. 24. Any and all internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 25. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. 10 ,~„ EXHIBITS: • Exhibit A: Vicinity Maps • Exhibit B: Lot 5, Main Issues • Exhibit C: Lot 3, Main Issues • Exhibit D: Lot 5, PUD Review • Exhibit E: Lot 3, PUD Review • Exhibit F: Referral Memos • Exhibit G: Housing Office Memos, Housing Board Recommendations • Exhibit H: Letters from Neighbors/Citizens • Exhibit I: History of Aspen Mountain PUD memo, prepared by Savanah ATTACHMENTS: • One: Written Application Materials • Two: Proposed Plan Sets • Three: TDA, Inc. Transportation Report 11 ~' ~ ~` ~T' ~ Tck/ -wu iv vf~ INTRODUCTION: Savanah Limited Partnership is here before~tl to present their Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for development of Lots 3 ("Top of Mill") and 5 ("Grand Aspen Site") of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD. While the application will require approval of requests for Conceptual and Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS Scoring and Allocations, GMQS Exemptions, Rezoning, Special Review, Text Amendments, 8040 Greenline Review, and Mountain View Plane Review, only the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application is being considered at this time. LOCATIONAL OVERVIEW: Neighboring development includes the St. Regis and Little Nell hotels, the Mountain Chalet, numerous multi=family condominium structures, various duplexes, and a few scattered single-family residences. More specifically, the site is bound to the north by the Silver Circle Ice Rink and park, then the Rubey Park Transit Center; to the south by multi-family residential/condominium structures (Alpenblick and Fasching Haus); to the west by the St. Regis and Mountain Chalet hotels; and, to the east by the Galena Place townhomes, the Tipple Lodge, the Tipple Inn, the Tippler (approved for redevelopment as an 8-unit free market and affordable townhome structure), and the North of Nell building. Also, the Aspen Mountain gondola plaza and ski area is just one block away. The proposed 150 unit hotel would replace the 150 unit Grand Aspen Hotel slated for demolition in October of 1999. SUMMARY OF THE LOT 5 PROPOSAL: • Lot size of 86,610 square feet, of which 13,540 square feet lie within vacated Dean Street, leaving a net lot area of 73,070 square feet; • 150 hotel units (132 standard rooms, and 18 suites); • On-site housing for 12 employees (four one-bedroom units and four studios); • 8,000 square feet of meeting space; • 2,750 square feet of restaurant space; • 800 square feet of bar space; • 2,400 square feet of kitchen space; • 500 square feet of accessory commercial space; • Customary lobby and support spaces; • 106,780 square feet of external FAR floor area; • 22,000 square feet of open space (plus an additiona125,000 square feet on Lot 6 that counts toward the Lot 5 open space total per the existing PUD Agreement); and, .~.,, • 106 below grade parking spaces. Savanah describes the proposed facility as a 3.5-star, moderately priced, upscale hotel with a 4-star restaurant. The primary mass of the proposed hotel would be located along the. vacated Dean Street. Dean Street would be converted into a limited passenger and valet parking drop-off driveway (no longer a public access or through street) and landscaped pedestrian area, which would link the St. Regis Hotel and Lot 5 with the Aspen Mountain Gondola Plaza and the Little Nell Hotel. The remainder of the hotel would be located in the central and southwestern portions of the site. The rear portions of the structure would be recessed into the climbing grade of the site, maintaining a uniform height from the Dean Street facade to the southernmost portions of the building. The main entrance to the hotel would be located adjacent to the vacated Dean Street right-of--way, with a secondary pedestrian entrance at the corner of Dean and Galena Streets. The hotel's lobby and restaurant have been designed to front on former Dean Street and the ice rink. Street trees would be planted along both sides of vacated Dean Street as well as along the site's Galena and Mill Street frontages. Plantings would also be provided along the site's southern property line and within the two courtyard areas. Of the 150 proposed hotel units, 132 would be "standard" rooms and the remaining 18 units would be "suites." The standard rooms would contain approximately 390 square feet of gross area each while the average suite would contain some 650 square feet. The suites would be configured as studio units with enlarged seating areas, but in no case as separated bedrooms and living areas. The application explains that an "undetermined" amount of hotel units would be configured with lock-off doors to allow for the possibility of two adjoining units to function as a single suite. The structure would also contain 8 affordable housing units (4 studio and 4one-bedroom units) on its main level. The studio units would each contain a minimum of 400 square feet of net livable area while the one-bedroom units would each contain at least 600 square feet of net livable area. In addition, the proposed hotel would contain roughly 8,000 square feet of meeting/conference space and approximately 500 square feet of accessory commercial space. Savanah represents that the kitchen and related support services are not intended or designed to accommodate large conferences or banquets, and that the accessory commercial area is intended to accommodate customary hotel support uses (i.e., newsstand, etc.) as opposed to larger retail operations. Off-street parking would be accommodated in a sub-grade garage accessed from Galena Street. The garage would contain a total of 106 parking spaces, or approximately 0.7 ~.,~.9 n "9 "dam"" 'WF~i" spaces per bedroom, limited storage areas, mechanical equipment, and stairways and elevators providing access to the lobby. The delivery and, service area for the hotel would be located on the Mill Street frontage and would be covered by the building above as well as enclosed by an overhead door when not in use. On Dean Street, the 9 existing parking spaces would be lost with the proposed design of the vacated area. Savanah proposes to provide the replacement spaces within the sub-grade garage, or in some other yet-to-be- determined but mutually acceptable location. A. DENSITY AND LODGING GROWTH There are a few growth-related perspectives from which to view the proposed 150 unit hotel development. From the standpoint of anticipated growth and density, the community had valid reason to believe the Ritz/St. Regis was the end of significant lodge growth, and the Grand Aspen would be eliminated and replaced with no more than 50 hotel units. From this perspective, all impacts and increased densities beyond the 50 units contemplated in the PUD Agreement would be considered new growth (no netting out of existing conditions) irrespective of both the Grand Aspen's continued existence and subsequent, incremental changes in the community's small lodge bed base. From the perspective of actual growth, on the other hand, the community has more or less absorbed the impacts of the Ritz/St. Regis development with the Grand Aspen continuing to operate. Prior to the winter of 1995-`96, the Grand Aspen Hotel provided 150 unrestricted lodge rooms while the Ritz-Carlton began operation in December of 1992. The Grand Aspen also included 1,510 square feet of restaurant space, 860 square feet of bar space, and 3,060 square feet of kitchen space, for a total of 5,430 square feet of food and beverage space --- 520 square feet less than that proposed. Since the winter of 1995-'96 and through present day, the Grand Aspen Hotel's 150 units have been restricted such that in the winter, 50 rooms can be rented without restriction, 38 are reserved for Savanah employees, and 62 can be rented only to groups needing a minimum of 20 rooms; and, in the summer, 50 can be rented without restriction, and 100 are reserved for music students or Savanah employees (minimum of 75 for music students). Therefore, the Grand Aspen operated at its full, unrestricted capacity for almost three years (December of '92 through Fall of '95) while the Ritz-Carlton was open for business, and in its restricted capacity for another three years since then. Given these facts, the proposed density on Lot 5 could be looked at in terms of the new proposal versus the facility it would replace. Under such an approach, the density of hotel units would be a wash, and there would be an increase of 8 employee dwelling units, 520 square feet of food and beverage space, and 8,000 square feet of meeting space. While not specific to the subject site but still important from acommunity-wide perspective, it should be noted that while the St. Regis and the Grand Aspen continued to operate at the same time, there has been a considerable reduction in small lodge rooms. For instance, since 1990 a total of 2641odge rooms have been added (7 at L'Auberge and 257 at the Ritz) to Aspen's lodging bed base while at least 317 units have been lost, resulting in a net loss of at least 53 lodging rooms. This still does not account for the October, 1999, scheduled demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel's 150 units, which will bring the net loss for the 1990s up to at least 203 lodging units. All of the hotel units lost (including those to be demolished at the Grand Aspen) were in the economy-to-moderate categories while all of the Ritz/St. Regis rooms are in the deluxe/luxury category. In summary, the adopted "Purpose" of the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist-oriented detached, duplex and multi family residential dwellings." Considering the changes to Aspen's economy lodging bed base in the `90s and the stated purpose of the L/TR zone district, it is staff's opinion that the proposed density does not represent an unacceptable level of growth. Of course, density- related impacts include traffic and design concerns as well, and these topics will be discussed in just a few minutes. In total, though, staff supports the proposed density on Lot 5, provided all housing mitigation requirements are met. B. HOUSING: Housing Office staff and the Housing Board have recommended approval of the proposed Lot 5 development based on the understanding that the applicant has agreed to an obligation to provide housing for the new net number of employees generated by the development --- 40.9 net new employees to be housed, which is based on the total employment generated by the new hotel, minus the employment attributable to the existing hotel. The Housing staff and Board recommendation of approval comes with conditions including the establishment of a periodic employment audit system. The Housing Office and Board recommendation also stated that, and I quote: "The Bavarian Inn was proposed by the applicant in the 1990 ballot language as an additional benefit unrelated to any mitigation of Phase 1 or Phase 2. The Bavarian Inn was an additional affordable housing inducement to the voters to pass the Amended Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. The ballot language was approved stating that a suitable affordable housing project must be built at the Bavarian Inn site regardless of whether or ~. ~,< not anything is ever built in Phase 2. There was nothing found in the record regarding the use of the Bavarian Inn for future mitigation; therefore, the Bavarian Inn site should not be available for use of any employee mitigation. The Housing Board and staff agreed that the Bavarian Inn is part of along-overdue obligation to the electorate and recommends denial of the use of the Bavarian Inn for any kind of mitigation." Savanah, of course, disagrees with the Housing Board's position regarding the ability to use the Bavarian Inn site to help meet its housing mitigation requirements. Savanah's position on the Bavarian Inn issue is outlined in detail in a memorandum from Savanah to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board, which is included with Exhibit G --- and, I will leave it Savanah to better explain their position in this regard during their presentation. In summary, should City Council accept the Housing Board recommendations, Savanah would be required to provide housing for 40.9 employees. If it is decided that none of these employees could be housed at the Bavarian Inn site, Savanah would need to house them on-site and/or in .another off-site location approved by City Council upon recommendation of the Housing Board. The current proposal would provide housing for 12 employees in the hotel, leaving a shortfall of housing for an additional 28.9 employees. Housing some or all of these employees on-site would likely require a reduction in the proposed number of hotel units. Should the proposed number of hotel units be reduced, one effect would be a proportional reduction in the number of employees generated (at a rate of .31 employees per bedroom). site hous' is clearly a g of he AACP, aff is fa' conf that th ti sin itigat n requi ent ca be on-sit by imi at' g 20 hote units as vertin~ the sn a mix of studio and one-bedr units. C. TRAFFIC AND PARKING: 1. TRAFFIC: The Roaring Fork Transit Agency (BETA) provides both city and down valley transit service. The Rubey Park transit station is located across Durant Avenue from and within one block of the proposed Lot 5 development. The transit station is served by all summer and winter routes run by RFTA, and service is available from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. RFTA recommends (see Exhibit F) that Savanah be required to purchase valley bus passes for all employees not housed on site. Employees housed on site will not have to commute, but the purchase of bus passes for those housed elsewhere will encourage the use of transit. The Savanah-commissioned TDA, Inc., Transportation Report assumed no net gain in trip generation from the existing Grand Aspen Hotel to the proposed hotel. For instance, .:.,, .,s ~:.~ . , page 25 of the report. shows a summer p.m. peak hour trip generation rate of 21 trips in and 27 trips out per hour for the existing hotel and the exact same projections for the replacement hotel. g ration rates for the various uses. Under ITE rates, the classification of " tel" include uch accessory uses as restaurants, bars, meeting rooms, and access shops. However, th does not appear to be any accounting for the amount of s ce dedicated to these accessory s, or net increases in such spaces as may be ap icable under the current proposal, which 'dudes 3,550 square feet of 4-star r aurant/bar space, 8 employee units, 500 square fee f accessory commercial spac and 8,000 square feet of meeting space. Even though they have not netted out existing i r credits and City standards allow for trip reductions applicable to Lots 3 and 5 b ' conveniently located near Rubey Park, the commercial core, and the As Mountain 'lift, there is still a substantial discrepancy between the findings the Savanah-commis ' ned Transportation Report and the preliminary expectatio and data of the City's Engine 'ng and Environmental Health Departments. In t 'referral memo, the Engineering Depart nt comments that, for final submission, revised traffic study needs to be provided and it eeds to assess impacts per Pit ' County trip generation standards; this memo also sta that the report, "as i predicts a net increase of only 18 trips per peak hour for Lots nd 5 combine ,which seems to be underestimated. While on the surface, an increase of st 18 pe hour trips seems low, it is not expected by staff that the net increase in trips, afte a icable reductions are accounted for, will be MUCH more than 18, especially if the 2. PARKING: While the subject site is conveniently located to transit and the downtown, and City standards allow for reductions in projected trip generation rates for automobile disincentives such as a limited amount of on-site parking, staff of the Community Development Department is concerned that the proposed 106 underground parking spaces may be insufficient to meet demand and offset the loss of spaces on Dean Street. There are nine (9) .existing spaces on Dean Street dedicated for use by Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons. The Land Use Code requires at least 0.7 off-street parking spaces per bedroom for lodge uses in the L/TR zone district. With the 150 hotel units proposed, 105 parking spaces are the minimum required, not including spaces for the Ice Rink or the employee units. The nine (9) Dean Street parking spaces must be replaced, and approximately 8 parking/car storage spaces should be provided on site for the 12 employees to be housed. Thus, the proposed 106 spaces should be augmented by the addition of 8 spaces ~~~.. "~~°" ,. dedicated to the employee units, 9 spaces dedicated to Silver Circle Ice Rink patrons, and an appropriate amount (as determined by +'-~ ^-------=-~~~~ ~~a Council) of spaces dedicated to the meeting space, restaurant, bar, and accessory commercial uses. It might also be worthwhile to consider providing some parking for contractors such as window washers, electricians, etc., that would be present at the hotel on asemi-regular basis. 3. ACCESS: The final topic related to traffic circulation and parking involves access, including to/from the hotel, the garage, and the service and delivery areas. As proposed, vehicular access in front of the hotel would be limited to passenger drop-off and valet parking. No through traffic would be permitted. The underground parking garage would be accessed from South Galena Street via a ramp located wholly within the property, and the service/delivery area would be accessed from South Mill Street (approximately half way between vacated Dean Street and the St. Regis garage access). The service area would be covered by the building above and enclosed by an overhead door when not in use. Freight elevators would be provided to accommodate deliveries and oversized luggage. While the use of Dean Street for a passenger drop-off and valet area seems reasonable, there remain concerns. First, enforcement of maintaining limited use and preventing through traffic will require preventative measures and planning. Second, the proposed layout could be problematic if stacking distances for valet services prove too short, or if service is not fast enough to prevent the drop-off area from becoming a virtual parking lot. This area should be signed for one-way traffic only (from west, to east --- from Mill Street to Galena Street) and neck-downs should be provided at the corners to discourage improper vehicular turning movements while shortening pedestrian crossing distances. Staff believes the proposed locations for the garage access and service/delivery areas to be appropriate, but feels that a few minor adjustments should be made. For instance, exiting movements from the garage on South Galena Street should be limited to left turns only.. This would funnel all traffic directly toward Durant Avenue, which provides access to the downtown and all other destinations. If right turns from the garage exit onto Galena Street are allowed, unnecessary traffic would flow through the steeper and more narrow streets and intersections of a predominantly residential neighborhood just to wind back around to Durant Avenue. To maintain adequate sight distances for these left turning movements out of the garage, no trees or other vegetation should be planted within thirty (30) feet to the south or twenty (20) feet to the north of the exit. Similarly, but with regard to the service/delivery area, exiting vehicles should be restricted to right turns only back onto South Mill Street. Time limitations for deliveries should be set, and a plan for how trucks will maneuver to enter the loading docks should also be provided. `. ~ + Both access points would be located toward the foot of the hill, before the grades of Galena and Mill Streets begin to substantially climb. In addition, the final application should include a management plan for demolition and construction parking, traffic, and noise, and said plan should consider neighborhood concerns. D. ARCHITECTURE AND HEIGHT: The architectural style of the proposed hotel has been selected to reflect the Victorian character of Aspen's older structures, albeit at a. somewhat larger scale. Fronting on Dean Street and framing the ice rink from Durant Avenue, the hotel design has been given a symmetrical form with central massing to provide an interesting and pleasing visual backdrop for the area. The roof contains multiple and symmetrically balanced dormers and is steeply pitched throughout, with the bulk of the upper floor units integrated into the roof form. With the central massing and symmetrical design, the hotel steps down along the Dean Street frontage as it approaches Galena and Mill Streets. The central Dean Street mass is framed by matching turrets, and the entire Dean Street facade is similarly framed with set back turrets that front on Galena and Mill Streets. Arcades provide for covered pedestrian areas while also varying the wall planes to help further break up the mass of the structure. Relatively small portions of the structure front on Mill and Galena Streets due to the placement of large courtyards. For instance, climbing Galena Street from north to south, the street frontage would be developed as follows: a ninety (90) or so foot segment of the building would front on the street, followed by almost 130 feet of courtyard (including the garage ramp), and finally, a 70 foot portion of the building. The South Mill Street frontage would be developed in a very similar manner. Sufficient open space would be provided to meet the 25% requirement of the L/TR zone district. A minimum of 18,270 square feet of area meeting the City's definition of "open space" is required for Lot 5. The proposal would provide for approximately 22,010 square feet of "open space" on Lot 5 and another 25,730 square feet of open space on Lot 6 (Silver Circle Ice Rink and park), for a combined total of 47,740 square feet of open space. Savanah's ability to utilize Lot 6 for open space purposes is specifically provided for in the February, 1993 Section M. Amendment to the PUD Agreement. The proposal .meets the minimum requirement for open space without including Lot 6, but exceeds the requirement by more than 38% when included. With the exception of maximum building height, the proposal complies with all applicable dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district. The L/TR zone district has a maximum height limit of twenty-eight (28) feet, and the proposed structure would have a peak height of forty-seven (47) feet --- nineteen (19) feet above the limit. As ,~ Via" 4 ~= already mentioned, the proposed structure would be cut into the rising grade of Mill and Galena Streets to maintain a uniform height from front to back while the measurable height would decrease along this path; nonetheless, the height of the hotel at the rear (south side) of the site would range from approximately twenty-one (21) to thirty-four (34) feet above existing grade, with the tallest portion in the center. The extent of the additional height is minimized to the degree that fourth floor hotel units would be built into the roof form. Permission to vary the L/TR zone district's height limitation is, therefore, requested by Savanah as part of the PUD review. The surrounding structures include, from east to west, the Little Nell, the North of Nell, and the St. Regis Hotel. All of these structures are more than 28 feet in height and combine to form a sort of visual break between the downtown commercial area and the residential and ski areas behind. The proposed hotel would make this "visual break" continuous while providing an attractive urban form and transitioning into the residential uses to the south. The proposal includes a fourteen (14) foot tall first floor, which is consistent with the way older "Victorian" commercial spaces were designed. Staff believes this helps to maintain a high degree of architectural integrity while aiding in the creation of a strong street presence; staff feels that this portion of the proposed design should not be compromised for the sake of maintaining a height limitation. In general, staff is prepared to support a height variance at this location, but the extent of such a variance remains an outstanding issue. That is, staff is recommending that more employee housing be provided on site, which may result in the loss of some lodge rooms. Staff is also recommending that additional parking be provided in the underground garage. Given the conceptual nature of the design and the potential for it to change based on staff, Commission, Council, and neighborhood concerns, staff advises that the Commission and then Council not take formal action on the height variance request until review of a Final PUD application. In the interim and to help make an educated decision on the height issue, staff suggests that Savanah be required to provide "story poles" at the new building corners and at roof height changes to reflect the peaks of the proposed roof. Note that there will also be a Mountain View Plane review proceeding concurrently with the Final PUD application, provided all necessary prior approvals are obtained, including the need to obtain amulti-year tourist accommodations allotment as an "exceptional project" through the GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. "Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character" is one of the scoring categories. ~, E. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AACP: Extensive discussion of the proposal's consistency with the AACP is provided in the last y ~ 3 pages of Exhibit B. Staff found the proposal to be highly consistent with the goals of the AACP and would be glad to elaborate on this finding to the extent that the Commission wishes. ... --_ With regard to the actual PUD Review criteria, I have addressed all of them in the course of this presentation, with the exception of Standard l .d., which states that: ld. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: The eight proposed employee units would be exempt from GMQS. As mentioned earlier, the proposal entails the development of 150 hotel units. Under the terms of the existing PUD Agreement, Savanah has credits for the development of 50 lodging units. Therefore, Savanah will need to apply for and earn 100 additional. tourist accommodation allocations through the 1999-2000 GMQS Scoring and Competition procedures. The GMQS provides for two types of allotment "buckets:" the first is the number of allotments available in a given GMQS year, and the second is the total number of allotments available for full buildout by 2015. Lodge unit allotments have a total cap set at 253 units at full buildout (2015). Eleven (11) of these were used as part of the Hines Aspen Highlands development, leaving 242 remaining. There are currently 44 available lodge unit allotments (unused from past years), and another 11 allotments will be added to the bucket for the 1999 to 2000 competition, for a total of 55 available tourist accommodation allotments in the coming GMQS year. If this one-year allotment of 55 units is granted, Savanah will have 105 tourist accommodation allotments (50 + 55) and need another 45 from future year allocations. Future year allocations are removed from the 2015 total buildout "bucket" described above. The Land Use Code has a provision for Multi-Year Allotments for "Exceptional Projects," and provides "community planning criteria" to determine whether or not a proposal is "exceptional." Savanah's proposal will need to satisfy these criteria in order to qualify for the needed multi-year allocation. Also, should the allocations be granted, the proposal would still have to obtain all necessary and outstanding land use approvals before the PUD Agreement could be amended. All said, any and all Conceptual PUD approvals granted would need to be fully contingent upon Savanah's obtaining all necessary GMQS Allotments. ,~~,- In closing, I'd like just to mention that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conceptual PUD for Lot 5 with the conditions outlined in the main body of the staff memorandum. s INTRODUCTION: At the June 29~' hearing, it was agreed that tonight's meeting would begin by reviewing the recommended conditions of approval for Lot 5, and then move on to the Lot 3 hearing. Just to reiterate, we will be considering only the Conceptual PUD portion of the applications. ~V11~ l,CST - ,.~ CD~/D~ ~o,c1 ~ LOCATIONAL OVERVIEW: ------ Refer to Master Site Plan -------- SUMMARY OF THE LOT 3 PROPOSAL: --- Refer to Site Development Plan -- • Lot size of 242,810 square feet, of which 2,680 square feet lie within vacated Mill Street, 3,810 square feet lie within a Summit Street access easement, and 106,150 square feet lie within the portion of Lot 3 zoned Conservation (C), leaving a net lot area of 130,170 square feet; • Creation of 8 development parcels and 2 open space parcels, as follows: - PARCEL l: 51,6$0 square feet of land containing 2 triplexes (6 free market dwelling units) with a total of 27,000 square feet of FAR proposed; - PARCEL 2: 26,520 square feet of land containing 2 duplexes (4 deed restricted dwelling units) with a total of 7,500 square feet of FAR proposed; - PARCEL 3: 14,260 square feet of land containing 1 duplex (2 free market dwelling units) with a total of 9,000 square feet of FAR proposed; - PARCEL 4: 13,290 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,200 square feet of FAR proposed; - PARCEL 5: 10,370 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 5,200 square feet of FAR proposed; - PARCEL 6: 10,380 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 5,200 square feet of FAR proposed; - PARCEL 7: 18,920 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,500 square feet of FAR proposed; - PARCEL 8: 18,390 square feet of land containing 1 free market single-family dwelling unit with a total of 6,500 square feet of FAR proposed; - OPEN SPACE PARCEL A: 28,740 square feet of land (of which 18,710 square feet lie within an access road easement); and, - OPEN SPACE PARCEL B: 50,230 square feet of land. • Total of 17 residential units; • Total of 73,100 square feet of FAR; • Total of 60,260 square feet of land meeting the City's definition of "open space" .. A. ZONING (INCLUDING REZONING, CODE AMENDMENTS, AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS): Refer to Master Site Plan ------------ R~;~ To w~~s-rte ~ ~-CC , ~~~~ -ro L~cPt.~tlnl ----This stuff gets confusing quickly, so please pay attention carefull~~srbier~~ _4},p _ rAaaanfn}ioa. and I will try to go slowly---- Lot 3 is zoned L/TR(PUD), Lodge/Tourist Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay; R-15 (PUD)(L), Moderate-Density Residential with PUD and Lodge overlays; and, C, Conservation. Consequently, the parcel is subject to the Section of the Land Use Code that governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. That Section requires that the dimensional requirements of each underlying zone district be compared and that the most restrictive be utilized in the development of the parcel. In addition, the Section requires that the allowable density and floor area of the proposed development be based solely on the land area of the zone district in which the use is a permitted or conditional use. When a proposed development is not allowed in all of the underlying zone districts, the location of the use is limited to those portions of the parcel in which the proposed development is either a permitted or conditional use. Since a portion of proposed Parcel 1 (the area containing the two sets of triplexes) lies within the area presently zoned R-15(PUD~L) and multi-family residential is not a permitted or conditional use in the R-15 zone, a rezoning is required. For his reason, -c Savanah proposes to rezone all R-15 portions of Lot 3 to L/TR(PUD). ~ ith~`tThat rezoning, even if approved, subdivided Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 would continue to have portions in the Conservation zone and other portions in the L/TR zone while Parcels 6 and 7 would be wholly within the Conservation zone. Nonetheless, for purposes of the proposed Conceptual PUD application, Savanah has assumed that the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district will govern the development of Lot 3. The minimum lot area per single-family dwelling unit is 6,000 square feet in the L/'I'R zone district, and ten (10} acres (435,600 square feet) in the Conservation district. Since the Land Use Code requires that the most restrictive dimensional requirements of the various applicable zone districts shall apply, the minimum lot area requirement per dwelling unit in the Conservation zone (10 acres) would arguably govern the development of single-family dwelling units on Lot 3. Since more than 75% of Lot 3 is and would continue to be (after approval of the requested rezoning) zoned Conservation and Lot 3 contains less than ten acres, this provision would limit the total development of Lot 3 to one (1) single-family residence. This limitation would effectively preclude Savanah from achieving both the proposed development mix and the forty-seven dwelling units previously agreed to in the Amended PUD Agreement. Thus, a code amendment is proposed by Savanah as a means of addressing this issue. The proposed code amendment would provide City Council with discretion in determining which dimensional requirements shall apply when a parcel is encumbered by multiple zone districts, and the application of the most restrictive requirements would be unreasonable given the circumstances, or would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. To provide some measure of control, the applicant proposes to make this flexibility available to Council only if the project in question is being processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In total thus far, Savanah believes the portion of Lot 3 that is presently zoned R-15 would have to be rezoned to L/TR(PUD) in order to accommodate the proposed development. That is, the proposed density exceeds that allowed in the existing underlying zone district. Thus if approval of the Qronosed Conceptual PUD for Lot 3 is granted, it should only be done conditioned upon the outcome of the ensuing rezoning hearings. To clarify, should the rezoning request be denied the applicant would have to come back through the Conceptual PUD process with a~roposal that meets the requirements of the existing zone districts. Rezoning and Code Amendment. Staff believes the only reason Savanah needs to request a code amendment is the fact that the parameters of the rezoning request are not adequate. That is, Savanah is requesting to rezone all portions of Lot 3 currently zoned R-15(PUD}(L) to L/TR(PUD). The rezoning of the R-15(PUD) lands to L/TR(PUD) is probably appropriate, but would still leave portions of subdivided Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 in the Conservation zone with other portions of these parcels in the L/TR(PUD) zone ---thereby continuing to be parcels with more than one underlying zone district. Also, Parcels 6 and 7 would remain wholly within the Conservation zone. Thus, even if the proposed rezoning is approved, the proposed development plan still would not comply with the provisions of the Land Use Code unless the requested code amendment is approved and Council subsequently allows for the use of the L/'TR dimensional requirements based on a finding that application of the most restrictive requirements (those of the Conservation zone) would be unreasonable given the circumstances, would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. This would leave the Lot 3 proposal riddled with contingencies. ~, a N Instead, staff is of the opinion that all portions of Lot 3 for which development is proposed should be rezoned to L/TR(PUD), thereby eliminating the potential for a development parcel to have more than one underlying zone district. This would require that some of the lands currently zoned Conservation, along with all the lands currently zoned R-15{PUDxL), be rezoned to L/TR{PUD). I know the word "Conservation" carves all sorts of connotations leading one to believe these lands should never be "up- zoned;" however, staff points out that there is really nothing sacred about these lands other than their name --- if there was, it would be zoned "Open Space," or "Wildlife Preservation." In fact, the Conservation zone allows for the development of single- family residences with no limit on their FAR, and a 33-unit multi-family structure was once granted Conceptual PUD approval on this site. Given staff's position with regard to the application of dimensional requirements, as I will explain in a moment, it would be advisable to place all development lands within the same zoning and thereby eliminate not only the applicability of the "Lands With More Than One Underlying Zone District" section of the code but also the need for the proposed code amendments. Furthermore, the staff recommended rezoning would effectively eliminate two sets of contingencies: first, review of the proposed code amendment, and second, the need for Council to allow use of the LITR dimensional requirements based on a finding that application of the most restrictive requirements --- those of the Conservation zone --- would be unreasonable given the circumstances, would result in a less desirable development program, or would otherwise be inappropriate. Note that if Conceptual PUD approval is granted, the rezoning request would be reviewed concurrently with the Final PUD application. In summary, staff recommends that the parameters of the rezoning request be changed and the code amendment request be withdrawn since, if the staff recommended rezoning is pursued and approved, the code amendment becomes unnecessary. Dimensional Requirements. A site specific building envelope has been proposed for each of the development parcels on Lot 3. These envelopes would provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate future architectural refinement. The proposed building envelopes for Parcels 2-S meet or exceed all applicable setback requirements of the L/'TR zone district, but not necessarily those of the current/existing zone districts. Although it was explained in the original memo that the proposed building envelope for Parcel 1 would provide a seven (7) foot front setback where a minimum of ten (10) feet is required, this observation was in error, and indeed the proposed building envelope would conform with the applicable setback requirements for a corner lot --- the applicable condition of approval recommended by . ~,. staff should be stricken. The lot area of all eight proposed parcels also substantially exceeds the L/T'R district's minimum lot size requirement. All structures proposed on Lot 3 would comply with the L/TR zone district's maximum height limitation. It should be pointed out that, in planning for compliance with the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district, the applicant is relying heavily on approval of a rezoning request. It is explained in the Exhibit C that the L/TR zone district's list of permitted uses includes "detached residential or duplex dwellings, only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less." While this sets a de facto maximum lot area of 6,000 square feet for single-family residential uses (including duplexes), it has not been considered by the Community Development Department to be a dimensional requirement, but instead a use. Parcels 2-8 would include detached residential or duplex dwellings and be greater than 6,000 square feet. As this would entail a variance from the list of permitted uses, and not from a dimensional requirement, this requirement cannot be varied through the PUD process. Savanah will be submitting a Request for Code Interpretation to the Community Development Director in attempt to address this issue. In terms of Floor Area, Savanah has based their calculation of allowable floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 that would be zoned L/TR at a 1:1 floor area-to-lot area ratio to arrive at an allowable aggregate floor area limit of 97,630 square feet. This figure does not assume any floor area credit for the 106,150 square foot portion of the lot zoned C, Conservation --- note that there is no floor area limitation in the Conservation zone district. Further, approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area would remain on Lot 5 under the current proposal, and said floor area could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the PUD regulations. If included, this would provide for 105,850 square feet of allowable floor area, exclusive of the unlimited floor area potential of the lands zoned. As explained in the Addendum, since that memorandum was distributed, the rationale for Savanah's approach to calculating allowable FAR has become more clear. First, in terms of density, the PUD regulations require that slope analyses of the entire property be accounted for prior to the creation of new lots in order to determine the allowable density; therefore, the PUD regulations preclude basing the allowable densities on the subdivided parcels. Perhaps more pertinent, is the "Definitions" section of the Land Use Code, which under "Floor Area, F. Planned Unit Development," explains that; For planned unit development (PUD) applications where land is held as common open space and more than one lot is proposed for development, the total area of each lot in the planned unit development (PAD) shall be increased by an amount equal to the total area of the land held as common open space divided by the total number of lots proposed for development. Therefore, pursuant to this regulation, the total area of each lot shall be increased by 9,871 square feet ([50,230 + 28,740] _ 8). Further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will still need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. Nonetheless, given a preliminary analysis, the proposed floor areas on Parcels 3-8 are well in excess of that which would be permitted. The previously provided conditions recommended by staff would still be sufficient to address the findings of this section. B. HOUSING: Although Savanah's position has held that no further mitigation is required for the PUD's residential reconstruction credits, they have nonetheless proposed to mitigate the Lot 3 development in a manner that complies with the City's current regulatory requirements with respect to the demolition and reconstruction of existing single-family, duplex, and multi-family residential units. Thus, four (4) deed restricted duplex units have been proposed to mitigate the prior demolition of various multi-family dwelling units located throughout the PUD, and six (6) accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are proposed to mitigate the seven reconstruction credits that would be utilized to develop the five detached single-family residences and one duplex proposed on Lot 3. The proposed housing replacement units would, in total, consist of 13 bedrooms and approximately 6,200 square feet in four (4) duplex units. The four units would be divided as follows: three 3-bedroom units and one 4-bedroom unit, where one 3- bedroom unit would be deed restricted to Category 2, the other two 3-bedroom units would be deed restricted to Category 3, and the 4-bedroom unit would be deed restricted to Category 4. As proposed, all four units would be sold pursuant to applicable APCHA Guidelines in effect at the time of Final PUD approval. The six (6) ADUs would be deed restricted pursuant to applicable regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance for their associated free market residence. The Housing Office and Housing Board discussed the proposal on May 5, 1999, and recommended approval with conditions. ~, .. C. DRAINAGE AND NATURAL HAZARDS: In 1989, Savanah contributed $250,000 to the City toward the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive drainage plan for Aspen Mountain. This contribution was required pursuant to the Amended PUD Agreement, and was provided in lieu of providing storm water detention facilities on Lot 3. The money, which until recently had been held in escrow by the City, is presently being used to prepare the "Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan." While this new plan has yet to be completed, a substantial amount of work has been performed to date. Drainage and natural hazard concerns are not specifically identified in the criteria for Planned Unit Development review, but are more closely related to Subdivision review. Nevertheless, drainage and natural hazard concerns remain important issues for the review of the Lot 3 proposal. With regard to the PUD criteria, drainage and natural hazards are related to potential affects on the future development of the surrounding area. As I just mentioned, the Engineering Department is currently preparing its final phase of the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (AMDBMP) and mitigating criteria that will assist in identifying potential hazards resulting from the Aspen Mountain basin runoff and its impact on downstream developments situated within the naturally developed flow patterns. In the original memorandum, staff recommended that the Commission table the Lot 3 application pending completion by Savanah of further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept. This recommendation was largely based upon the PUD Agreement language which stated that, "Lot 3 .requires fiuther geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration." Staff previously recommended that the City err on the conservative side by deciding not to consider the Lot 3 Conceptual PUD application until such study and evaluation is completed by qualified experts (paid for by Savanah) and reviewed by City staff. Since the time them tabling recommendation was drafted, new information and a clearer understanding of some of these issues has been obtained. First, it should be understood that when the cited language of the PUD Agreement was drafted, a Conceptual approval for the development of a 33-unit multi-family structure on Lot 3 had already been granted. At that time, however, Planned Unit Development review included six steps: Conceptual before the Commission and Council; Preliminary before the Commission and Council; and, Final before the Commission and Council. Now, PUD review requires only four steps: Conceptual before the Commission and Council, and Final before the - "~ ~... ,,` Commission and Council Therefore, the "Lot 3 ... requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration" language of the PUD agreement allowed for the first stage of PUD review to be completed before further geologic study and evaluation had to be completed. In this vein, it would be appropriate for the Commission to allow the application to proceed through the Conceptual PUD review process without tabling it. Similarly, the conditions recommended by the City Engineer and included in the staff recommended conditions of approval were provided as an interim measure for the purposes of Conceptual PUD review in order to provide the necessary protection to adequately address drainage related concerns. The recommended conditions were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be adequate for granting conceptual approval to the aforementioned 33-unit multi-family structure on the Top of Mill, and staff considers them adequate for the current proposal as well. While staff is comfortable changing its recommendation from tabling the application to recommending approval with conditions based upon the information just discussed, another reason should be factored in as well. The Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (AMDBMP) process that has been ongoing for the past few years has included a good deal of analysis with regard to geotechnical and subsurface conditions. The next/final stage of the AMDBMP will provide the ability to analyze today's site conditions relative to the proposed development plan. Therefore, the .need to conduct further geotechnical and geological studies based on today's conditions has been ongoing --- not neglected --- and the final phase of the AMDBMP will provide the ability to evaluate the proposed development relative to the findings of the studies. Without a Conceptual approval, the applicant and the Engineering Department will not know what site plan to analyze and evaluate. Consequently, staff recommends that the Conceptual PUD review move forward --- not be tabled --- with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions outlined in the previous staff memorandum, dated June 15, 1999. D. TRAILS AND EASEMENTS I don't really want to say too much about these issues as they are pretty well covered in Exhibit C of your packets, but will note that Savanah has no problem accommodating the staff recommended condition which states that, "for the Final PUD application, Savanah shall work cooperatively with the Parks Department to relocate and replat the Top of Mill Trail, where Savanah further agrees to have any agreed upon alignment of the relocated trail staked and approved by the Parks Department. The relocated trail must have a legal description, be shown on the Final Amended Plat, and be dedicated/conveyed to the City of Aspen Parks Department." E. ACCESS AND TRAFFIC GENERATION: -------- Refer to Master Site Pian ---------- All of the proposed dwelling units on Lot 3 would have access to a public street. Vehicular access to the two triplexes and their parking (Parcel 1) would be provided via a private, common driveway from Summit Street, and said driveway would be owned and maintained by their condominium association. Vehicular access to the remaining parcels on Lot 3 would be gained via a private access road which would extend from the end of Mill Street and would be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The new road extending from the end of S. Mill Street would be semi-circular in shape to accommodate the required grade change and to increase vehicular safety. Both proposed access roads are designed to accommodate fire protection and snow removal vehicles. it is a well known fact that the grade of South Mill Street in the subject area is steep. As Mill Street acts as a sort of conveyance route for the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin and there remains a substantial amount of fill material on the Top of Mill site, gravel and drainage are often washing down the north-facing street. As a result, S. Mill Street is often very icy during the winter months and cars regularly have tremendous difficulty traveling up or down the street without sliding. During the summer of 1998, while the Ski Company used the Top of Mill as a construction staging site, silt-like debris flowed in large quantities from the site all the way down the hill across Dwant Street and into the pedestrian mall. Once dried, the silt-like material results in dust in the air and pm 10 generation. Although the proposed development would remove the fill material from the Top of Mill, the drainage flows would continue to run down the north-facing slope and the winter icing conditions would not be alleviated. Additionally, the construction phase of the project would require significant measures to eliminate or at least minimize the impacts on the neighborhood. There are no plans, either for the construction phase or after, in the submitted application materials that would address any or all of the problems related to the grade of South Mill Street. Thus, staff recommends that Savanah be required to provide such plans with their Final PUD application. In terms of pedestrian access, it appears as though there are sidewalks proposed only along the west side of Mill Street, in front of the triplexes on Parcel 1, with no sidewalks up to or around the proposed cul-de-sac. Trails and sidewalks provide enhanced "'' ~ '~ ~...v- 4,.._ pedestrian facilities that foster and are conducive to walking. Enhanced pedestrian facilities and decreased dependency upon the automobile are both important goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed sidewalks appear to be of the attached variety, immediately adjacent to the curb. As mentioned above, Mill Street is exceptionally steep and fairly narrow, making it essential that pedestrians have a safe place to walk. Thus, staff has recommended a condition whereby Savanah would commit, in the Final PUD application, to construct adetached/separated sidewalk along the South Mill Street frontage of Lot 3, and to plant appropriately spaced street trees in the area between the sidewalk and the curb. Traffic With regard to traffic, staff would like to mention only that a revised traffic study is requested as a condition of approval, and that Savanah plans on having their traffic consultant, TDA, here at the next meeting to give a presentation. F. Architecture and Site Design: I'm not going to say much in reference to the proposed conceptual architecture, other than to note that staff would like to see the proposed roof form for the Parcel 3 duplex structure revised. ----- Refer to Elevation Drawing ----------- With regard to the site design, I'd like to point out that staff has requested that, prior to Final PUD Review, Savanah provide at least twa site plan alternatives that would eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac layout. While the alternatives should be more consistent with mountain community design and that traditionally associated with the area at the base of Aspen Mountain, it is also essential that the alternatives take into account soil conditions, geotechnical findings, drainage patterns and mitigation needs, fire and emergency access, and of course, neighborhood impacts. It has been pointed out that the discussion of the cul-de-sac design in the memorandum is rather strongly worded and gives the impression that the proposed design will definitely be unacceptable to staff. This is not the case. Staff recognizes the logic behind the cul- de-sac design ---- explain ---- but merely wants to see alternatives for comparative purposes. The hope is that a more appropriate design might still work given the concerns just mentioned, but the proposed design is in no way precluded. ` ,r~^*-. G. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AACP: Extensive discussion of the proposal's consistency with the AACP is provided in the last 2 pages of Exhibit C. Staff found the proposal to be consistent with the goals of the AACP and would be glad to elaborate on this finding to the extent that the Commission wishes. 8/10 To INTRODUCTION: At the July 13~ hearing, many issues with regard to the proposed development of Lot 3 seemed to be adequately addressed inasmuch as the Commission seemed satisfied with staff's analysis and suggested means of addressing them. Specifically, it seemed the Commission was satisfied that the drainage and related issued have been adequately addressed for the Conceptual level with the recommended conditions and with Savanah's recognition, on the record, that ~ are assuming the risks associated with the potential for the results of Phase 2 of the AMDBMP to adversely affect their proposal. Similarly, the Commission seems satisfied that the proposed Housing Mitigation for Lot 3 is adequate and is supported by the Housing Office and Board. With regard to trails and easements, Savanah has agreed to work cooperatively with the Parks Department, and this seemed adequate for the Commission. Those issues that either seemed potentially problematic or just not quite resolved as of yet, mainly involved the rezoning requests, consistency with the AACP, transportation and traffic concerns, and the development's general level of appropriateness. Since it worked so well during the Commission's review of the Lot S proposal, I suggest we proceed by addressing the Issue Topics indicated in Exhibit C of your packets, one at a time, spending the majority of time on those issues I just mentioned. Starting with Zoning and Rezoning, I attempted to review these issues in detail at the July 13~' hearing, but recognizing the complexity and confusing nature of these issues, I'd like to briefly run through them again. Refer to Master Site Plan ---------- Lot 3 is zoned L/TR(PUD); R-15 (PUD)(L); and, C, Conservation. Consequently, the parcel is subject to the Section of the Land Use Code that governs the development of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. That Section requires that the dimensional requirements of each underlying zone district be compared and that the most restrictive be utilized in the development of the parcel. Also, when a proposed development is nvt allowed in all of the underlying zone districts, the location of the use is limited to those portions of the parcel in which the proposed development is either a permitted or conditional use. With that said, the minimum lot area per single-family dwelling unit is 6,000 square feet in the L/TR zone district, and ten (10} acres (435,600 square feet) in the Conservation district. Since the Code requires that the most restrictive dimensional requirements ~, ~ ~:.,~- even after approval of the requested rezoning, as I'll further explain in a minute --- and since Lot 3 contains less than ten acres, the Code would limit the total development of Lot 3 to one (1) single-family residence of unlimited FAR. This limitation would effectively preclude Savanah from achieving both the proposed development mix and the forty-seven dwelling units previously agreed to in the Amended PLTD Agreement. Thus, a code amendment is proposed by Savanah as a means of addressing this issue. The proposed code amendment would provide City Council with discretion in determining which dimensional requirements to apply when a parcel is encumbered by multiple zone districts. To provide some measure of control, the applicant proposes to make this discretion available to Council only if the project in question is being processed as a PLTD. In addition to the reasons for the code amendment request, since a portion of proposed Parcel 1 lies within the area presently zoned R-15 and multi-family residential is not a permitted or conditional use in the R-15 zone, a rezoning is needed. Thus, Savanah proposes to rezone all R-15 portions of Lot 3 to L/TR(PLTD). With that rezoning, even if approved, subdivided Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 would continue to have portions in the Conservation zone and other portions in the L/TR zone while Parcels 6 and 7 would be wholly within the Conservation zone. Therefore, Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 would continue to be subject to the Section of the Code governing lands with more than one underlying zone district, while Parcels 6 and 7 would still be subject to the Conservation zone district regulations. Staffbelieves the only reason Savanah needs to request a code amendment is the fact that the parameters of the rezoning request are not adequate. That is, Savanah is requesting to rezone all portions of Lot 3 currently zoned R-15(PUD) to L/TR(PLTD). The rezoning of apply, the minimum lot area requirement per dwelling unit in the Conservation zone (10 acres) would arguably govern the development of single-family dwelling units on Lot 3. Also, since more than 75% of Lot 3 is and would continue to be zoned Conservation --- ~.,: r,.ry ~ y' the R-15(PUD) lands to L/TR(PUD) is probably appropriate, but as I already mentioned would still leave portions of subdivided Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 in the Conservation zone with other portions of the same parcels in the L/T`R(PUD) zone ---thereby continuing to be parcels with more than one underlying zone district. Also, Parcels 6 and 7 would remain wholly within the Conservation zone, and more than 75% of the total Lot 3 area would continue to be zoned Conservation --- therefore, the requested rezoning would be of no affect unless the requested code amendment is favorably approved. That is, even if the proposed rezoning is approved, the proposed development plan still would not comply with the provisions of the Land Use Code unless the requested code amendment is approved and Council subsequently allows for the use of the L/TR dimensional requirements. Instead, staff is of the opinion that all portions of Lot 3 for which development is proposed should be rezoned to L/TR(PUD), thereby eliminating the potential for any Lot 3 development parcel to have more than one underlying zone district. This would require that some of the Lot 3 lands currently zoned Conservation, along with all the Lot 3 lands currently zoned R-1 S, be rezoned to L/ I'R(PUD). I know the word "Conservation" carries all sorts of connotations leading one to believe these lands should never be "up-zoned;" however, staff wants to make it clear that there is nothing sacred about these lands other than their name --- if this area was of ecological importance, it would be zoned "Open Space," or "Wildlife Preservation." In fact, the Conservation zone allows for the development of single-family residences with no limit on their FAR, and a 33-unit multi-family structure was once granted Conceptual PUD approval on this site. As an aside, although the rezoning request would be reviewed concurrently with a Final PUD application and according to a prescribed set of standards, I want to briefly mention why staff believes rezoning some of the Conservation-zoned area to L/TR would be more appropriate than rezoning the same area to AH-1/PUD. The reasoning behind this is multi-faceted, but can be summarized by pointing out that none of the surrounding areas are zoned AH-1 while almost the whole neighborhood is zoned L/TR. Furthermore, the "Purpose" statements of the two zone districts clearly indicate that the L/TR designation would be more appropriate. For instance, the AH zone is irrtended to "provide far the use of land for the production of Category affordable housing and resident occupied lots and units ... The zone also permits a limited component of free market lots/unit to ofd=set the cost of developing affordable housing." Savanah has existing development credits for 47 free market units between Lots 3 and S of the PUD. Their proposed free market units are not a "limited component" meant or needed to "off-set the cost of developing affordable 3 ~` housing." Further, the AH zone is largely understood as a means of obtaining a GMQS Exemption in exchange for developing a certain amount of affordable housing --- Savanah does not need a GMQS Exemption for the development of Lot 3. The purpose of the L/TR zone, on the other hand, seems to clearly indicate that the subject area should be zoned accordingly. For instance, the purpose of the L/TR zone mentions "the area at the base of Aspen Mountain" as well as the construction of "tourist-oriented detached, duplex, and multi family residential dwellings." In conclusion, the staff recommended parameters of the rezoning request would eliminate not only the applicability of the "Lands With More Than One Underlying Zone District" section of the code but also the need for the proposed code amendment. Furthermore, the staff recommended rezoning would effectively eliminate two sets of contingencies: first, review of the proposed code amendment, and second, the need for Council to allow use of the L/TR dimensional requirements based on a finding that application of the most restrictive requirements --- those of the Conservation zone --- would be unreasonable. Note that if Conceptual PUD approval is granted, the rezoning request would be reviewed concurrently with the Final PUD application. In summary, staff recommends that the parameters of the rezoning request be changed and the code amendment request be withdrawn since, if the staff recommended rezoning is pursued and approved, the code amendment becomes unnecessary. FAR Before moving on, I'm going to touch upon FAR issues now, since these are related to zoning. As explained in the Addendum provided at the July 13~' hearing, the "Definitions" section of the Land Use Code provides that: For planned unit development (PUD) applications where land is held as common open space and more than one lot is proposed for development, the total area of each lot in the planned unit development (PUD) shall be increased by an amount equal to the total area of the land held as common open space divided by the total number of lots proposed for development. Therefore, pursuant to this regulation, the area of each lot shall be increased by 5,740 square feet. Given the preliminary analysis provided in the Lot 3 Data Table that I handed out earlier, the proposed floor areas on Parcels 3-8 are well in excess of what would be permitted, but the surplus FAR on Parcels 1 and Z could be redistributed amongst the remaining development parcels to accommodate the proposed FARs, provided Council approves such redistribution. y ~~,~. .w:: B. HOUSING: The Housing Office and Housing Board discussed the proposal on May 5, 1999, and recommended approval with conditions. C. DRAINAGE AND NATURAL HAZARDS: The conditions recommended by the City Engineer and included in the staff recommended conditions of approval were provided as an interim measure for the purposes of Conceptual PUD review in order to provide the necessary protection to adequately address drainage related concerns. The recommended conditions were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be adequate for granting conceptual approval to the originally proposed 33-unit multi-family structure on the Top of Mill, and staffconsiders them adequate for the current proposal as well. D. TRAILS AND EASEMENTS I don't really want to say too much about trails as it is pretty well covered in Exhibit C of your packets, but will note that Savanah has no problem accommodating the staff recommended condition requiring that, "for the Final PUD application, Savanah shall work cooperatively with the Parks Department ... " E. SITE DESIGN: With regard to the site design, I'll just mention that staff has requested, prior to Final PUD Review, Savanah provide at least two site plan alternatives that would eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac layout. Staff, however, remains fully open to the possibility that the cul-de-sac design may prove to be the most appropriate and most sensitiv ssible design. Staff recognizes the logic behind the cul-de-sac design -- explain --- but ~~~ merely wants to see alternatives for comparative purposes. F. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AACP: [On September 3, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the proposed Conceptual PUD for Lot 3, largely based on a finding of inconsistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. You'll note that the 1996 proposal was different from the current proposal: it did not contain the four "for sale" Category units, but instead S '°", x contained free market duplexes in their place, and the new plan proposes the development of six accessory dwelling units where none were proposed previously.] The stated vision which underlies the AACP is "to revitalize the permanent population, to bring back local serving businesses into the Aspen Area and to revive the vitality that previously characterized Aspen." The AACP Housing Action Plan also contains statements encouraging "infrll development within the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more employees ... [toJ live close to where they work, "and `promoting more on-site affordable housing." The current Lot 3 proposal would provide thirteen (13) free market units, four (4) deed restricted singie- family homes, and up to six or seven deed restricted accessory dwelling units, for a total of ten (10) to eleven (11) deed restricted units. As I already mentioned, the Housing Office and Board have found the proposal to meet with their standards, which provides a strong indication of consistency with the "Housing" element of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Further, the provision of between four and seven deed restricted units on-site at the given location will help to revitalize the permanent population though infrll development within the existing wban area, thereby allowing employees to live close to work and allowing the preservation of open space. The "Growth Action Plan" of the AACP states that its intention is to "encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and tourist base." The free market homes could serve wealthier individuals/families that would live in, relocate to, or retire to Aspen on a year-round basis. If not all, some of the free market units would certainly be used as second homes, occupied on a somewhat sporadic basis, but these same units would have accessory dwelling units that could be occupied by residents on a year-round basis. Many second homes are occasionally rented out to visiting tourists. Thus, the second homes with accessory dwelling units would serve both the local community and the tourist base. Also, with regard to the Growth Action Plan's goal of managing the rate of and overall numbers associated with growth, the development allotments proposed for utilization on Lot 3 come from reconstruction credits obtained by demolition of previously existing units; therefore, at least in theory, the proposed development represents change, but not growth. The "Philosophy" of the Transportation Action Plan suggests that "reducing dependency on the automobile requires offering alternatives both for automobile use and storage and other means of transport." Sufficient parking for Lot 3 is proposed. Trail easements and connections would have to be maintained and enhanced, and detached sidewalks would have to be provided. Trails and sidewalks provide enhanced pedestrian facilities that foster and are conducive to walking. Enhanced pedestrian facilities and decreased . _' . ,~ ~,- dependency upon the automobile are bath important goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Also, by virtue of the site's proximity to the downtown shopping and dining, the gondola plaza, and the Rubey Park Transit Center, reducing dependency on the automobile is inherently facilitated. The "Philosophy" of the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan states that, "Implicit in development and growth of the other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is the continued acquisition and preservation of open space within our developed area, as well as the further development and management of parks and trails." Two significant open space parcels would be retained with this development and the Parks Department will insist upon the preservation and improvement of trail easements and connections. The "Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan" also states that its intention is to encourage "the exploration of `combination' projects which integrate the development of affordabte housing and maintenance of open space." The proposal would achieve an integration of affordable housing and maintenance of open space. Finally, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 98-11 adopted the "Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan" as an update to the Housing Element of the 1993 AACP. The Citizen Housing Plan set policies with regard to the locational philosophies and criteria for affordable housing developments by way of establishing priorities. Since the proposed development is within the Metro Area; is in close proximity to multiple mass transit options; is self-contained and surrounded by existing development; can be served by existing and available utilities and public services; would fit within the existing community fabric and character; does not propose under utilization of the site; and is consistent with the housing needs identifed in the Housing Guidelines, staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the Housing Element of the AACP and the priorities of the Citizen Housing Plan. G. ACCESS AND TRAFFIC GENERATION: Last but not least, with regard to access and traffic issues, I am only going to quickly explain where some of the confusion regarding staff's past recommendation came from, and then defer discussion of these issues until after Savanah's transportation consultant has made a presentation. Explai confusion: Engineering Memo vs. Environmental Health memo. New memos om each will be prepared prior to Council review. "~~"` ADDENDUM TO : Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: Aspen Mountain PUD --- Lot 3, Conceptual PUD DATE: July 13, 1999 SUMMARY: This addendum is intended to supplement the existing staff memorandum for Lot 3 of the AMPUD. It addresses only two issues that have been brought to staff's attention since the original memorandum was drafted and distributed. The two issues deal with FAR and drainage/geotechnical requirements. In addition, staff has summarized the P & Z's comments from the last meeting (June 29, 1999) and has attached additional information. Allowable FAR: It was explained in the previous memorandum that Savanah is basing their calculation of allowable floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 that would be zoned L/TR at a 1:1 (floor area :lot area) ratio to arrive at an allowable aggregate external floor area of 97,630 square feet. This figure does not assume any floor area credit for the 106,150 square foot portion of the lot zoned C, Conservation. Further, approximately 8,220 square feet of unused floor area would remain on Lot 5 under the current proposal, and said floor area could be transferred to Lot 3 pursuant to the PUD regulations. If included, this would provide for 105,850 square feet of allowable floor area, exclusive of the unlimited floor area potential of the lands zoned Conservation (see pages 73- 74 of application packet, Attachment 1). The previous memorandum went on to explain that staff takes a different approach to the calculation of allowable floor areas for the proposed subdivision parcels of Lot 3. Staff believes the allowable floor areas discussed in the existing PUD Agreement contemplate a potential maximum that could be attained, provided the proposed subdivision lots could be successfully sized and configured (and no lot area reductions were required) so that all of the floor area could be constructed while meeting all other applicable and unvaried dimensional requirements. Staff felt it would be more appropriate to base its calculations of not only permitted floor area but also allowed density and required open space on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Consequently, it was believed that further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. Since that memorandum was distributed, the rationale for Savanah's approach has become more clear. First, in terms of density, the PUD regulations require that slope analyses of the entire property be accounted for prior to the creation of new lots in order to determine the allowable density; therefore, the PUD regulations preclude basing the allowable densities on the subdivided parcels. Perhaps more pertinent, is the "Definitions" section of the Land Use Code, which under "Floor Area, F. Planned Unit Development," states that; For planned unit development (PUD) applications where land is held as common open space, and more than one lot is proposed for development, the total floor area for each lot shall be determined in the following manner.• ~: ~. ~. ~, The total area of each lot in the planned unit development (PUD) shall be increased by an amount equal to the total area of the land held as common open space divided by the total number of lots proposed for development. Notwithstanding the above methodology for determining floor area ratio for each lot, applicants may suggest d~erent methods for allocating the total floor area allowed for the PUD to individual lots; provided, that the total floor area allowed for the PUD does not exceed the cumulative total of the floor areas for each lot as calculated by the above referenced method. As proposed, the lot sizes of Parcels 1-8 would be as follows (in square feet): Parcel l 51,680 Parcels 10,370 Parcel2 26,520 Parcel6 10,380 Parcel 3 14,260 Parcel ? 18,920 Parcel 4 13,290 Parcel 8 18,390 Open Space Parcel A 28,740 Open Space Parcel B 50,230 Therefore, under the formula provided in the above-cited definition, the total area of each lot shall be increased by 9,871 square feet ([50,230 + 28,740] - 8). The resulting lot areas for the purposes of determining allowable floor area would be as follows: Parcel l 61,551 Parcels 20,241 Parcel2 36,391 Parcel6 20,251 Parcel 3 24,131 Parcel ? 28,791 Parcel 4 23,161 Parcel 8 28,261 These lot areas would be used as base numbers from which to begin figuring out allowable floor areas for each Parcel. Since Parcel 1 would be developed as multi-family residential, its FAR would be set at 1:1, or 61,551 square feet, exclusive of potentially applicable reductions. Parcel 2's allowable floor area is difficult to determine since two duplexes are proposed, and the L/TR zone district provides FAR formulas for only detached residential dwellings, duplexes, and "all other uses." Two duplexes on one lot is not considered multi- family or detached residential. The duplex formula provides an allowable FAR for one duplex on one lot, not for .two duplexes on one lot. If the two Parcel 2 duplexes were connected by a small linking element, they would be considered a single multi-family structure, or "all other uses," in which case the allowable FAR on Parcel 2 would be 1:1, or 36,391 square feet. Parcel 3 would be developed with a duplex, and its allowable FAR would be 5,510 square feet (9,000 square feet of FAR is proposed). Parcels 4-8 would be developed as detached residential dwellings, and would have allowable FARs as follows: • Parcel 4 --- 4,428 square feet (6,200 square feet of FAR is proposed); • Parcel 5 --- 4,282 square feet (5,200 square feet of FAR is proposed); • Parcel 6 --- 4,283 square feet (5,200 square feet of FAR is proposed); • Parcel 7 --- 4,710 square feet (6,500 square feet of FAR is proposed); and, • Parcel 8 --- 4,683 square feet (6,500 square feet of FAR is proposed). Note that none of these FAR figures take into account any potentially applicable lot area reductions; thus, further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowable floor area can be made. Nonetheless, given the above provided analysis, the proposed floor areas on Parcels 3-8 are well in excess of that which would be permitted. The previously provided conditions recommended by staff would still be sufficient to address the findings of this section. ,, r ,,,~, ,..~ Geologic and Geotechnical Studies: In the previous memorandum, staff recommended that the Commission table the Lot 3 application pending completion by Savanah of further geologic and geotechnical studies based on today's conditions and all parts of the proposed design concept. This recommendation was largely based upon the "Lot 3 ... requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration" language of the PUD agreement. Staff recommended that the City err on the conservative side by deciding not to consider the Lot 3 Conceptual PUD application until such study and evaluation is completed by qualified experts (paid for by Savanah) and reviewed by City staff. Staff further recommended that, should the City decide to move forward with the review process, as a minimum, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should require Savanah to complete all necessary studies, as suggested by the geotechnical engineering study that was commissioned by the applicant, and include such .with the Final PUD/Subdivision application. Since the time these recommendations were drafted, new information and a clearer understanding of some of these issues has been obtained. First, it should be understood that when the cited language of the PUD Agreement was drafted, a Conceptual approval for the development of a 33-unit multi-family structure on Lot 3 had already been granted. At that time, however, Planned Unit Development review included six steps: Conceptual before the Commission and Council; Preliminary before the Commission and Council; and, Final before the Commission and Council. Now, PUD review requires only four steps: Conceptual before the Commission and Council, and Final before the Commission and Council. Therefore, the "Lot 3 ... requires further geologic study and evaluation before it can receive preliminary and final development consideration" language of the PUD agreement allowed for the first stage of PUD reXjg~Q c~~tped b~ef~~ f r~eT geologicQ study and evaluation is completed. In this vein, i would e a ro*si or n ~MCs~• to allow the application to proceed through the Conceptual PUD review process.wi~e~~ ~~ke-app~ie:ct~.in. Similarly, the conditions recommended by the City Engineer and included in the staff Y ~~~/ recommended conditions of approval were provided as an interim measure for the purposes of Conceptual PUD review in order to provide the necessary protection to adequately address drainage related concerns. The recommended conditions were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be adequate for granting conceptual approval to the aforementioned 33-unit multi-family structure on the Top of Mill, and staffvConsiders them adequate for the current proposal as well. t~~/NrMrss,~,doc~I While staff is comfortable changing its recommendation from tabling the application to recommending approval with conditions based upon the information provided above, another reason should be factored in as well. The Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (AMDBMP) process that has been ongoing for the past few years has included a good deal of analysis with regard to geotechnical and subsurface conditions. The next/final stage of the AMDBMP will provide the ability to analyze today's site conditions relative to the proposed development plan. Therefore, the need to conduct further geotechnical and geological studies based on today's conditions has been ongoing (not neglected) and the final phase of the AMDBMP will provide the ability to evalua h ro osed development relative to the findings of the studies. Consequently, staff~ecorr~ that the Conceptual PUD review move forward (not be tabled) with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions outlined~n th taff memorandum. >k8ti VE lrNb "f~-cr. rh.,~ ~-,~.-T~ '~ic~,?,t~,~/ o~ T~~` ,. Steve Falehc~er 712 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-1816 6/11/1999 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission C/o Bob Blaich, Chair Re: Aspen Mountain PUD -Grand Aspen Site Dear Commission Members, My wife, two children, and I live year around at 712 S. Galena St., a duplex located just south and on the east side of Galena across from the current Grand Aspen. Since I plan to be out of town for the hearing currently rescheduled for June 29, I am submitting my comments in writing. As I have stated at prior hearings regarding the Grand Aspen site, I support redevelopment into a new hotel. I believe Aspen could benefit from more hotel rooms, and this is a prime location. My concerns and requests as this project again begins to move through your process are as follows: (1) In order to clearly visualize the proposed setbacks and maximum roof heights, I would like you to ask the developer to (a) mark all building corners on the pavement or on the existing building, so we can clearly see setbacks from the existing streets and buildings, and (b) erect poles at the new building corners and at roof height changes that reflect the peaks of the roofs, so we can get a feeling of the effect on views and building mass. (2) As is probably clear from the above request, I am skeptical of the height, mass, and scale of the proposed buildings, and the impact of that height, mass, and scale on the character of the neighborhood. The developer's written report prepared for the hearing describes the hotel as "Victorian" in style. While the design may include some "Victorian "elements, it does not reflect my lay perception of Victorian design, which is based on Aspen's older buildings. The proposed hotel certainly is not representative of the old Miner's cottages or even the Sardy House after a massive dose of steroids. The Wheeler, Brand, Elks, and Independence buildings have imposing height and mass that reflect importance, but they do not encompass the total size and scale of this proposal, and they were built on flat sites in the town core, not on sites extending uphill into residential neighborhoods. Only the St. Regis rivals the mass and scale of this proposal, and, in my opinion, the St. Regis is an example of how good design elements and the use of the highest quality materials can still result in an overbearing building when mass and scale are ignored. (3) The parking garage is proposed to enter and exit on Galena St. I agree with John Sarpa that this is the best location, given that moving the garage to Mill St. would probably shift „„~ ~~ -ws Falender, page 2, June 11, 1999 the swimming pool to Galena. I ask that you require that the exit lanes from the garage be designed to allow traffic only to turn left (north) towazd Durant St. If cars are permitted to turn uphill (south) onto Galena, they will still end up at Durant St., but after travelling azound a horseshoe through our residential neighborhood. In addition, I ask that you review the Durant and Galena intersection to see if visibility from Galena should be improved by eliminating some of the pazking on Durant neaz the Galena intersection. (4) Demolition and construction pazking, traffic, and noise are a major concern, especially for those of us who live yeaz-round on Galena St. I request that guidelines addressing these concerns be included in the approval process, and hope you will ask for neighborhood input in establishing policies. (a) Galena St. does not have any public pazking and today even the remodel of a single condominium results in cazs pazked on the sidewalks and in our private spaces. I am concerned that the existing pazking areas for the Grand Aspen may not be available during construction because of site grading and new building locations. Where will the construction vehicles park? (b) If construction traffic is allowed uphill on Galena St., to make the loop back to Durant, it will create noise as trucks travel uphill, make a mess of three streets, and result in needless extra air pollution. Hopefully no construction traffic will be allowed south of the parking garage. Regazding the garage, it needs to be accessible to the construction vehicles that maintain, service, and renovate the hotel, since street pazking is not provided. I expect John Sarpa to azgue that reducing the mass of the hotel, by such things as eliminating the fourth floor, will necessazily reduce the number of rooms and therefore cause rental rates to escalate. We all know that Aspen could use more modestly priced lodging. I believe, however, that the value of this prime land, and the high cost of construction will necessitate luxury room rates, whether the hotel has 150 or 100 rooms. John Sarpa has even publicly stated that this hotel will be priced only modestly less than the St. Regis and Little Nell. I doubt it has a chance of adding to our supply of moderately priced rooms. This hotel will serve a tourist need, but its physical chazacter should reflect our town's values. In summary I endorse the hotel concept, but ask that you insist on a significant reduction of mass and scale, and that you impose requirements during the building process that minimize the impacts of traffic, pazking, and noise. Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts, which represent the concerns of our entire family. I will be in town until June 26 to discuss this letter with you if you request, and will return to town on July 14. Sincerely, i ~7 Steve Falender, also for Debra, Ellen, and Mark Falender Cc. Mitch Haas, Staff David Booth, Aspen Lodging Company Jun-O~-99 d2:59P ~auanah Ltd. 9709254397 ,~>;:~ S I S Se~nh Gakm Sc, ~~~~~ ~~ Te ~ 974425~272 1 ~~~~~ Fax 97t1.9,u-43B7 TO: ~I~aM: DATE: RE: PAGES: GC: Dear Members of the ~oa~rd, P.02 AspenlPitkin County Housing Baagd JOHN G. SARP June 2, 1999 Bavarian I n History 7, including this Dave Toien Ju1ir~ Ann Woods .Iohn Worcester Nabil Ayoubi Larry Green Sunny Vann INe have been asked to comment +on the Housing Statff recommendation to you that the Bavarian inn should not be available for housing mitigation in connection with Savanah's develaprnent application far fats ~ and 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The #aiiowing is an overview of our response and posi#ian an this matter. ~~: would like to be begin by noting tha# this issue of whether the Bavarian Inn can be used as rnitiga#ian for the P1JD Came as a complete and total surprise to Savanah. The issue was raised for the first time at a Section M hearing in 1998 by a citizen. Rrior to I398, Savanah had Clearly understood that the Bavarian Inn housing would be available for use as employee housing mitigation for either Phase I (the Ritz~Carltvn hotel} ter Phase 11 (the Grand Aspen and Top of Mill sites} of the RUD. Jun-02-99 02:59P 5awanah Ltd. 970'9254387 P.03 ~,., ~~~ Therefore, we have gone back and Carefully researched official minutes of many meetings since 199 including, the negatiatians with City Council on the warding of the 199Q ballot and numerous Aspen Mountain PUD Section M-and noncompliance hearings. We also looked at the 1990 campaign literature and other documents over the la$t nine years to help refresh our recollection of this critical issue. As indicated below in mare detail, there is clear and consistent documentation aver a number of years that both before the 199Q election and afterwards, the City and Savanah understood that the Bavarian Inn was not a part of the PUD, that any housing to be developed there was not required as mitigation far the Ritz-Carlton, and therefore housing at the Bavarian oauld be used as mitigatit~n for any phase of the PUD. HISTORY dF BALLOT LANGUAGE: In 1988 the City approved Resolution 29 which amended the Aspen Mountain PUD, including the new Ritz-Carlton. Ire 1989, as a result of a law suit filed against the Ci#y and Savanah, the resolution was ruled invalid by the court and sent back to the City for further action. Thee Court said the City's action must be taken by prdinance and not by resolution_ Savanah and the City entered into extensive discussions about haw such an ordinance might be approved. Contrary to Savanah's request, the City Council decided not to simply adapt an ordinance themselves, but rather, to put the entire PUD amendment before the community in a referendum election. That election was held in February of 1990. The key mee#ings between the City and Savanah toa+c place in December of 1989 and January of 1990. As a result of the negotiations two questions were placed on the ballot, one stating Savanah's proposal and the other, the City's. During the debate of haw to word the ballot in those hearings, several critical points emerged that should be rtvted: 1. All references in both proposals in the ballot were to the "Amended Aspen Mountain PUD" and no# just to the Ritz•Carl#on portions thereof. In other words, the electorate was voting on the entire PUD, not just the Ritz, .]un-02-99 03:OOP Savanah Ltd. +97D9254387 P.04 ,. *~ ~~~~ 2. At no time did Savanah sugges#, nor did the City require, that hauling at the Bavarian would oat be available for mitigation for ail the PU D. 3. Savanah made it very clear an a number of occasions that with the Bavarian lnn, it was oat offering more employee housing as mitigation far the Ritz, but rather, something more than what was in the RlJL7. In fac#, Savanah's attorney i nformed the City that if it wanted "more affordable housing [as mitigation], they should pu# it in their ballot question, not the applicant's." The City did just that in the second part of its question where it stat+~s in relevant park "The applicant [Savanah] provide off-site housing for 10£~ additional employees,..." The City's question was defeated by the vpter5 and thus, the issue of whether ar not Savanah was required to provide additional employee housing mitigation for the Ritz, was resolved in Savanah's favor. This clear decision on the employee housing was acknowledged by the City Staff and Council in several hearings after the 1990 election as Hated below. CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS: A number of comments have been made abau# the meaning of campaign statements made by Savanah representatives during the later part of 1989 ar~d during the election of 199a and their impact on the Bavarian lnn mitigation issue. In reviewing ail the materials we could find, we round no statements whatsoever that indicated Savanah had committed to use any Bavarian Inn housing for only the Ritz-Carlton. As noted above, prior to the Gity deciding to send the entire PUD to a vote, there was debate between the Council and Savanah whether to merely adopt the new PUE3 through an ordinance ar to held an election. In the context of that debate, in Decemlaer of 1989, Savanah sugges#ed it would purchase the Bavarian Inn and if the Council approved the ordinance, it would "convert it to deed restricted housing". It is important to Hate #hat the proposal made to Council in relation to the Bavarian Eon in exchange for the Council adapting the ordinance , was oat the same as that contained in the ballot language and thus Jun-02-99 03:OOP Savanah Ltd. 97p9254387 P.05 ~.. p~g~ 4 presented to the voters. In the fist instance, Savanah wanted to avoid an election and the risk it might laose_ Thus, it was willing to ,consider making the Bavarian Inn part of prdinance ls~ if need be, but only on the condition that the City Council adopt the new ordinance. Since the City refused to so adopt the ordinance. Savanah did not include the potential pausing as mitigation in the PUD. Just the opposite occurred. When it became clear in the City Council meetings that the election was going to happen, Savanah was careful in its negotiations with the City on the ballot language to make sure the Bavarian Inn offer was not new mitigation for the Ritz as noted above. Rather, Savanah was committing to purCpase the free market lodge and with the City's cooperation, ct-nvert it to employee housing with n4 restrictions on haw such housing might be used. During the election, this approach of Savanah obligating itself to a goad faith application for affordable hauling vn the 6avarian Inn site was referred to often. F'ar example, in one of its campaign brochures, Savanah stated that if the voters approved its ballot question "we will process a land use application, and with c©uncil cooperation this land [C~avarian Inn] could provide new housing...". Nothing in the campaign restricted Savanah's ability tp use the Bavarian housing as mitigation for any phase of the PUD. SAVANAH'S GpC?D FAITH OBI,IGATlQN TO APPLY: A number of questions have been raised as to why Savanah did not apply earlier than 1998 for affordable housing at the Bavarian Inn. The answer is that far Savanah to determine its portion of the questions as to what would be "suitable" employee housing at the si#e, two things pad to happen. First, the audit of the Ritz-Carlton ~(i~hase I of the PUD) had to take place to determine if any #urther housing wr~uld be needed for that hotel. Second, Savanah ne,~ded to have some general idea of wh2~t Phase II (the Grand Aspen Hote! ant! Top C1f PVlill sites) might generate by way +of employee hauling. The City clearly agreed with this time table as it applied to the Ritz as this was discussed in a number of Sec#ian M amendment hearings. In Jun-02-99 03:OOP Savanah LtcJ. 9?09254387 P.06 „ ,~~ ~~~~ 1891 and 1992, specific reference in those hearing was made by City staff to the fact that Savanah was waiting for the 1995 audit befiore proceeding with the application. That status assessment was accepted by Council in bath years and nv further action was requested. Five other Section M amendment hearings were held after 1992 and up to 1998. The status of the Bavarian Inn was never raised as an outstanding issue as it was understood that it was not yet timely to expect an application. Savanah applied for the development cif the Grand Aspen Hotel site and the Top of Mill site in January of 1995. After, P&Z conceptual review of that application and several City Council hearings, those applications were amended and resubmitted on September 15, 1998. It was not until that time that Savanah could make an educa#ed guess as to what affordable pausing from Phase II of the PUD might be necessary and thus, a time table for the Bavarian Inn application was agreed to with the City. The application for the Bavarian employee housing was thus, also submitted on September 15, 199$. SE T ~1N M AND Nt~NGOMPLIANCE HEARINGS: Much has been said as to what was meant by the final ballot language and the various Savanah statements during the election. Certainly it was Savanah's understanding that we could use the Bavarian as mitigation far the entire PIJD. We submit tha# th+e most instructive information on what the City understo©d about the Bavarian Inn as determined by the election to be various discussions of the election and the Inn that took place in a number of City Council hearings in 1991 and 1992 concerning the Aspen Mountain PUD. Specifically, starting in .tune of 199U and continuing through 1992, Savanah went through a number of City Council hearings in which the Bavarian Inn was reviewed and deterrrtined not to be part of the PUD and thus, not germane to any PUD amendments or compliance issues. Indeed, from 199p until 1998 there were seven Section M amendmen#s to the Aspen Mountain PUD. At any one of these hearings, the City Could have attempted to include new conditions and requirements far the Bavarian lnn. That nearer happened since it was +~learly understood that the Bavarian Jun-C12-99 O3:O1P Sawarh Lttl. 9709254387 P.07 ~«:, r ~, ~~ Inn was not part of the PUp and submittal of the Bavarian application was awaiting further information as to the Rite audit and Phase Il employee needs. Several of the most relevant Section M hearings occurred in May of 1991 and again in actaber of 1992. At Moth r-f these semi judicial hearings, Savanah had the burden of proof to show that delays with the construction schedules in the PUp were beyond its control_ After reviewing all the facts, including the status of the Bavarian Inn, the City Council in both cases agreed Savanah had met that burden of proof and granted the Section M amendments to the various construction dates. Most relevant to the Bavarian Inn mitigation issue are several exchanges between members of the City Council, City staff and members of the public about that site. In 1991, several members of the public requested the Council include conditions about "the affordable Dousing commitments far the Bavarian Inn" as part of the Section M process. The then I'~ayor Sterling asked Staff to respond to the various issues raised about the Bavarian. Staff said, "...the Bavarian Inn w2~s never part of the PUQ agreement." Indeed, in the May, 1991 staff memo to Council far this meeting staff had said. "The provision of employee housing via the Bavarian~lnn is not legally tied to the Aspen Mountain PUD." In another section, staff want on to explain why there was na further employee hauling at the Bavarian Inn required as a result of the 1990 election, "Staff stated during the PUD that the housing was not sufficient: however, additional employee housing was not approved by the voters." This clear acknowledgment that the City's attempt to require additional employee housing for the PU13 was voted down is also reflected in the staff memo to Council for that May meeting where it stated, "At that time, [pecember, 19$9] staff reviewed the employee housing mitigation being provided as part of the PUD and recarnrnended additional employee housing mitigation. Staff's recommendations were adapted toy City Council but put before the voters and subsequently denied. therefore, although staff continues to believe that the employee housing mitigation associated with this project is below that which would be required today, we feel this issue was settled last year." Jun-02-99 03:O1P Sa*ar~,~h Ltd. 93O'9254383 P.08 ~~ p$~~ 1 ThP Council accepted this characterization of the PUD housing mitigation issue and took nv further actions on the Bavarian Inn. Ulfhen this definitive and uncontested result of the 1990 election is combined with Savanah's clear insistence during the ballot language drafting that if the City wanted more housing for the Ritz, they should pu# it in their ballot not Savanah's (see Qec~mber, 19$9 official City Council minutes noted above), there is nq doubt whatsoever, that any housing built at the Bavarian !nn would not be required further mitigation fnr the Fitz Phase I of the PUQ) and thus, available for Savanah to use as mitiga#ion inr other parts of the PUd_ Likewise= in October of 1992 at another semi judicial City Council hearing an construction schedules, a City Council memper asked, "if there are currently any plans for the development of the Bavarian Inn." Savanah's representative responded by noting, "It is available for the audit, which is to be dune at the sQrond anniversary of the issuance of the C/O.," This response was accepted and the Council passed Savanah's requested Section hA amendment with na conditions about the Bavarian Inn, At all the other Section M hearings after 1992, the Bavarian Inn was never discuss~:d since its irrelevance tp any aspect of the PUD, including the emplt-yee housing mitigation requirements, had been well established in the 1991 and 1992 hearings. CONCLUSION: For aft the apove reasons, Savanah believes very strongly that the minutes of the his#ory of drafting the 1990 ballot language, the campaign statements aryd the results of the 1990 election, and particularly the consistent tfficial minutes of various semi judicia! Section M amendment hearings by the City Council in ~99~, t992 and since, establish that the potential Bavarian Inn housing was never intended to nor was it understood to be tied to only the Ritz-Caritas portion of the PUD. Rather, Savanah's offer of the Bavarian Inn, was fnr affordable housing. which with the cooperatir~n of the City and neighbors, could be built and used as mitigation fur tt-e entire PUC}_ Apr-Z2-9g 11:02A Savanah Ltd. 90925438? P.O1 ~a~ran~~ Li~it~~ s ~ 5 SOUth C,~Ifeni Srt ~~,,~a 81611 7e1. 970-425-4272 P~~~f~ Faac 97fl-92S-4387 T0: Mitch Haas FRON(: JOHN G, SARPA DATE: April 12, 1999 RE: harriott Staffi Estimate Mitch, PAGES: 4 , including this CC: Nabi I Ayoubi Mansor Daiaan INaddah Rustam Peter Chen 5unr~y Wane As per your request, attached is an additional estimated staffing guide from a reputable hotel operator (Marriott Hotels), for the hotel proposed by Savanah an !_ot ~. As you cart see, it is in a format similar to the previous staffing estimate done ay Sage Development. Moreover, the estimate is very similar in terms of the total number of employees projected to operate the hotel. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you ar~d regards. Post.;~® Apr-1Z-99 11:OZA Savanah Ltd. 909254387 P.02 ~~~1 ~~~~~= ~~ 'i(~T~1 S • Rr4[;7TS 5f;1T'i Marriott lnternalinnal, Enc. HiiEel lSevekrpnwnt 3130 S. Harbor 131vd„ tits. d 3U ~arrla Ana, C:A!1270d March 23, 1999 Mr. John G. Sarpa Savanah Limited Partnership S 15 South ('Jalena Street Aspen, CC7 ~ 1.611 Dear John: lamfw Nt. Ir6uher ~'k.c~ 1're~itlt+s51 ' Hr~l[rt Development Phone: r1S13~t5-3)1i ax.:1419 5 7-310 3 I enjoyed speaking with you recently with respect to yaur proposed 150-room upscale hotel to be built in Aspen, Colorado. In accordance with. our conversation, enclosed please find a preliminary staffing guide which we feel may be appropriate far the proposed project given the site and scope of the facility and the relative market positioning. I look forward to exploring ways in which our companies can work together on this exciting project and in the interim if I can provide you with. any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~."~z_.------ ... ~mes M. Erlacher JE:maf Enclosure ,^~ Apr-12-99 11:03A Savanah Ltd. ":~„ HOTEL STAFFING ~ 50 -ROOM 3 Y:Star Hotel General Manager Assistant Manager Secretary Controller Accounting Clerk Subtotal Front Office Manager Executive Housekeeper Night Auditor Reservation Clerks Bell Captain. Hellman Room Clerks Houseman Housekeepers Laundry Subtotal MARKETING Director of Sales Sales .Staff Secretary Subtotal ENGINEERING Chief Engineer Staff Engineer Subtotal TOTAL HOTEL 97Q9254387 1 1 t 1 6 1 1 2 2 1 6 7 2 9 33 1 2 1 4 1 4 47 4.31 employees per emit P.03 •-•, F Apr-12-99 11:03A Savanah Ltd_ 909254387 P.04 ~.~,.,, RESTAURANT STAFFING 4 Star Restaurant RESTAURANT Restaurant Area 2,750 square feet Area per Seat 25 square feet Number of Seats 110 Number of Seatsl5erver 20 Number of Servers(Shift 6 Number of ShiftsfDay 11 Number of Shifls!'UVeek 77 Number of Servers Needed Subtotal 15 SAR g~ pia 840 square feet Number of ShiftslDay 2 Number of Bartenders 2 Number of Bar Servers ? Subtotal 4 KITCHEN Executive Chef 1 Sous Ghef 1 Lead Ghef 1 PantrylPrep 3 Line Coak 4 Expeditor ~- Subtatal 11 ADNIINISTRATIVE Manager 1 Assistant Manager 1 Hostess/Cashier 3 PurehaserlRecei~ingfF&B Audit 1 Subtotal ~ TOTAL RESTAURANT 3b ENGv pG o~ Ps,~er ~er~ G~ ~\pe'Pac~ e • DeJe\o'P~ Pgercy ovr,~a~r o~r~r~r~~ ~~~ars~ ray. Ps,~er e vr`\'e,~rpt O ~aas'G a~`rg~o \,o\s3 a QCs °{ ~r~ e nos cede ,~ tre, e~ ~`,~cr J`5 ~o vp~, Pa ~~ eau ~ « ear `A 0• ~eOa ~O IP~Q ~~a~s`~ a s ~ e ~aa e d~oc °° ~ 't o~.~, ~~g9 ~a~rQ ess <reo,~,N,~o Q ire e grey ,~re~e Ft a'~e• 032 er~o~r \~! ~° a\. c°rs`~ s °r\°~~ e~~s Cea`~5 e e,~p\°, O psP °,~°~ ,der e ur S\e'c~` ~° c~~o c ,gyres .ire ~,te• a opp eye\o'P,~ \od uota SecArs\N'\o'~3 • „ 5~~~~aH ' s ~ tr ~ d rah r'~ °` ~~a\~ d~c~°~ ees• .r-~\\ \oy~ , - K yov {°toQ°s d~ea a~e'~e es`ae ~e~a\e t,~~p\oy ac's e'~`'P oyee~ .~rar -ire p erur ~rar Nre `oe ge red a s~~ ~~p re e et~p\o \o Qv0 • and or ~o~r ~r`,~' ea~o „re'~ star re ,gyres ec~ \0'~3 ire 9 a`r`r9assu~ ~a<e ~ s, '~r rr~~O~ eer °~c t `r a~ ~~o~ s ~e~ „ aye ere ~~~o ,N,~e F~~ ous~rg a~ ar ,~\°~ Pv~ ees ~° 9 r't \° ovse o ees \e N ~'aJ e e~` F e~,~\oy s~`~a\. d\,~e~e ,~° ~ e,~rp\ ~o~aa a re•N e,N~e\,~rey \~J 5 \s e ~ \r ores ~°~ 6. \rr P °,~ ~r ~roda s`r~ ea~J \.°e rouar p~ ~ us` ~a~a~~ae ~<rpa~ accAo ~o ~ero~'s Saga ~~~ a~,~sG``~es aro~eo~~u,~e ~`\\ r°~ ~e'P ors de o~ ~o c \oye r 2, Ma ~~°r, eed ~r~~e ada ro'~ r eye\y °~ a~~~a~~r9 -~a ~ Qa9e~ RECEI`~~;r ~~n 1~spen onsolidated sanitation District MAR ~ ~ l~~Q Sy Kelly * Chairman John Kel'e~~~ aNiTV ~?~vr~ ~p~^FNT Paul Smith * Treas Fran Loushin Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mir March 18, 1999 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Mountain PUD Conceptual Dear Mitch: The existing development discussed in this application is currently served by the District. Collection and treatment capacity is currently available to serve the developrrient being proposed. Any downstream constraints that are identified will be eliminated through a system of additional proportionate fees. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. The hotel proposed for lot 5 will be required to include an oil and sand separator for the parking garage and an oil and grease interceptor for the kitchen. We will need to review and approve the plumbing details for the hotel's swimming pool. We will also need to review the detailed landscaping, drainage, and utility plans for this site once they become available. We will need to review and approve the detailed on-site utility plans for lot 3 where the free market residential units are being considered. Stub out fees will be charged if service is to be stubbed out to each individual lot. Minimal fees were paid in the past for the development that exists on each lot. Credit toward the total connection charges due for any new development is only given in the amount previously paid. The total connection charges for the project can be estimated once detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed at our office. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 /FAX (970) 925-2537 " ~""' ." MEMORANDUM . To: Mitch Haas,. CommunityDevelopment.Department • From: . " ~ Nancy MacKenzie ,Environmental Health-Specialist ~~ Date: November 30 1998 Re:: Aspen-Mountain PUD, LOTS 3 (TQp of Milp and 5 (Cr'and Aspen site): Conceptual PUD, GMQS Scoring and competition7Allocations, 5ubdivisi,on,.Rezorting, 8040 Greenline Review, Mountain View Plane Review, Special. Review; Code . Amendment, GMQS Exemption, and Vested Property Rights. _ Parcel ID # 27.37-182.85-003 & 005 The Aspen/pitkin Environmental Health, Department has reviewed the Aspen;Mountain Subdivision (Grand Aspen and Top of Mill). land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, anal has the following comments: ' SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1~.7 °it shall be unlawful.for the owner or occupant of any building-used for residence or business purposes within the city tp construct or reconstruct an on-site sewage disposal device." _ - The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated. Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project should be determined bytheRCSD. " _ The appYcant must provide documentation at the time of detailed. submission that the applicant and the service agEncy are mutually bound to the proposal anc! that the service agency is capable of serving the development. - ADEQUAtE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:Section 23-55 °AU buildings, structures, facilities., parks, or the tike within the city limits which use water shall be connected tp th'e municipaa-water Utilitysystem." The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen`system is consistent with; Environmental Health policies•ensuring the supply of safe water. The City. o~Aspen Water DepaY'tm"ent shall ~ " determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen water'supply meets ali standards of the Colorado Department of Health for~drinking water quality. . A ietter of agreement to serve the project must be provided.at the•time of detailed submission. 1 . ~ ~~ WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11=1:3 . °For the purpose~of maintaining. and protecting its municipal water _ supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisoryjurisdiction within the incorporated . limits of the City of Aspen and over all stream§.and sources,contributing to municipal water supplies fora distance of five (5) miles above the points from which: municipal water supplies. are diverted:'` A dCainage plan to mitigate ~th~e water,quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer. AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It'is the purpose of (the air quality section of the Municipal Codei to achieve the maximum praC>iical degree: of air purity possible by requiring the use of all:availablepractieal methods and techniques to. cohtrol, prevent and reduce air pollution. throughout the city:.." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion° and "avoid. transportation demands that cahnotbe met" as vueil as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural: air sheds aqd reducing pollutants". . The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. PM-1D (83% of which comes from trafficdriving on paved,roads) is a significant,health concern .in . Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that-are health concerns. Th.e municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant needs to implement measures that,will minimize traffic increases of the:development; oroffset the emissions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere. In order to do this, the applicant will .need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project (using standard ITE trip generation rates), committo a set of control measures;`and show thatthe control measures. offset the traffic or.PM10 prod~uced~by the project. Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and .reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of ` Transportation Engineers:Trip Generation Report, Fifth edition. Housing units use tf~e trip generation rate for ITE Land. Use code 210; which is 0.55 trips per.day per unit: Hotel and' lodging .units use the ITE trap generation rate for Land-Use Code 310, Hotel/Occupied Room'which is 8.6 trips per day per tourist'room. Trip reductions are allowed for Lots 3 and 5 because they are conveniently located to the Rubey ,~ . . Park. transit'stop, the commerciahshopping core, and Aspen Mt. ski lifts. Free=Market units located within one half mile of a transitstop are allowed a reduction~of 1.5~trips . per day. Affordable Housing units are allowed a reduction of 2.0 trips perday. Ali Un-its are within 1/2 mile of support services (grocery stores, cleaners; retail shops, etc.) and are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trigs per day.- Projects which guarantee employee housing within one half mile of the work site, such. as the 8 employee units in the lodge, can also use a reduction of 2.0 trips_per day. If this reduction is used; any transit reduction used cannot exceed 1:0 trip per day. The standard trip reductions for a hotel are the same as for free market dwellings. The classification ~ ~ . Hotel in the tTE includes the accessory uses in a hotel: restaurant, bar, meeting rooms, accessory shops; Hotels whjch emphasize not~bringing a vehicle to the site by providing hotel transit service can reduce the overall trip generation by using the number of parking spaces as the rate~factor rather than the number of rooms.~For example a 150 room hotel uvith 106 guest parking spaces _ 2 G 3 could apply fora 30 per cent reduction. before using any of the standard reductions. This. reduction ~factor.would probably not apply if the underground-.parking became open to >~he public: At this time the underground parking is limited to guests. if this changes~and if'the parKing is open, ed to the public, this.'would be a traffic incentive ,and the impact on air quality would- have to be mitigated. The applicant is planningon more than the required number of parking spaces for the six, 4- -. bedroom townhouse units which are proposed on Parcel 1,~ which would be 4 spaces, not 2; per dwelling: Increasing the number of parking spaces would- act as a traffic disincentive and would have to be mitigated. The applicant has discussed~using geothermal:streetmelting, thisand.other methods that would. not use sand could give them PM-10 credit. Others possible methods of mitigating PM-10 are ,providing lodge shuttle buses,, pr to potential guest5that cars/rental cars.are not needed, a reduction in rent for tenants without`automobiles, providing bicycles, .and less parking spaces for ' the lodge ahd dwelling units... It may be possible to get credit for: (11-the trips generatoq by the existing duplex and Aspen Ski club. building on Lot 3 and (2)the removal of 9 on-street parking spaces which will be replaced with a pedestrian. way. - A traffic analysis being~done bynTDA which revises the one from the. previous application has, not been received~bY this department as of this date for'review. , Increase in PM-10 from the developme.ntwas based on the assumptioh thatLOt 3 (Top of Mill) would contain 13 free market dwelling units and 4 affordable housing units, and that Lot 5 would contain 106 parking spaces (for. the 150 unit lodge) and 8 employee dwelling units. We .determined that the development. on dots ~ and 5 will generate 743 trips per day . which is the equivalent of 104 Ib. of PM-10.'A condition of.approval should be that'the applicant provide a PM10 ,mitigation plan for approval from the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department, which documents that measures are sufficient to offset increases _in PNMo caused by the project. This plan should be approved prior to detailed submission. ~ . FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The appiicant'must file's fireplace/woodstove permit with~the Environmental Health pepartment before the building~permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves cor 1 of each). and . unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes, rrjay NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel FUGITIVEbIJST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes; but is not limited to - fencing, watering: of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning. of.adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown-dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Dust control will be crucial due to the. closeness of existing .homes to the site. ASBESTOS Commercial - Prior to`remodel, expansion. or demolition of.any puplic or-commercial building, including removal of`drywall, ryarpet, tile, etc., the state-must be.notified and a person .:.Licensed bythe state to do asbestos:inspections must do an inspection: Environmental Health cannot sign any building. permits :until we get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. if asbestosis present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos removal contractor. UNDEREROUND PARKING. The applicant must consult with an engineering firm about the design of the undergroland parKing structure ventilation 'system to ensure that ventilation. is adequate to prevent"carbon monoxide.from reaching high levels inside the facility or in the nearby areas outside it: An engineer who specializes in-design of heatiing and ventilation systems .must certify:. that the proposed design- will prevent excessive IeVels.,of .carbon monoxide from colnc~ntrating inside the stlriucture and iln (nearby areas and buildings. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEAtTH LAWS: _ NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 °rhe'city council finds and declares that noise is;a significant source of • environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the, health; safety and welfare of the residents of the City ofi-Aspen and it its visitors..::..Accordingly; it is the poll-cy:of council to provide sta>ldards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels:,,: During construction, noise can notexceed maximum permiss~b.le sound level standards, and construction Cannot be done except .between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. It is very likely that noise ge"Inerated during the construction phase of this project will have. some (negative impact oln the neighborhood: The applicant, should: be aware of this and take measures. to minimize the predicted high noise levels.,. POOLS AND SPAS. _ ' ' ..All .design, installation and. maintenance. must comply: with."Swimming. PooF and Mineral Bath . , .- Regulations, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, adopted'August 15,.1993.",A copy can be obtained from our office. ~ . For public and semi-public pools such as a lodge pool,~a conditioln of approval is that at least - 30 days prior to issluance of~ a building permits the plans and specifications complete with piping layout, equipment: and meChanicaF specifications along grith, design calculations, shall be submitteid for review and approval by this department. -FOOD SERVICE .FACILITIES . - . A review of plans and specifications by this department is required by Section ~0-401 of the. Rules - and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments` in the State of Cotorado~. ' The Department shall be colnsulted before preparation of plans and spec~f~cations.: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation bistrict'must be.contacted for their recommendation on the plroper size of.:the grease trap. Restaluralnt glrills are regulated by the City of Aspen and the applicant should contact this Department to be sure that if a grill is planned, that it is in compliance with City code.: . • 4 TO: Mitch Haas, Planner FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director DATE: March 25, 1999 RE: Aspen Mountain PUD, Lots 3 and 5: Conceptual PUD (and Subdivision, GMQS Scoring and Competition, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline Review, Mountain Viewplane Review, Special Review, Code Amendment, GMQS Exemption, and Vested Property Rights). CC: Engineering Department John Krueger, Trails Supervisor We have reviewed the application submitted by Savannah Limited Partnership and offer the following comments: Lot 3, Top of Mill Trails: The application states that Savanah proposes to vacate the previously dedicated trail easement, known as the Top of Mill Trail (page 57). The Parks Department has conveyed to the applicants on several occasions that this is NOT acceptable and there is no logical reason for the City to accept the vacation as proposed. This is an existing platted easement and is currently valid even though the easement states that it cannot be constructed until connecting easements are acquired. The proposal for Lot 3 shows a building on top of the easement (Parcel 1, the southern-most triplex building). If the applicants agree to relocate and re-plat the easement, then this building layout for Lot 3 may be acceptable. It appears as though there may be an opportunity to relocate a trail between Parcels 1 & 8, then cut across the open space parcel `A,' and finally, the trail could then cross the street and follow the construction and utility easement between Parcels 2 & 3. If the trail is relocated, the applicants will be required to grade an 8-10 foot platform for the trail, and no planting of vegetation would be permitted within the easement. Additionally, a rough graded trail needs to have proper drainage and any necessary retaining structures. If the applicants do not agree to relocate the trail, then we strongly recommend the Conceptual PUD be denied based on the fact that a building is shown on top of an existing trail easement. Throughout the years, Council has directed staff to maintain existing trail easements and to ensure their viability for future development needs. The application states that Savanah will agree to work with the City and the Aspen Skiing Company to relocate the trail to Ski Company Property on one of the existing access roads Parks - 1 ~^ ",~ ,. above Lot 3. The City has already received permission from the Ski Company for the upper trail and the Ski Company has constructed the trail on the upper hillside so there is no need for Savanah's assistance with that trail alignment. Staff believes that the upper trail serves for recreational uses such as Nordic Skiing and summer hiking and biking. The Top of Mill Trail, on the other hand, serves a different function that is more commuter oriented for both summer and winter. In the winter, the Top of Mill Trail .can be used by the residents of the area for ski lift access to the Lift One Chair. In the summer, the Top of Mill Trail can be used for people wanting to access the upper Ski Company Trail/Shadow Mountain Trail. Additionally, there is an existing trail to the east that the Top of Mill Trail may be able to connect to in the future. Although the slope to the east is steep, its not impossible to provide a connection in the future. The City would like to work with Savanah to relocate the trail. Any agreed upon alignment of a relocated trail, however, needs to be staked and approved by the Parks Department. A relocated trail needs to include a legal description and be shown on the final amended plat. Sidewalks: It appears as though there are sidewalks proposed only along the west side of Mill Street (Parcel 1), in front of the triplexes. The sidewalk appears to be an attached sidewalk, adjacent to the curb. Mill Street is exceptionally steep and fairly narrow, and it is important for pedestrians to have a safe place to walk. A separated/detached sidewalk should be constructed on both sides of Mill Street if feasible and extend around the cul-de-sac area on the side of the street with the houses. Along with the detached walk, appropriately spaced street trees should be planted between the sidewalk and the curb. On page 93, under section 11, Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation, there seems to be no mention of pedestrian circulation. Both sidewalks and the Top of Mill Trail are critical components of pedestrian circulation and should be required as part of this development. Trails and sidewalks provide enhanced pedestrian facilities conducive to and fostering walking, which in turn results in a decreased dependency on the automobile. Enhanced pedestrian facilities and decreased dependency on the automobile are both important criteria of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Landscaping and Vegetation: The conceptual landscape plans are adequate for review at this stage of the application process. For final submission, the application should address the impact to the existing grove of Aspen trees on Lot 3. Many of those trees were under code during an initial inspection of the trees in 1997, however, may be close to requiring mitigation now and when final development may occur. Also, no new vegetation will be allowed to be planted in the Top of Mill Trail easement. Parks-2 ^ • ~ ~,~, x ~,-,. Lot 5, Grand Aspen Site Trails: The Alpine Trail shown along the southern property boundary of Lot 5 has a jog in it on the Mill Street side of the easement. On the proposed development plans for Lot 5, the trail is shown as a straight shot on top of the .existing utility easement. The straight shot is acceptable, however, the easement needs to be realigned on the final plat to reflect the actual location of the trail. The applicants must ensure that the utility companies utilizing the utility easement find realigning the entire trail on top of the utility easement to be acceptable. Landscaping and Vegetation: The only comments on landscaping for Lot 5 focus on the trees shown around the pool. The difficulty with trees around pool areas involves the shedding of leaves from deciduous trees and needles from coniferous trees. When either of these are shed, they often times cause difficulties for pool maintenance and bare feet. Additionally, raised planters are difficult environments for trees to grow in. If the applicants desire trees in this area they may want to consider a few Aspen trees or Crabapple trees; otherwise, some nice shrubs may be a preferred alternative. Since the pool is on the second level, the street trees shown around the pergola may not be necessary either, since they will not be at grade with the street. comdev/99/amtnpud.doc Parks-3 ~ ~ ~ ~, MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer C~ Date: Apri15, 1999 Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision -- Conceptual P.U.D. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their March 17, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments: General - If the proposed site plan is modified from the one presented in the application, as discussed in the DRC meeting, the Engineering Department should review the new site plan to verify that these comments are still pertinent to the development and to review the proposed design. No additional information is necessary at this time, although if the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Department for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs. 1. Parking -The project provides sufficient vehicle parking spaces to meet Code requirements. The ice rink parking is discussed on page 47 of the application. The relocation proposal is acceptable to the Engineering Department. 2. Traffic Study -There is no address or telephone number on the report to be able to verify any of the data or the credentials of the preparer. For the final submission, a traffic study needs to be provided that is sealed and stamped by a traffic engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado. The revised report needs to assess impacts per Pitkin County trip generation standards. The report "as is" predicts a net increase of 18 trips, which seem to be underestimated. 3. Site Development Plan -There is incorrect nomenclature that needs to be revised for the final submission. The private. road and cul de sac on Lot 3 are access easements, not "R.O.W." or "R.O.W. Easement." `. ~'' <. 4. Site Drainage -The post-development storm runoff requirements have already been met except as noted on page 103. It should be a condition of approval for the hotel that a detention structure with a delayed release be required. The final plat should include a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan, identified as Best Management Practices, for the construction phase. These and a report must be signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage plan must be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer prior to signing the final plat. 5. Sidewalk. Curb & Gutter - As a PUD requirement, the applicant should be required to construct sidewalk along the private road. On page 102 of the application, it is stated that sidewalk will be constructed along S. Mill Street adjacent to Lot 3 as well as curb and gutter on both sides of S. Mill Street. The sidewalk on S. Galena along Lot 5 should be reconstructed at the property line with a 5' buffer and snow storage space between the sidewalk and the curb. The trees in the landscaping plan that are indicated on the property line could be located in the buffer space, pending the approval of the Parks Department. 6. Street Lights -The existing conditions and existing utilities maps need to be revised to show existing street lights. Street light space requirements are 150 feet. 7. Trash & Utilities -All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of--way. For pedestals and transformers, easements must be provided and should be indicated on the final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. Any units that may be condominiumized must have separate utility service connections and meters. The applicant indicated that existing overhead utilities along the southwesterly property will be undergrounded in conjunction with the proposed development. This is consistent with other developments in the City. 8. Demolition Permit -The applicant will be seeking a demolition permit in the fall. Asbestos testing should be performed prior to seeking the demolition permit. A dust control permit will be required. Haul routes must be identified. All loads must be covered. No tracking of mud and dirt onto City streets is permitted. 9. Fire Marshal - As represented in the submitted application (page 102), the fire marshal requests a condition of approval requiring that "all development will be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems." 10. City Water Department -When the application was first submitted, there were redundancies in the design. If the project proceeds, the applicant's consulting engineer will have to meet with the City Water Director for design approvals. Some of the highest lots in the proposed residential area may need to have water and hydrant systems pressurized. The Water Department will not maintain any pumps. 2 a r r 11. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District -There are downstream constraints which will be addressed by impact fees. The existing taps are so old that the fee credits will be small. 12. Parks Department -The application has not met the trail easement requirements. There may be a site visit with City Council. There are trees on Lot 3 which were not replacement size at the original time of the application which may now meet replacement size requirements. 13. Snow Storage -The applicant needs to designate snow storage areas on the final PUD site plan. 14. Improvement Districts -The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of- way and to provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building inspection. 15. Work in the Public Right-of-way -Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of--way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes ,street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of- way from the city community development department. DRC Meeting Attendees Staff: Phil Overeynder, Nick Adeh, Ed Van Walraven, Rebecca Schickling, John Krueger, Mitch Haas, Cindy Christensen, Stephanie Levesque, Russell Grance, Tom Bracewell, Lee Cassin, Chuck Roth Applicant's representatives: Sunny Vann 99M35 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM RE: DATE: Mitch Haas Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer ,, ~, Aspen Mountain PUD, Lots 3 and 5, Conceptual PUD May 31, 1999 A. Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site): Lot 5 is located within the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR). The parcel contains 86,610 square feet, of which 13,540 square feet lies within vacated Dean Street, leaving a net lot area of 73,070 square feet. The hotel structure is subject to the following L/TR dimensional requirementis: Setbacks: Front yard 10 feet Side yard 5 feet Rear yard 10 feet On a corner lot the owner may choose which yard is to be considered the front yard. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third of the required front yard setback. The proposal meets or exceeds the setback requirements. External Floor Area Ratio: The external floor area ratio allowed by the zone district is 1:1 (or 73,070 square feet), however the allowed floor area for Lot 5 was established by the Aspen Mountain Amended PUD/Subdivision agreement at 115,000 square feet. The proposal appears to comply with the established floor area, but will have to be verified at time of building permit application. Internal Floor Area Ratio: Lodge rental space: .5:1 (based on the permitted floor area of 115,000 square feet this will equa157,500 square feet), which may be increased to .75:1 (86,250 square feet) provided that one-third of the additional floor area (8625 square feet) is restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. The current proposal indicates that 65,940 square feet of rental space will be provided, requiring that 2532 square feet be restricted to affordable housing. The applicant will be providing 5000, exceeding the rental space requirements. Lodge, non-unit space: minimum of .25:1 (28,750 square feet). The proposed non-unit space of 35,840 square feet exceeds the minimum required. Lot area: Lodge rooms in the L/TR zone district are not subject to a minimum lot area requirement. However, Section 26.40.050 of the Land Use Code requires that whenever kitchens are installed in a lodge in the L/TR zone district, that unit shall be deemed amulti-family unit and the lodge shall be required to satisfy the minimum lot area requirements fora multi- family dwelling unit. Multi-family dwellings require one thousand square feet of lot area per bedroom. The proposal includes four studio and four 1 bedroom affordable housing units, requiring 8,000 square feet of lot area. If kitchens are added to any of the lodge units, an evaluation of lot area will be required. However, the current proposal complies with the lot area requirements. Open Space: A minimum of 25% of lot area must be provided as open space. Lot 5 is required to provide 18,267 square feet of open space. The 1993 Section M Amendment to the PUD allowed for Lot 5 to utilize Lot 6 for purposes of calculating open space. In addition the 1993 Amendment allowed for areas in excess of two feet below the existing grades of the streets on Lot 6 to be utilized as open space. Lot 6 contains approximately 25,000 square feet of open space, while Lot 5 contains approximately 22,000 square feet of open space. The proposal therefore substantially exceeds the minimum open space requirements. Parking requirements: Lodge units require .7 spaces/bedroom. 1501odge units will require 105 parking spaces, which the proposed plan appears to comply with. The parking spaces for the affordable housing units will need to be established through a Special Review process. Height: The maximum height limit in the L/TR zone district is 28 feet. The applicant is proposing a maximum building height of 47 feet, requiring a PUD height variance of 19 feet. ~°~~, B. Lot 3 (Top of Mill Site): The applicant is proposing to re-zone Lot 3 to L/TR and to subdivide the parcel into eight development parcels and two open space parcels. The two open space parcels will be rezoned to Conservation, C. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance from the permitted uses within the L/TR zone district where detached residential or duplex dwellings may only be developed on lots on lots of 6,000 square feet or less. However, as this is a variance from a permitted use, and not from a dimensional requirement, it does not appear that this is a requirement that can be varied through the PUD process. Dimensional requirements: The applicant is basing the allowed floor area for the eight development parcels on the current net lot area of Lot 3 (97,630 square feet). Staff feels that it may be more appropriate to calculate the permitted floor area, allowed density and required open space based on the net lot area of each subdivided parcel. Further information, including a slope analysis for each subdivided parcel, will need to be provided by the applicant before an accurate determination of allowed floor area can be made. Based on individual lot sizes vs. the total size of Lot 3, the proposed floor areas for the duplex and single family dwellings are well in excess of the permitted floor areas for parcels of equal size in the L/TR zone district, and would possibly be even further in excess once slope reduction was evaluated. For example,. the proposed floor area for Parcel 4 is 6,200 square feet on a 13,290 square foot lot. However, the allowed floor area for a single family residence on that size lot in the L/TR zone district would be 3,917 square feet, less any applicable slope reductions. The proposal appears to comply with the L/TR setback and height requirements, but will have to be re-verified at time of building permit application. Impact fees: The residential structures will be subject to a Park Development Impact Fee, based on the creation of new bedrooms. In addition, the subdivision will be assessed a School Land Dedication based on the proposed unit configuration. ,~..:. ,~ ,, Report on Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development (PUD Lot #3, known as ~~Top Of Mill's (May 28, 1999) This report was prepared to assist the Community Development Department Planners, members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the applicant to gain an understanding of the specific issues concerning Lot-3 and the need for mitigating potentials for soil erosions and control of sediment and debris flows. The Engineering Department is preparing its final phase of the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin Master Plan (AMDBMP) and mitigating criteria that will assist in identify potential hazards resulting from the Aspen Mountain basin runoff and its impact on downstream developments situated within the naturally developed flow patterns. I think the topics outlined in this report can answer many questions the readers may have during the review of the subject development. Impacts of Storm RunofF on Building Masses and Existing Developments Buildings, walls or solid structures above ground will perform as blockage in the drainage flow ways and will result in flood rise and alteration of flow patterns that may impact adjacent and especially downstream properties and developments. In this case our goal is to develop a reasonable mitigation criteria defined in relative terms, that can acceptably minimize and mitigate the potential hazards resulting from development of any parcel of land within the drainage basin. Typical developments include building masses having walls of varying heights and impermeable surfaces such as roofs, paved streets, sidewalks and driveways. Drainage criteria based on these parameters and the statistical snowmelt and rainfalls will provide necessary design and construction guidelines applicable to the Aspen area.- This practice can prevent damages resulting from surface runoff, whether from snow melt or rainfall or a combination of rain on snow for a given return frequency. The final phase of the AMDBMP report and drainage criteria is scheduled for completion in the fall. Aspen Mountain Subdivision Criteria In the previous submittals and public hearings for development of Lot-3, the Planing & Zoning Commission set certain conditions that will protect the proposed development and adjacent and downstream properties including the City's infrastructure from flood and debris flow damages. Those conditions included the following design and construction requirements: Proposed building mass and related impermeable surface layout, if approved by the City P&Z, will closely conform with the final outcome of the above mentioned AMDBMP design and construction criteria. It shall be the developer's or its successor's responsibility to fully comply with the drainage criteria and perform within the parameters set forth in the report. ~°'~ ~~~~ Aspen Mountain PUD Page Two 2. Savanah Limited Partnership's (owner/developer) representative agreed to provide necessary drainage easements and shall continue to provide these easements for safe conveyance of surface runoff and debris through the site. 3. The developer's representative will make necessary adjustments to building footprints to ensure that the above mentioned requirements are met. 4. The City will use the funds put in escrow to study and develop a master plan design and construction criteria and utilize the balance of these funds to implement an interim drainage mitigation project to control runoff only to the extent the remaining escrow funds will support. We also believe that these conditions must be binding upon all future development and re-development applications within similar areas. Proposed Site Plan The proposed development densities maybe accommodated if all potential drainage and debris or mudflow hazards are mitigated. It is our belief that under no circumstances, the path of least resistance to these natural flows shall be restricted but instead, they shall be accommodated and conveyed through the site. This means the site layout must be such that in no way will it pose a significant blockage in the natural stream bed or drainage path. PUD Criteria The proposed development will have to be designed in accordance with the AMDBMP design and construction criteria currently under development in order to promote relatively safe and long term human habitat. The intent of development criteria is to promote public safety, health and welfare for the owners and occupants. Applicable Drainage Standards This development must comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The existing site must be carefully studied and evaluated to ensure a proper design and correct selection of BMP(s). ZOntn4 The impact of this development on transit corridors and the cause for deterioration of road pavement is defined in terms of the number of trips generated from the vehicles frequenting a building in a period of time. An analysis must be performed by the applicant's traffic engineer to identify and quantify the traffic impacts resulting from this development and determine the degradation in level of service and the ~~ ~.~ Aspen Mountain PUD Page Three infrastructure. Initial studies and analysis of the existing utility infrastructure systems were performed for the previous submittal and it was determined that the water distribution and wastewater collection lines can handle the proposed development needs. We are uncertain what densities the new submittal would have and therefore, additional studies must be performed and a new report must be submitted by the applicant to determine the adequacy of the existing system capacities. Conclusion Promoting environmentally sustainable developments in Aspen must be given a high priority. In our opinion, property developments at the bottom of a slope where it meets a relatively flatter plain are generally subject to potential hazards. These hazards become more serious when evidences of property damage in the surrounding areas have been observed. Examples of these observations include the mudslide at the Aspen Music School and localized landslide/caving events on the slope directly southwest of the proposed development location and west of Aspen Street. We believe developments with moderate densities can be implemented with adequate mitigation for the above mentioned potential hazards. Nick Adeh, City Engineer AspenMountPUD-9901 ~wr' ,.~~ . , 'W MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Office Manager DATE: June 4, 1999 RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD,3 ots 3 (Top of Mill) & 5 (Grand Aspen site) Parcel ID No. 2737-782 85 001/00 licant is requesting a conceptual planned unit development approval for the ISSUE: The app development of 13 free market residential dwellinana lement quota system allocationesubdiv lion The applicant is also requesting a lodge growth m g approval, a rezoning, special review, a text amendmens, and the typ s of unps beinghproposed for concern staff revolve around the mitigation calculation , affordable housing and for the mitigation requireme of Mist The secondesection will deal with'Lot two sections. The first section deals with Lot 3, Top 5, the Grand Aspen site. The recommendations for each are stated under each section. SE TION 1 LOT 3 TOP OF MILL The original PUD Agreement contained no requireme ement was appro~ edt Ordnance 1 and thel project was still undergoing review at the time the Agre licant states that the Housing and Replacement Progra ed on Lot 3 areeexempt fromethe growth management quota 13 free market units to be develop s stem as they were derived from the PUD's remainingr~39 must comply with tOrdinance 1i and the Y City and Staff, however, have interpreted that the app Housing Replacement Program. There were ? 5 m those Ibedroormsmor 12.5 bedrooms'sh The Therefore, the applicant must mitigate for 50 /o of Housing Replacement Program also stipulates that 501t to calcu ate as there was not ~ecogd of the also be replaced. The square footage was more dlrffalnt has proposed using the minimum square square footage that waand 2 as stated nhthe Guidelines. The applicant states that the following footage for Category type of units were demolished: Min. Sq. Ft. Stated A~~ Tvo~Unit ~^ r-~~delines 400 Sq. Ft./Unit 4,800 12 Studio units @ Ft./Unit 6,600 11 1-Bedroom Units @ 600 Sq. 850 1 2-Bedroom Unit @ 850 Sq. Ft./Unit 12,250 " - ~ The applicant is proposing a replacement of 13 bedrooms, to contain approximately 6,200 square feet. The free market units are proposed as follows: 6 4-bedroom townhomes 1 4-Bedroom Duplex 5 5-bedroom Single-family homes (also to contain accessory dwelling units) The deed restricted units are to consist of: 2 Duplexes - 3 3-bedrooms and 1 4-bedroom 1 three-bedroom Category 2 2 three-bedrooms Category 3 1 four-bedroom Category 4 This calculates to 13 free market units and 4 deed restricted units consisting of 57 bedrooms for the free market and 13 deed restricted bedrooms (22% of the bedrooms are deed restricted). However, if the proposal is accepted using the minimum square footage from the Guidelines, than the applicant has fulfilled its obligation by providing 13 bedrooms at approximately 6,200 square feet. The applicant proposes that all four deed restricted units will be sold pursuant to applicable APCHA Guidelines. The sales for the units shall be established under the Guidelines that are in effect at the time of Final PUD Approval. The six accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted pursuant to applicable regulations in effect at the time of issuance of building permits for their associated free market residence. Currently, the accessory dwelling unit policy is being reviewed. Should this policy change, any units that have not received prior building permit approval will be under the new accessory dwelling unit restrictions. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board discussed the residential component on May 5, 1999, and recommended approval of the applicant's proposal for Lot 3 with the following conditions: Floor plans of the deed restricted units shall be reviewed and approved by Housing Office Staff. 2. The units shall be deed restricted prior to building permit approval with the deed restriction provided by the Housing Office. 3. All deed restricted units shall be sold by the Housing Office under the general lottery system. 4. All accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted according to the Land Use Code in effect at the time of building permit approval. 5. Site visits by the Housing Office staff shall be done on all deed restricted units prior to approval of Certificate of Occupancy. 2 ~rr~ SECTION 2 -LOT 5, GRAND ASPEN SITE Lot 5 /Hotel Mitigation: The previous application for Lot 5 was to consist of a hotel with 24 rooms and 37 residential units. The applicant is now proposing to rebuild a 150-room hotel on Lot 5. The applicant has proposed net new employment on the basis of staffing recommendations from several hotel operators. The calculations are as follows: Hotel Operations New Hotel Bedrooms 150 Employees Generated @ .31 per bedroom 46.5 Existing Hotel Bedrooms 150 Employees Credit @ .28 per bedroom 42.0 Net Employees Generated 4.5 Accessory Food and Beverage New Food and Beverage (square feet) 5,950 Employees Generated @ 6 per 1,000 square feet 35.7 Existing Food and Beverage 5,430 Employee Credit @ 1.06 per 1,000 square feet 5.8 Net New Employees Generated 29.9 Grand Aspen Replacement Housing 6.5 Total Net New Employees Hotel 4.5 Food and Beverage 29.9 Replacement 40.9 Based on the above figures, which use the applicant's projections of employment, the applicant would have an obligation to house 41 employees. The applicant is also proposing to house only 12 employees on site, with the rest being housed off-site. The priority of the Housing Board is to first provide housing on-site. The deed restricted units proposed on-site for the hotel are to consist of 4 studio units and 4 1-bedroom units, which are acceptable to staff. The applicant has not shown any reasoning for not providing more on-site housing, however, due to previous agreements with the applicant, the applicant is not required to provide on-site housing. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the additional employees by using the Bavarian Inn. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board discussed the employee generation and housing issues related to the Aspen Mountain PUD on May 5, May 19 and June 2, 1999. Staff recommended to the Board that the 3 affordable housing assessment be based on the language of the Amended and Restated PUD Agreement. The agreement states the following in relation to Lot 5: "As an inducement to the City to approve the amendments fo the Aspen Mountain P.U.D./Subdivision contemplated herein, owner has agreed to and does hereby acknowledge its potential obligation to provide off-site employee housing for net new employees and other employee housing requirements as may be determined during the amended approval process for the Lot 5 component of the project." Staff and the Board recommend approval based on the understanding that the applicant has agreed to an obligation to provide housing for the new net number of employees generated by the proposal. That number is based on the total employment generated by the new hotel, minus the employment attributable to the existing hotel, which is stated in the table above. Staff and the Board recommend approval with the following conditions: PENALTY: The numbers provided by the applicant will be accepted subject to an audit system, with a provision for additional housing if actual employment exceeds projected employment. In order to ensure that the applicant provides carefully considered projections, Staff and Board are also recommending a penalty if actual employment exceeds projected employment by more than 10%. In order to assure the community that adequate housing is provided for actual net new employees, Staff and the Board recommend a periodic audit of actual employment at the proposed hotel. The recommendation is as follows: a. An audit of the first two years of operation conducted immediately after the second year of operations. b. An audit of the sixth year of operation, conducted after the end of that sixth year. c. An audit conducted of any year between the second and sixth year (random audit). d. An audit conducted after the end of any year during which any rating of the hotel is increased (e.g., if the hotel has afour-star rating that changes to a five-star rating). In order to ensure that the applicant's projections of employment are carefully considered by the applicant, Staff and the Board are recommending imposing a penalty provision on the applicant. If the actual full-time equivalent employment exceeds projected employment by more than 10%, the applicant shall provide housing for the additional employees PLUS an additional amount equal to the percentage that actual employment exceeds projected employment. For example: ~ `~' Projected FTE's 34.4 Actual FTE's 39.0 Excess Employment 4.6 Excess Employment Percentage 13% Over 10% 3% Additional Housing For additional employees 4.6 Penalty (13% of 4.6) ~ TOTAL 5.2 Therefore, the applicant would have to provide housing for an additional 5.2 FTE's. 2. AUDIT: The auditor shall be selected by the Housing Office, but the audit shall be paid by the applicant. There shall also be in place an obligation by this applicant and/or any future owner of the hotel to cooperate and comply with the audits to provide any additional employee housing if required. 3. EMPLOYEE GENERATED LIST OF JOBS: In order to fully identify employees of the applicant, the applicant shall provide an employee generated list of jobs to ensure that all jobs related to the running of the hotel are included. This list could also include subcontractors. 4. CREDIT: The Board recommends denying providing a credit to the applicant if the net new employees generated is less than proposed. It would be hard to identify at what point in time of the audits this would apply. Also, due to the fact that Staff and the Board are relying on an accurate projection of net new employees by the applicant, a credit should not be allowed. 5. BAVARIAN INN: The Bavarian Inn was proposed by the applicant in the 1990 ballot language as an additional benefit unrelated to any mitigation in Phase 1 or Phase 2. The Bavarian Inn was an additional affordable housing inducement to the voters to pass the Amended Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. The ballot language was approved, which stated that the affordable housing project must be built whether anything was done in Phase 2 or not. The Bavarian Inn was not appropriate to use for growth on Phase 2. There was nothing found in the record regarding the use of the Bavarian Inn for future mitigation, therefore, the Bavarian should not be used for any employee mitigation. The Board and Staff agreed that the Bavarian Inn is part of a long overdue obligation of Phase 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD and recommends denial of the use of the Bavarian Inn for any kind of mitigation. clc:h\word\referral\acsmp.mit 5 Jun-02-99 02:59P Sawan Ltd. 97D9254387 ~~~° P.02 5 15 South G~ Sc. ~~~~~ ~'~'~~ Aspen.t:a. $i611 7e1. 970.925272 ~~~~~~'~ Fax 97V-975-387 T4: AspenlPitlcin County Housing Board FRAM: JOHN G. SARP DATE: Juno 2, 1999 RE: Bavarian In History PAGES: 7, in~iu~ing this GC: Dave Toien Julie Ann 11~oods John Worcester Nabil Ayoubi Larry Green Sunny Vann Dear Members of the. Board, V~1e have been asked to comment an the Housirsg Staff recommendation to you that the Bavarian inri should not be available for housing mitigation in Connection with Savanah's development application far Lats 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The #ollnwing is an overview of our response and posi#ian on this matter. We would like to be begin by noting that this issue of whether the Bavarian Inn can be used as mitiga#ion for the PUD came as a complete and total surprise to Savanah. The issue was raised for the first-time at a Section IVl hearing in 199$ by a citizen. Prior to I99$, Savanah had clearly understood that the Bavarian inn housing would be available far use as employee housing mitigation for either Phase 1 (the Ritz-Carlton hater Qr Phase 44 {the Grand Aspen and Top of Mill sites) of the PUD. Jun-02-9'9 02:59P Savan Ltd. 9709254387 P.03 -.~ ~~~~ Therefore, we have gone back and carefully researched official minutes of many meetings since 19$9 including: the negotiations with City Council on the wording of the 1990 ballot and numerous Aspen 1l4ountain PUD Section M and noncompliance hearings. We also looked at the I99p campaign literature and other documents over the last nine years to help refresh our recollection of this critical issue. As indicated below in more detail, there is clear and consistent documentation over a number of years that both before the 1990 election and afterwards, the City and Savanah understood that the Bavarian Inn was not a part of the PUD, tha# any housing to be developed there was not required as mitigation far the Ritz-Carlton, and therefore housing at the Bavarian could be used as mitigation for any phase of the PUD. HISTORY aF BALLOT LANGUAGE: In 1988 the City approved Resolution 29 which amended the Aspen Mountain PUD, including the new Ritz-Carlton. In 19$9, as a result of a lavv suit filed against the City and Savanah, the resolution was rrsled invalid by the court and sent back to the City for further action. The Court said the City's action must be taken by prdinance and not by resolution_ Savanah and the City entered into extensive discussions about how such an ordinance might be approved. Gontrary to Savanah's request, the City Council decided not to simply adopt an ordinance themselves, but rather, to put the entire PUD amendment before the community in a referendum election. That election was held in February of 199b. The key meetings between the City and Savanah toa+s place in .December of 19$9 and January of ~99t?. As a result of the negotiations two questions were placed on the ballot, one stating Savanah's proposal and the other, the City's. During the debate of haw to ward the ballot in those hearings, several cri#icai points emerged tha# should be noted: 1. A11 references in both proposals in the ballot were to the "Amended Aspen Mountain PUD" and no# just to the Ritz-Carlton portions thereof. In other wards, the electorate was vv#ing on the entire PUR, not just the Ritz, Jun-02-99 03:OOP Savan,h Ltd. °L, ./ ~~~~ 9709254387 P_~4 ~..,~ 2. At no time did Savanah suggest, nor did the City require, that housing at the Bavarian would nQt be available for mitigation for ail the PUD. 3. Savanah made it very clear on a number of occasions that with the Bavarian Inn, it was not offering more employee housing as mitigation for the Ritz, but rather, something morA than what was in the PUb. In fac#, Savanah's attorney informed the City that if it wanted "more affordable housing [as mitigation], they should put it in their ballot question, 1nat the applicant's." The City did just that in the second part of its question where it states in relevant part "The applicant [Savanah] provide off•siite housing for 10~ additional employees,..." the City's question was defeated by the voters and thus, the issue of whether 4r not Savanah was required to provide additional employee housing mitigation for the Ritz, was resolved in Savanah's favor. This clear decision on the employee housing was acknowledged by the City Staff and Council in several hearings after the 1990 election as noted below. CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS: A number of comments have been made about the meaning of campaign statements made by Savanah representatives during the later part of 1989 and during the election of 1990 and their impact on the Bavarian Inn mitigation, issue. In reviewing all the materials vue could find, we found no statements whatsoever that indicated Savanah had committed to use any Bavarian Inn housing for only the Ritz-Carlton. As noted above, prior to the Gity deciding to send the entire PUD to a vote, there was debate between the Council and Savanah wfiether to merely adopt the new PU© through an ordinance ar to hold an election. In the context Of that debate, in December of 1989, Savanah suggested it would purchase the Bavarian Inn and if the Council approved the ordinance, it would "convert it to deed restricted housing". It is important #o note that the proposal made to Council in relation to the Bavarian Inn in exchange for the Council adopting the ordinance , was not the same as that contained in the ballot language and thus Jun-02-99 O3:00P Savan~,l~ Ltd. 9709254387 P.O5 ~..~ d p~~~ ~ presented to the voters. In the #ist instance, Savanah wanted to avoid an election and the risk it might Ioose_ Thus, it was willing to consider making the Bavarian lnn part of p-dinance 69 if need be, but only on the condition that the City Council adopt the new ordinance: Since the City refused to so adopt the ordinance, Savanah did not include the potential housing as mitigation in the PUD. Just the apposite occurred. When i# became clear in the City Council meetings that the election was going to happen, Savanah Baas careful ~in its negotiations with the City on the ballot language to make sure the Bavarian !nn offer was not new mitigation for the Ritz as nv#ed above. Rather, Savanah was committing to purchase the free market lodge and with the City's cooperation, convert it to employee housing with na restrictions on how such housing might be used. During the election, this approach of Savanah obligating itself to a goad faith application for affordable housing on the Bavarian Inn site was referred to often. For example, in one of its campaign brochures, Savanah stated that if the voters approved its ballot question uwe will process a land use application, and with council cooperation this land [Bavarian Inn3 could provide new housing...". Nothing in the. campaign restricted Savanah's ability to uSe the Bavarian housing as mitigation for any phase of the PUf}, SAVANAH'S GC3UD FAITH OBLIGATlaN T~} APPLY: A number of questions have been raised as to why Savanah did not apply earlier than 1998 for affordable housing at the Bavarian Inn. The answer is that for Savanah to determine its portion of the questions as to what would be "suitable" employee housing at the si#e, two things had to happen. First, the audit of the Ritz•Carlton (Phase I of the PUO) had to take place to determine if any #urther housing would be needed for that hotel. Second, Savanah needed to have some general idea of what Phase II (the Grand Aspen Hote! and Top Gf 1lllill sites) might generate by way of employee Mauling. The City clearly agreed with this time table as it applied to the Ritz as this was disdussed in a number of Sec#ion M amendment hearings. In Jun-02-99 03:OOP Savan~,~i Ltd. 9709254387 P.06 ~:.. p~~~ 5 1991 and 1992, sped#ic reference in those hearing was made by City staff to the fact that Savanah was waiting for the 1995 audit befiore proceeding with the application. That status assessment was accepted by Council in bath years and no further action was requested. Five other Section M amendment hearings were held after 1992 and up to 1998. The status of the Bavarian Inn was never raised as an outstanding issue as it was understood that it was not yet timely to expect an application. Savanah applied for the development of the Grant! Aspen Motel site and the Tap of Mill site in January of 1995. After, P8cZ conceptual review of that application and several City Council hearings, those applications were amended and resubmitted on September 15, 1998. It was not until that time that Savanah could make an educated guess as to what affordable housing from Phase II of the PUD might be necessary and #hus, a time table far the Bavarian Inn application was agreed to with the City. The application fior the Bavarian employee housing was thus, also submitted an September 15, 1998. SECTION M AIUD N~NCONlPLIANCE HEARINGS: Much has been said as to what was meant by the final ballot language and the various Savanah statements during the election. Certainly it was Savanah's understanding that v4e could use the Bavarian as mitigation far the entire PllD. We submit that the most instructive information on what the City understood about the Bavarian Inn as determined by the election to be various di$cussions of the election and the Inn that took place in a number of City Council hearings in 1991 and 1992 concerning the Aspen ~ulountain PUp. Specifically, starting in June of 1990 and continuing through 1992, Savanah went through a number of City Council hearings in which the Bavarian Inn was reviewed and deterrr~ined not to foe part of the PUU and thus, not germane to any PUD amendrr~ents or compliance issues. Indeed, from 1994 until 1998 there were seven Section M amendmen#s to the Aspen Mountain PUD. At any one of #hese hearings, the City could have attempted to include new conditions and requirements for the Bavarian lnn. That never happened since it v+as clearly understood that the Bavarian Jun-02-99 03:O1P Sawan Lttl. 9709254-383 P.07 ~~ ~~,~ ~aqe 6 Inn was not part of the PUf7 and submittal of the Bavarian application was awaiting further information as to the Ritz audit and Phase ll employee needs. Several of the most relevant Section M hearings occurred in May of 1991 and again in October of 1992. At both of these semi judicial ' hearings, Savanah had the burden of proof to show that delays with the construction schedules in the PUD were beyond its cvntrol_ After reviewing all the facts, includi~~,g the status of the Bavarian Inn, the City Council in both cases agreed Savanah had met that burden of proof and granted the Section M amendments to the various construction dates. Most relevant to the Bavarian Inn mitigation issue are several exchanges between members of the City Council, City staff and members of the public about that site. In 1991, several members of the public requested the Council include conditions about "the affordable housing commitments for the Bavarian Inn" as part of the Section M process. The then Mayor Sterling asked staff to respond to the various issues raised about the 6avarian. Sta#f said, "._.the Bavarian Inn was never part of the PUQ agreement." Indeed, in the May, 1991 staff memo to Council far this meeting staff had said. "The provision of employee housing via the Bavarian-Inn is not legally tied to the Aspen Mountain Pl.lD." In another section, staff went on to explain why there was na further employee housing at the Bavarian Inn required as a result of the 1990 election, "Staff stated during the PUD that the housing was not sufficient: however, additional employee housing was not approved by the voters." This Clear acknowledgment that the City's attempt to require additional employee housing for the PUU was voted dawn is also reflected in the staff memo to Council for that May meeting where it stated, "At that time, [pecember, 19$9] staff reviewed the employee pausing mitigation being provided as part of the PUD and recommended additional employee housing mitigation. Staff's recommendations were adapted by Gity Council but put before the voters and subsequently denidd. 1`herefore, although staff continues to believe that the employee housing mitigation associated with this project is below that which would be required #oday, we feel this issue was settled last year." f * Jun-02-99 03:O1P Sa*yah ttd. 970954387 P.08 '~^~ pa~~ 1 The Council accepted this characterization of the PUD housing mitigation issue and took no further actions on the Bavarian inn. U~fhen this definitive and uncontested result of the 199Q election is combined with Savanah's clear insistence during the ballot language drafting that if the City wa~.nted more housing for the Ritz, they should put it in their ballot not Savanah's (see December, 1989 official City Council minutes noted above, there is no doubt vahatsoever, that any housing built afi the Bavarian lnn would nvt be required further mitigation for the Ritz (Phase I of the P~D~ and thus, available for Savanah #c~ use as mitiga#ion for other parts of the PUD_ Likewise, in October of 1392 at another semi judicial City Council hearing on construction schedules, a City Council member asked, "if there are currently any plans for the development of the Bavarian Inn." Savanah's representative responded by Hating, "It is available for the audit, which is to be none at the sQrond anniversary of the issuance of the C/d.,'t This response was accepted and the Council passed $avanah's requested Ser.#ion IIA amendment with na conditions about the Bavarian Inn: At all the other Section M hearings after 1992, the Bavarian Inn was never discussFd since its irrelevance to any aspect of the PUp, including the employee housing mitigation requirements, had been well established in the 1991 and 1992 hearings_ CONCLUSION: Far aft the above reasons, Savanah believes very strongly that the minutes of the history of drafting the -1990 ballot language, the campaign statements and the results of the 1390 election, ancf particularly the consistent official minutes of various semi judicial Section M amendment hearings by the City Co4!r~cil in 1991, 1992 and since, establish that the potential Bavarian Inn hQUSing was never intended to nor was it understood to be tied to only the Ritz-Caritan portion of the PUD. Rather, Savanah's offer of the Bavarian Inn, was far affordable housing. which with the cooperation of the City and neighbors, could be built and used as mitigation for the entire PUD}_ h1RY 18 '99 k~8=?8AM ASPEN HOUSING OFG P•3 ~~`^ ~• ,„ ~;r,. , S~'p~N'I'AL 1Y1~11~Q~A,N1iUM Ta: Housing Office Beard vfLlirectors From: Dave Tolen, Bxecutive Director ate: Aspen 1Vlountain I~'fJD date: 14 May, 1999 _ - Sumasary: I)iscussioa of the housing mitigation for phase II of the Aspen lt-iountain PUD was continued unfit tonight's meeting. At issue is the amount of employment that will be generated by the proposed hotel at the site of the Grand Aspen ~3asis is the ~'YJD Agreement fox Assessment: A$ described ire the application, they A~meaded and >Etestated Aspen 1Vlountain P[TD ~greeanen*, approved by City Council in 19p0 and subsequently approved by the voters of Aspen, provided for tl~e apprc~vai of three out of five componems of the development. Terse were the Ritz Hotel and the Ga[ena and Summit Place residential waits. 'The acneaded PUD A.greexnent also provided far future aubmittai of an application #'or the last two components at the tap of 1Viilt Street and at the site of the Grand Aspen Hotel {also called Lot 5). Paragraph k,.4 of the amended PUD Agreement contains the language related to the employee housing requirennent for Lot 5. In that paragraph the owner acknowledges a potential obligation to provide affordable hansiag far net flew errrplayees cmd other employee housz'~g raa~arfxet~ents +sxs rnrdy be determined during ttie ~d e~prcn+al process (emphasis added}. It i$ the applicant's position that Ewusing must be provided on the same basis as was required in Fl3ase I of the P~[]D. Since Phase I required. flat housing be provided for d0°~a of the employees generated by tE~e Hotel ca~mponent, the applit has proposed to house 6~°!a of the ernplayees generated ay the Motel component cif Phase II. The applicant also asserts that the term "other employee laoersing regarirements as may be deterrnrnsrrl during tl~e irmerrdecl capgravat prr~csss" is meant to encompass only $ potential flbligatian for th,e resdential component of lot 5. (3ee pages i9-~0 of application). It is staff s position that a r+easoaable assessln~~,t of the employment impact of the proposed hotel should be consistent with the approach that was used when the . development was originally appra~red is ZpBS, sad consistent with the rationale for subsequent review of those ~guro~s. The faf lowing auaLr~ryes tlur ltistcyry of that approach. MRY 18 ' S9 ~8 ~ 29AM RSPEIJ H[7USING ~F"G ~ P' ~ ~":>:,. ~,, . , Review of Housing Assessment for Aaptxt Mountain PiJ~: 'The original Aspen Arlauntain PUD Agreement was approved and signed ins 1985. This document laid out the approach tck housing mitigation for a]] components of the project, including that for Lot 5. The project was envisioned to consist of two phases, and affordable housing mitigation was assessed far both at that time. Housing #'ar a total of I95 employees was to be provided thmu~i the fallowing: I . Reed restriction of 43 units at the Atgina Haas, far 4b employeees 2. need restritctiarl of 14 units at the Copper horse, for 43 employees 3 , Construction of 22 units at Ute City Place, for 37 employees 4. A ~250,OOia interest >xee 1©an to Hutrter Longhouse, for 69 employees In I98$, Savannah applied for amendments to the PUD. Among the requests was a proposal to reduce the arn+crunt of employee generation attributable to the Rite Carhan Hotel. Speci$ca1ly, the applicant proposed a reduction in the esnplayrnexnt ~eneratian attributable to the restaurant and har component of the hotel. 'They made this proposal an the basis of a stafTu~.g plan provided by the nperatvr of Ritz Carlton hotels eisewhere. The proposal by the applicant would have reduced net employee generation from the barlrestaurart component from I55.4 to !58.9 employees, a reduction of86.5 employees. Thi$ proposal was discussed by the Housing Board on March 3l, 1988. The Board recommended that the original generation factor be used, and that if a future audit of employment showed fewer employees, the applicant would get credit for the additional housing provided. In fact, the audit performed in 1995 after two years of operation disclosed that employment generation exceeded even the factors used by the Housing Offsce is the 1988 discussion, by approximately 14%. The approach to housing mitigation discussed above was incorporated into the amended and Restated 1'Up Agreement, and that agreement laid out the hausinyg obla4gatian for Phase X o£ the project, including the Rita Carlton Hotel, hXousisrg was to he providGci far 161.5 entplayees, consistent with the amount tv be provided uacler the original PLC? agreement £or Phase I. The housing provided £or Phase I under the amended agreement was the amain originally calculated to be sufficient far Phase I and Fhase IC. 'x'he developer agx'eed to provide this higher amount of housing as an inducement to the City to approve the amended 1?UI~ agreement. The amended PUD agreement provided far an audit of employment after' two years of hotel operation. As mentioned abov+~ the actual employment exceeded project enrplaym~ent hY about I4°/a. The additional housing provided as ~. inducement to the City to apgmve the amended agreement was largely needed to meet the actual impact of additional employment resulting ,from Fhase 7 of the project. MRY 18 '99 ~8~~9AM RSPEN~HOUSING 4FC P.5 °" Present Prapassl to Reduce mitigation: The currer-t application for a Phase II hotel at the site ofthe Grand Aspect makes a similar request to reduce the ercployee generation impact of the hotel, bar and restaurant. The proposal is rxtade, again, vn the basin of a stating plan pra~ided by the applicant. The applicant makes the additional argument that the proposed Phase II hates is not a 1wRUry hotel comparable to the Rita Caztton, but a moderately griced upscale hotel, and that reduced staffing is appropriate for this kind of facility. The twc~ faalities can be Gomparad as follows: Rita Carlton Phase II I~atel R.ppms 301 ('utcluding in suites) 150 RestaurantlBar 11,60 acpzare feet 5,95D square feet The proposed hotel, them contains half crf the number of rooms and half of the restaurantlbar space as the Rita Carlton . In determining the appropriate etrtployment generation, sta£#' has considered the fvllowizag factors: ~ The proposed Phase II hotel is located adjacent to the Phase I hotel, in similar proxinuty to the ski area facilities and downtown Aspen. ~ The proposed Phase .TC hotel is new, $nd is apparently of similar visual appeal as the Phase T hotel. • 'The past six years have shows that, withiaa existi~ space, service ler+els sad service sector employment has.incrcased subatatatiadly. Based on these factors, it is difficult fox staR'ta reasonably conclude #hat sexvice Levels for the pha$e I~ hotel will be substantially less than originally estimated #n the PUD, or that they would be substa~allp less than a eoaigarsbly located hotel with comparable facilities. ~fthe p~r~opased hotel v~ere consistent in location and: cattfiguration w a small lodge with no restaurairt facilities and few facilities far guest services, a reduction in employment generation might be appropriate, Recom,mendatian: Staffataintains its recommendatio~a ofthe oci@hia,1 mernoraadu~u dated 11+1~y 5, 1999 to assess hausirig raitigatian as the basis aftlle original factors from the 1985 PL7D agreement, increased by the amQUnt that actual employment exceeded projected eraployateat in Phase I of the PUS. That original memorandum is attached. MRY 1B ' g9 ®S ~ BDAM A5PEM H01_15ING ~?F{~ - P' ~' ,. _ ., ~I ~- A~tach~'~nt 2 I~,E1r[0RAI~Ta ^I3 TG: ALAN ~tYCEMANr pLANNI~IG DIRE~'i'C,~R FROM: TIM ADAMSI:I, fiaU~ING DIFECTOR 1)ATL; FSBRi7ARY 2~, 19$8 I~ : REVYEW OF RITZ-CARLTON ASPgN GMP AND P[TD ,A~ENDMEN~ This review is of an application submitted by 8adid rievelapment Companies tthe "applicant" } requesting GMP and PUD amendments to the Aspen Mountain IUD {the "amendment") with respect to the Ritz^Oarl,tvn Hotel (the "project) . the amendment is to the December ~, 1987 Wined nit Develop- ..,'...r lc.,L..at..; ~; nr, Ilr~r~omant~ Asen~n Mnuntain~.t~+dvision tt7'!e agreement*) , !One e3,ement of the amendment is a change in ~kk~e factor used to Calculate employee generation cif the food and beverage portion of the Ritz--Carl,tan Hotel. The amendment decreases the factaz that the eapl,oyee generation element bf the agreement was based upon. The agreement used a factor cif 1~.8 emplo~-ees per 1,0008 s.f. fox its bases, the amend~aent's generation figures axe based an 5.1 employees per I,AB~ s.f. The Housing Authority disagrees with th~,s change. The factar of 1.2.8 employees per 1,890 s.f. for the food and beverage operat~,an was previous~,y agreed tv based on the logic that the ,project was not a typical free^standing bar ar restaur- ant, but rather a very high quality food and beverage operat3,an e.S part of overall hotel comp3.ex that demanded a high level of service and therefore a high number of service w~carkers. At that time there were nc~ employee gu~tdelines £or this type of operation ~.nd to esta~+lisk~ a guide3.ine the consultant for the project, in collahoration with the Sousing Authority sta,ffr surveyed similar hotel, operations and mutually agreed upon a factor of I2.8 employees per J.,000 s.f, T'he appl,i,cant of this amead~uexrt has submitted infpx~lation requesting a ,generat~.pn £actox of 5 .Z En~plc~yees per 1 , 000 s . f . Th,e justif3,cat~,an for the factor o£ 5.1 is a "~`vod and Beverage Btaffing wide" produced by the applicant'$ hotel operator. the. Ritz~Car3tan Hotel Company. r The ap~+].icant furthex states that this factor fa1Ys wibhin the gausinq Aathority's current gui.de- 1it~es -for Commercial - Restaurant~Bar and that the ' Sous~,ng Authority should adhere tt~ their guidelines . .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ]. MR1' 18 'P9 GAB, BDAM H5PEM Hn~LvBIP~r~ ~JF~. P.7 v,„, The present employee hoasi,ng gu3.delines do establ,i,sh a range of 5.0 to ].@.0 employees per l,f~~~ s,f. for C4mmerciai - Restaurant- 8ar, however the Sousing Authority reviewed the ar~endzpent under the Caa~ercial - Dther category. This eategoxy is used when thy: project is of such a special nature that it doesn't appropriately Iend itself to any standard or typical. category- The Hoctsing Authorit~r does not believe this project is atypical restaurant /bar o eratiortr but rather one that is special, in nature a~-cl deserv~ng of a special review. Therefore, as i.lZu$trated in I'hble I the Housing Authority reviews the a~rtendment as having a shortfall Qf 56.5 emp~.oyees. we continue to support the fatter of 12.8 on the bases of the research dQrte for the original application an on prior approved comparable projects. such as, Little Ne].l's Eote].. TA~iLE I FOCfDJ'gEVERAGB EMPLOYEE GgL~ERATION AF~AL'XSIS SQOARB ITEIK FEET ~1C,REEMEIQ2' Ai~IE~iDMEN',I` TOTAL FC1dD/B$V. 25,24 EXIST' FOQE}/HEAT. ~ r~~~ A1~1' NE~F FOOD/H8~1» 28,240 5 1 EMPS.~1000 S.F, 12.8 259 ' 114.9 (J.~ NET 1-?SW EA~PS . 60~ 60$ GMF $ EMPS. SQUSED lSS 4 ~a.s tZy sMFS. HOUSED . c86.5? DIFFERENCE NO'S l,& a , AS per leaps 107 of the amendment 3. ?8,~4~ S.F. of FriodfBeaerage operations would generate. as pez the 19'$7 $mployee Guir3ell,nes , 101 .~ to 202 .4 employees . At 68~ of generation the tang's would be 60.72 to 121..44 employees. The amendment presents a • c}enaration J.eve1 of 68.9 employees. Aaotber element that modifies the employee hausinq component of the agreement is the method by which the applicant pr•opesses to meet its employee generation. Subsequent to the ag,teement the applicant lost the Qte City' Fl.doe as C}ne of its employee housing. sites. T~ii$ sate was ~+3 house 37 moderate income employees. The amendment request that. the applicant be allowed to offset th~.s lose and additional. generatioa by many options, including cash- in-lieu. The Saucing Authority and the ~,ppxicant hav+~ agreed to work .togetIaer tc~ prov~,de the additional ho acing needed by the applicant and/or if elected ~ the appl,icsnt to accept the cash- ~.n-lieu. Z P1A`r~ 18 ' g~~ 478 ~ 80AM ASPEt^I HOUSINr CtiF~; P ~ a ~* _-, '~, 4, `~t One last comment concertxing the pxoje~ct, spec ificaiiy the can$tru~ction stage and the issue of housing construction workers. the ~ousir~g Authoaity was concerned about the impact of these workers on the community's affordab],e hoasing stack . we questioned the a,pp].icant on this issue. The applicant briefly outl~.ned a plan for hciusing ct~nstructic~n workers that appeared acceptable to the Housing Authority but the Authority recflgni.~es it hoe not direct review control over thia matter. R~~t}M1~IENE}ATION Condition$ of approval, by the sousing Authority: 1. The apg3,icant uses an erap],oyee generation factor of 3.2.8 employees per 5800 s.f. far the Fa+~d and Beverage segment of the amendment. Currently the Pood and Beverage Square footage i,s estimated to be 28,20 for an employee genexatior~ of X53 employees t2B,29~~~'1000 x's 12.8) and a resulting emp54yee housing of IS5.5 employees at the 60$ commitment level verses the acnendtuent's proposal to house 6$.9 emp. fine d~.f#erence between the Bqusinq ~,utb~arity's and the applicant's ca3.cul,at~,an$ is 85.5 additional employees to be housed . 2. The applicant has the oQportunity to submit to the Housing ,Authoi~#.ty after kwa years of ful3. ape ration of the Ritx- Carltan Botel an audited accounting cif employees. The audit shall be pexformgd by a th~.zd party aud~.tar mutually agreed upon by the dousing Au~harity and t~-a applicant. If at that tune the hotel operation including the FUt~d and beverage operation does not generate the employees as calcu3.ate by the Housing Authazi~ty the applicant would be credited for the df ffereace and allowed to use the credits on another prn~+sct car may to sell the credit to other applicants in aacor't~atlCe Watts the EmpZoy~ee Guis3alines then i~z effect. i 3. That the appl~.cant be allaweQ to offset the I,t7se cf the Ute City Place fc+r emplo~ree housing and any additional c~ener- atxon, bar t$e use of the cash-in-Lieu option. However the Sousing ~uthority and the apg~..icant wilX work on other a.Iternatives to the cash-in-],.ieu in the applf.cants pz'iorit, ies of : ~ - Z. Construction of new units. ~. participate Frith Sousing Authority in development of alternative housing, such asr dormitory. 3. Cooperate with M.A.A. to provide hous~.ng for summer and ,~east~na3 workers. 4.... purchase of existi.zxg units. 4. The applicant's emp3,oyee:generation and housing cammitmentc £or the other components of the amendment, excluding the Food and $evexage operations, are accepted'as subm~.tted. 3 MA1' 18 '9'~ 0B~ 31~M ~iSF'EM HOUSIh~U ~JFr,~ P.~ '~ ~w..+ AS ApPROV~D ~3Y H~lCTS7~NG AU'~SC~RITY 3J3~,J$$ I'~+f FHASE I A. ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUSDI923Ic~N 1. T~ODGE OPERATION riHASE II TOTAL Z~d!ge zooms 254 118 ~$~ i--bdam suites 26 ~#4 7a 2-bdrm suites 4 _~ 4 Total Bedraams 294 162* 456 liv~,ng xms . ~ 2 5;~ 7 .~ _,.7.8 Total Roorits 34I 3.73 474 Employees per raorn .3S .~,,,~, ~.,§. Tota~x ~`mp7,oyees 108.4 6 2 . '~ 17 a . B Existing Fio0lns 124 J-SS 275 ~nployees per roost. „24 . ZO O °~' Total. Cxedi,t 24 -~~ 31 55 0 Net New Enzployeas 84.E 31.2 115.8 CMP Employees H~ause~d. SQL ~a~ soy `~ ~' Employees Housed sa . 6 :~ ?~ 18.7 69.4 Z . ACCESSORY FOODf BSVER,AGE ~aodfl~evexage 8200 5000 13240 gCit~ieri 3400 1800 ,200 Total 11600 6804 18440 Ein~loyeQS p~z' 18Gt3 s.t'. I.2.9 ~~ I~~ Total Emplol*e~s 141.5 87 235.5 Existing Food~Hevexage 4941] 5i.aa 14404 EictpZayees per 2000 s. f. ~ r 0 9 . t7 ,~ 9.0_ ~a Total ~pZoyees 44..1 45.9 sa , N~:t Nevr Employees 144.4 41.7. 145.5 rf$•f ' GMP Employees doused 60~ ~- ~ a Exapl.oyeas 1i'~used ~Z . 6 24.7 87.3 , 3. ACCI~SSQI•~Y RETAIL Total Retail X300 462 2762 Employees per 1040 s . ~. 3.5 3.5- _ 3.5. Total 33mp],oyees 8. z 1.6 9.7 8x3.$ting Retail 744 0 .~ Taa 'Employees per 1400 s.f. ~. 5 t~ • `` Total. '~mploy~es 2.5 0 2.5 Net New Em~playees 5'.6 1.6 7.2 AMP Etnplcryees Housed ~ r 60$ ~ E3mploy'ees doused • 3.4 l . Q 4.4 •~ . HO7~EL su~roTAis iig. S X4.4 1+67.. ~. r ~~. ~ 1 ~.5 . • P1FaY 18 '9'9 ~8~ ~1~M ASPEhJ HOU5ING AFC ~~ ,.. AS Ap'PRt3VED BSC HC7USIl+t~ AUTHORITY 3~31f 68 Page a .~, ~•.,~ P.1© ITEM Pffi3SB Y PRASE zl TaTA2, $- NOl'~-3~CCESS~ORY C01~II+SERCI3~,L CMP 0 ~ 4 ~, RESYUBI'iTIAL GMP . 704 South G~t1.~na~ 3 8.7 0 8.7 . ~. Ri.tz C~rlt4n 9.8 0 9.8 I?. Rr3,p13cem~~lit Hcasinq ~'~ . Ct 0 29.4 TRUSS pIAYEES HUQSED' -'164. 48.4 21~•~ .~ ~NdTE: This was the unit count under the app~rvved PUD. l'he maximum number of units which pats be rebuilt in Phase ~~ is 155. ~€ tihe number of actua], bedroazas appzs~vr=d in phase II is less, the applicant should be cred~.teci accordingly. ~• ~j. s MAY 1~ '99 ~8~31AM p5PEN HOLI~IMG AFC ., P. 11 ;,, , a 4aantl M~'MC'?RANDCl11tf TO: Housing Board FRC1M:Cindy ~hristensgn, pffice hRanager THRU: Dave Tolen, Executive director DATE: May 5,1999 RE: Aspen Mountain SubdivisionJPUD, Lots 3 {Top of Milt} ~ 5 {Grand Aspen site} Parcel l[:7 Na, 2737.82.85-oU11003 LSSUE: The applicant is requesting a vanceptual planned unit development approve! for the development of 13 free market residers#ial dwelling units on Lot 3 and a 150-unit hotel an Lot 5. The applican# is also requesting a lodge growth management quota system allocation, subdivision approval, a rezoning, spacial review, a text amendrl~nt, and ,s GMQS exemption, The issues that cQncem staff revolve around the mitigation caiculaticns and the types of units being proposed for affordable housing. The previous application for Lot 5 was to cAnsist of a hole! with 24 rooms artd 37 residential units. The $pplicant is nrriw proposing to rebuild a 754 room hotel ort Lot 5. The applicant has e$tima#ed employee housing requirements of 27.i net employees, while staffs ealcuiations show g higher 57,9 employee housing requirement. Applicant's Staff's Calculations - Calculations F•tatel pp~rStiCyns - ~.7 1~. i R'estaursnt end Bar 17.9 ~~ ~~ ~ Grand Aspen Replacement Housing ~ -~ 27.4 5~:9" .'E3 The hotel aril restaurant mitigation is used on the net increase in employment. The applicant used an empioiyment cpf ,3i employees per lcadge roam. Empioym$nt for the new #odgr~ In the angina! application was calculated at .36 employees per room. Savannah's memorandum suggests ti~at the proposed hotel will require s Icwar 5erviae level than the Ritz, therefore, fewer employees, Staff cannot determine whet rnikigation should be required due fa a specific service level, therefore, a mrr~elv2tive calCUfatian has been made with what is seen today. ©unng the Ritz audit staff~t~aund #hat actual emplc~yrrient exceeded pr~-jected employment by about 7d°Ji~; therefore, staff used the .49 {.~ X 14`Ya) employees per l+adge roam and 94.fi employees11,0a0 square feet {12.B ~C ~~9~6} for Foal and Beverages. #o calculate mltigatism. This would argue for a higher generation facer than the arcs proposed. This is further broken down m F-~chibit "A'. ~ The P1R4' 18 '99 78~ 3~2AM p5PEh1 H[~IJ5IN~ UFt~ P. 1~ _~° other differences resolve around wha# was in the o~ir<al proposal aril what is in the proposal submitted on March i, i999. Staff suggests using an employee generation factor consistent with employment at the Rite.. This result$ in 'a higher number of employees far the prapase~l hotel. According to staff's calculations, the applican# is short by 41x.8 employees. The applicant is also ptopasir~g to house only 72 employees tin $ite, with the rest being housed +off-site. However, the pvllcy of the Housing Baerd is #o first provide housing on-site. Tha deed restricted units proposed an-site far the h~tai are tv consist orf 4 studio units and 4 1-bedroom units, The applicant has not shcaHm any reasoning for no# providing mare on-site housing. The appllcartt is propasin~ tta mitigate the sddi#ional employees by using the Bavarian inn. Staff also recommends denial of using the Bavarian Inn for mitigation far this project, as khe Bavarian tnn wee to be provided asp part of the angina! approval for the ogtl5trucliort t~f the Ritz The original Pl~[7 Agreement contained na requirements with respect tt~ lot 3, as the Top of Mill project was still undergoing review at the time the Agreement was approved, t~rdinanae 1 and the Housing and Replacement Program were not in effect at the time. The gpplican# states that the 13 free market units to be developed on Lot 3 are exempt from trio growtly management quota system as they were derived from the PuD'S remaining 39 residential recai~stivirtior- rredi'ts. fihe City and Staff, however, has interpreted that file applicant must Damply with Ortiinanov 1 and the Housing l~eplscsmen! Pr`agram. There were 25 mufti-family bedrooms th2t were demolished. Therefore. the applicant must rYti#s$ate for Sf19~O of those bedrooms, or 12.5 bedrooms. The Housing Replacement Program also stipulates that ~4°/a ~ the demolished square footage must also be replaced. The square footage was more difficult is catcutaie ss there was no reoa~rd of the square foo#a~e That was demolished. The applicant has proposed using the minimum square footage for Category i and 2 as staled in the Guidelines. The following type of units wsr'9 demolished: Min. Sq. Ft. Stated ~,gr Df Unit in Guidelin _a 12 Studio units ~ 4D0 Sq. Ft.lUr+it 4,SOp ~11 1-Sedreaam Units (c~ 810 Sq. fit./Unit 8,60Q i 2-Beslroam Unit i'~ ASp Sq. irt.fUnit 12,254 They are prog4sing a repiavemetzt of i3 bedroort~rs, to contain approximately 8,20 sgctare feet the #re+= market units are to consist of thr~ fd{owing. 6 ~i-bedroom townhames ' 1 4-Bedroom Duplex 5 5-l~edraom single-family homes {also to contain accessory tiweiiirrg Units) z •~ MAY 18 'S9 88=8zAM ASPEM HOU5ING AFC P. 13 .~ .. , ~~ The deed rrrstricte+d units era to consist af: 2 duplexes - ~ &bedrooms and 14-bedroom 1 #hree-bedroom taategary 2 ~ three-bedrooms C.~t~gary 3 1 four~bednxm Category 4 This amounts to 13 free market units and ~ dead restricted unite consisting of 5'~ bedrooms for the free market and 13 dead restricted bedrooms (~°fe of the bedraams are dead restricted). Hawevar, if tfie praposai is accepted using the minimum square faatage from the Guidelines, than the applicant has fulfrlled his obligation by pn5vidin9 13 bedrooms at approxima5aly 6.2Q0 square feet, The applicant proposes that al! four deed restricted units wilt be said pursuant toapplicable APCFtA Guidelines. The six accessory dwelling uni#s wi(I be deed restricted pursuant to applicable regulatlarts in effect $t the #ime of issuance of building permits for their as$aci:sted free market residence, Currer>tly, the accessory dwelling unit pallcy is being reviewed. 3l"-auld thi$ paliGy change, any units that have not received prior building permit approwml will be under thg new ac:~ssory dwelling unit restrictions. REC~MMENDATIGN: .~ Staff recommends the Bawd approve the mitigattt~n requirements ref t~ far the Motel. The applicant proposes tv house only 1 ~ errrplayees on~site, leaving 55.9 employees to be housed afF- site. There has been no reason shown to not provide more an-site housing, therefore, mare on- site housing should be provided, The approval tv deed resbict the units ~ tategory 2 meets with the approval of staff. Any ether Qff--site housing shad be approved by the Housing Qffioe and in no way should the Bavarian Inn be used far this mitigation, Regarding the "far-sale" units, the categories and sites of tine units meet the pricritias of the Housing Bcerd and, therefore, sta#f recamn~ends apprcaat of these units. Btaff also reaommands ttrat if the accessory dweNing unit pcxllcy changes acrd building permits have riot been pulled for any of the units reQuiring an accessory dwelling unit, that the restriction in effect at the time at building permit approval be enforced. MRY 04 '99 10~37AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P'S ~<, ExHlBIT ~A° The table below details the differences I~etween the Housfng OfllCe'8 and the applicant's cald,iistionla. Phase tl Housing Proposed Otf:'n:e Lodge Operatiana ~ ~ 150 New Lodge Rooms New 1 Bedroom Suites - - Nttiw 2 Bedroom Suites - - Tatal Bedrooms 150 150 Total Rooms 150 150 Employees per bedroom .31 .41 Employee Qeneration 46.5 6i.5 F~clsting Lodge Rooms 150 150 Employees per Room •~ •~` Employee Credit 42.0 39.0 Net Near Employees 4.5 22.5 GMP Employees Housed 60`~ ~~ Employees to be Housed 2.7 13.5 Accessory Food and Beverage New Restaurant Sq. Ft. (Net) 2,750 2,75b New i.ounge Sa. Ft. {Net) 800 800 New Kitchen &q. Ft, (Net) ? ~.4oa Subtotal 5,850 5930 Employees per 1,000 sq.1!t. ~ t3.o 14.8'" Employee C3eneretion 35.7 86.8 Existing F&B and Kitchen Sq. Ft. (Net) 5,480 5,430 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.OB 1.3' Empbyee Credit 6.8 7.1 Net Nsw Employees 2g•g 78.8 QMP Employees Housed 6096 ~~ Employees to be Housed 17.fi .47.8 TptBi ~ge/Commercial Generation 82~ 148.8 Total Lodge/Cammerciai Credits 47•$ 46.1 Net LadgelCommarcial Generation 34.4 102.3 Lodge/Gommercial Mitlgetipn ~ t;09~6 20.5 B1.4 t3rend A$pen Repleo~nent Housing 6.5 8.5 TOTAL EMPLOYEE MITIC3ATION ~ 27.1 67.8 Difference 40.8 `Numbers Pram the original pUD application. "Number from the original PUD application X 149fo. 9 k' Nv' LL / 'L gip-04-98 1623 FRDM~SAGE HOSPI?ALITY RES ID~3036967219 €,, EXHIBIT 2 ~VV~+ NosAnciny Resourros. LLC Scptcmbtr 4,1998 Mr. john Sarpa Savannah Liaaitccl S 1 ~ South Galena Strecz Ashen, COS 1611 Dear Iohn: Pursuent to your request, Sage Fiocoirslin~ Resources, T.LC {"Sage'~~ ,~ a are~com,fortabkwt~th stafnn~ Lcxi.` far fae prnpvscd hotol 3evel ~pm9nt ax thv Grand and oths salax~ar h,otcls across this nunhcr gven oi:r ekperience rnana~n~ the e~cistin~ Grand ~1 the country. red th_ Graaci aspen for o~ er ter years. In so doir,,g, we have acquired an intncnase Sage has naana~ In addition, Sage leas managed lmowicdgc of'voth the local Ioagin_ market and the eta£rmg marjcet. ous man,sgesaent portfolio over 1SC pzvperie_ in 31 5t2tcs since it Ras fo-,uidcd is 1983. fitly, consist of appro.~cimatcl}~ 60 hotels nationwide. Please do not hesitatz to cont2ct me ~Yitb. q's°St10~S Or cou:.erns. hest Regards, ~~~ ?uidrew J. Stewart Denv„r. ~o~;ad^ oC~2~ ''- ?hone: (3~.3) $q;r72w Fem. i 30~.?~ 59~i 219 ggp_v,~_Be t..^36 FROM^BACE NOSPITALI?Y RES «. HOTEL STAFFING 230 • Rrwa~ 3 ll2 Sat Hotel Administrative General Marugst 1 employed nssisuat Aitna„~ 1 employee SecTCSaIY 1 empooyec Con~Iler 1 emplvyoe Accountiag ~erlc 2 employee ID^3036867219 FNC6 3~4 Snbiotal 6 er~loyees Rooms Dtrufon Fronz Office vlaaa¢a 1 maployee Executive Housd:ccper 1 er~loyee ~iightAuditor 2 employees ItCStlv3tion Clerics 2 employees Bcll Captain 1 «aplovco 3allmaa 6 employee Room Clerks 7 emplo7ccs Houses 2 employees Flw:ie,L~eepars 9 employees Lsua~,• 2 employees Subu7tal 33 employees Mscketiag Director of Saks 2 eamlovee Sales Staff 2 emp~Qyees Secrersry 1 e~loyee Subtotal 3 cmpbyers Engineering Cblef En~rr i ~lovre Staff En~nerr 3 emnluyties Subtet3l 4 aazployees TOTAL HOTEL 46 total employees 031 employees yer unit ,a ~~ r.....~ r.ti CZP~o4~pp l0•~G FHDM•GYGT. ii0"PITALITY RAG. k Y RESTAURANT STAFFING a Star j~25LtIZR~t jtasesTtt~ant Rsrtststaat Area An, prr scat Nambcr of Seams Numbs o' Seats per Server Numbs of S~S/ShiR Number of ShitlstDsy N~bcr of shl% per R~elc Number of Serval Needed Bir Bsr Are: Nuaaixr of Shifu per dsy Diwmbar of Bam~dcrs *:umbcr of $u 9aroer5 SuMval ICiEC6613 Ea~cutive Chef Sous Chef Lead Chef Pan~a'Prap Lice Coop Expeditor Suotcia] 2,730 square fxt u sQoue feet Ito se:~ 20 sots 6 aervers/shiR I1 shiitslday 77 ahi~tslweek 15 .~.~ tonl sewers . SOQ square feat 2 sbiSWday Z 2 4 set<•e:s ~~ 1 ta~loyee i employee 1 t~loyee ? employuE 4 employer 1 ea~loyecs 1l employers ..`~~ A'.l~iII1~R'r1Wt Marsg:r 1 CfII~IOyEC A!sisiaptt 1.laaaaer i tasployce Hosmss/Cashtct 3 employees Pta~h:ser~Rc-..eiving'f'~B Audi. 1 employce Subtotal _~ b employces T4TP.L I:ESTAj1R~.YV7 ~~ catal employees -98 O3:19P Savanah Ltd. ~~ ~ 9709254387 P.O2 ~Q~- ~nQ~~r~-r""roc-,~tR~ EXHIBIT 3 Averaged GAH Payroll FTE's Hourly Total Total F b 8 Hotel Rate Pa II Hours Hours Hours 1991 Payroll 512.11 1,366,472.fi2 112802 FTE Hours 2080 26822 2080 85980 2080 1991 Payroll FTEs 54.23 12.90 •41.34 FTEs/1000 Ft or Room 2.37 0.28 1992 Payroll $9.40 857,931.03 91261 FTE Hours 2080 4428 2080 86834 2080 1992 Payroll FTEs 43.88 2.13 41.75 FTEs/1000 Ft or Room 0.39 028 1993 Payroll 59.42 869,181.14 92224 FTE Hours 2080 1972 2080 90252 ~ 2080 1993 Payroll FTEs 44.34 0.95 43.39 FTEs/1000 Ft or Room 0.17 0.29 1994 Payroll 59.82 943,405.42 96051 FTE Hours 2080 14754 2080 81297 2080 1994 Payroll FTEs 46.18 7.09 39.08 FTEs11000SgFt or Room 1.30 0.26 1991 thru 1994 Totals 310.29 4,036.990.21 392339 47976 344362 Average over 4 years 1,009,247.55 98085 FTE Hours 2080 11994 2080 86091 2080 FTEs 47.16 Sq Ft. Rooms 5.77 5438 41.39 150 FTEsl1 aooSgFt FTEs/Room 1.06 0.28 4-year Average Grand Aspen Hotel Page 1 I~ Apr-12-99 11:02A Savanah Ltd_ 9709254387 P.02 :;.,, ~;.- ~ ~,, ~> ~~ lM~~+~~~~~~:. Marriott fnternafinnal, lnc. 31 i0 S. Harbor E;Ivd„ titre. ;.SIf HuEel f3evekrprornt ~an7a Ana, CA!l2704 :i(~T'~ 5 ~ RC4f;ZTC rl:IT'i a)dmry .b1. Fr4rrhrr Y'{~l' l''w~il~nt ~. Hi~ICf L)evE•lopment I s. ' 1445:- 'Iq March L3, 1999 Mr. John Ci. Sarpa Savanah Limited Partnership 515 South Galena Street Aspen, CO ~ 1611 Dear John; I enjoyed speaking with you recently with respect to your proposed 150-room upscale hotel to be built in Aspen, Colorado. In accordance with our conversation, enclosed please find a preliminary staffing guide which we feel may be appropriate far the proposed project giken the size and scope of the facility and the relative market positioning. I look forward to exploring ways in which our companies can work together ort this exciting project and in the interim if I can provide you with any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, amen M. Erlacher JE:maf Enclosure -~, !~ "~4pr-12-99 11:03A Savanah Ltd_ 9709254387 ,,~ HOTEL STAFFING l50 -ROOM 3 1: Star Hotel AI)MINIST1tATTVE General Manager l Assistant Manager 1 Secretary 1 Controller l Accounting Clerk ~ Subtotal 6 Front Office Manager 1 Executive Housekeeper 1 Night Auditor 2 Reservation Clerks 2 Bell Captain l Hellman 6 Room Clerks 7 Houseman ~ Housekeepers g Laundry ? Subtotal 33 ~I' AItKETING Director of Sales 1 Sales .Staff ~ Secretary I Subtotal 4 EN IN ~ ~.RiN~ Chief Engineer 1 Staff Engineer ~ Subtotal 4 TOTAL HOTEL 47 ~P . 03 a.31 employees per umt ~~' `.4pr-12-99 11:03A Savanah Ltd_ 9709254387 ~~, RESTAURANT STAFFING 4 Star Restaurant RESTAURANT Restaurant Area 2,750 square feet Area per Seat 25 square feet Nurnher of Seals 110 Number of Seats/server 20 Number ofServers/Shift 6 Number of ShiRslDay 11 Number of ShiftsfWeek 77 Number of Servers Needed ,j,5 Subtotal 15 BAR B~' Area $00 square feet Number of ShiRsfDay 2 Number of Bartenders 2 Number of Bar Servers 2 Subtotal 4 KITCHEN Executive Chef Sous Chef 1 Lead Chef 1 PantryfPrep 3 Line Cook 4 Expeditor 1 Subtotal 11 ADMIlYISTRATNE Manager 1 Assistant Manager 1 HostessfCashier 3 PurchaserlReceiving/FBcB Audit 1 Subtotal 6 TOTAL RESTAURANT 36 .; P_04 e • ,'~"°a , GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION REPORT Prepared for: Savanah Limited Partnership Prepared by: '~ '~. i TDA Inc. #1933 March 4, 1999 INC. C ORGANIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY In describing the impacts and mitigation for the proposed project, this study follows typical procedures of the transportation planning profession. This report is divided into three major sections. Existing Conditions -refers to today's traffic, parking, and transit conditions. Background Conditions - is a forecast of conditions in the future project completion year without construction of the project. This section takes into consideration such elements as changes in traffic volumes, road construction and other developments likely to be completed. It is referred to as "background" because these changes provide a background on which to apply the project. Project Conditions -examines conditions in the future year with the project completed. The section focuses on the impacts of the project and proposes actions to mitigate those impacts. Where appropriate, a figure or table illustrates each of the study's findings. These appear on the right facing page. On the left appears text which introduces and describes the findings shown in the illustration. Supplemental information, including a glossary, is contained in the Appendix. Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Redevelopment 1 Mnrclt 4, 1999 #1933/rptfinnl.nd TDA,1-cc. INTRODUCTION This report describes the traffic impacts associated with the Grand Aspen/Top of Mill redevelopment project. The project consists of two sites, as described below: Top of Mill Site 5 single family units 6 duplex units 6 triplex units Grand Aspen Site 150 hotel rooms 8 employee apartments The new Grand Aspen hotel will replace the existing Grand Aspen Hotel. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project and study intersections. Grnnd Asperr/Top of Mill Redevetoprnrnt 2 Mnrclr 4, 1999 #1933/rptfinnl.nd TDA, Irrc. 'v~J _ V) in t y _ ~ ~ u~ U fp (n in E ~ ra Q o ~ = ~ Main St ~ m c d ~ ~ ~ C7 c ~ Durant Ave. Dean St. Y' ~~ Summit St. Aspen Mt. Top of Mill Ski Area N 0 GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Site Location LEGEND Top of Mill Grand Aspen • Study Intersection T~ 4 ! #1933 3/4/99 FI l!(e 9 rrrr' EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway System and Clas ification Figure 2 shows roadway classification in the study area. Main Street and the northern portion of Mill Street are considered arterials. Aspen Street, Monarch Street, Durant Street, Galena Street and the southern section of Mill Street are considered collectors. Grn-ut Aspen/Top of Mill Redeaelc~nrre,it 4 Marcl, 4, 1999 #1933/rptfinnl.ad TDA, Inc. U N v~ U ~ y .~ ~ C O ~ ~, Q CC G CC G ain t. c d ~ ~ m c ~ Durant Ave. Dean St. ~, _.. , ___ ran....: r~R , l ~ ~v~... Summit St. Aspen Mt. Top of Mill Ski Area N GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Roadway Classification LEGEND ~~ Top of Mill ^^^••^^^• Arterial Grand Aspen - - - - Collector • Study Intersection T~i4 #1933 3/4/99 FI Uf@ 2 9 C ~ Traffic Controls Six intersections were studied to determine project impacts. Two are currently signalized: Main Street/Aspen Street and Main Street/Monarch Street. The remaining four are two-way stop-controlled intersections: Mill Street/Durant Avenue, Aspen Street/Durant Avenue, Monarch Street/Durant Avenue and Galena Street/Durant Avenue. Public Transportation The Roaring Fork Transportation Agency (BETA) provides both city and downvalley transit service. The Rubey Park transit station is located across Durant Avenue from the proposed development. The transit station is served by all summer and winter routes run by the RFTA, and service is available from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. Service is generally described below: City Routes -five routes, four of which serve residential areas, and one serves the post office and Silver Queen Gondola on ten minute headways. Valley Routes -During the winter, there are 79 scheduled departures serving the community throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, including Snowmass Village. During the summer, there are 43 scheduled departures. Midvalley routes depart every 30 minutes while routes serving Glenwood Springs are provided every two hours. Seasonal Routes -During the winter, ski-area shuttle service operates between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. connecting four area ski resorts. A tour to the Maroon Bells Scenic Area is operated during the summer months. Special service is provided for events (such as the Aspen Music Festival) throughout the summer in the Aspen area.' Pedestrian. Bicycle and Equestrian Transportation Existing pedestrian/bicycle facilities are found on West Hopkins Avenue and West Hyman Street. West Hopkins Avenue is a controlled bicycle/pedestrian street with limited vehicle access. West Hyman Street has posted bicycle route signs. An off-road bicycle trail exists above the southern ends of Mill Street and Monarch Street. Figure 3 provides information on existing sidewalk and on-street parking supply for the project frontage on Mill Street. ~ Conversation with Dan Blankenship, RFTA, November 16, 1998 Grand Aspen/Top of Mill RedcvrloFnnent 6 March $ 1999 #T 933/rptftnal.ad TDA, Lic. Grand Aspen 9' Sidewalk ~ m c~ d ~ 5' sidewalk (12) 2hr. 8-6 M-F B Permit Excepted 6' sidewalk 6' sidew, 4' Sidewalk Summit St. Top ofl~ N 0 GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT ';';` No Parking TD~ Sidewalk ZINC. #1933 3/4/99 ® Parking Sidewalk and Parking Configuration Mill Street Project Frontage Figure 3 Traffic Safetv Figure 4 shows the average annual accidents at each location (mid-block and/or intersections). The data used to derive the annual rates was for the period June 1996 through January 1999. Many of the accidents were concentrated along Main Street/Highway 82 and Hopkins Avenue (a total of 154 during the study period). Along Durant Avenue, a total of 6 accidents occurred at the Aspen Street intersection during the study period, with 11 accidents at the Monarch Street intersection, 3 accidents at the Mill Street intersection, and 8 accidents at the Galana Street intersection. Grand Aspen/Tup of Mill Redeuelvpmrrit 8 MnrcJ~ 4, 1999 #1933/rptfrrial.ad TDA, I-tc. ~ u~ U y • ~ ~ ~ ~ U f0 ~ ~ LL ~ ~ N Q ~ ~ ~ 1.1 6.7 0.7 12.2 1.9 10.7 1.9 5.9 Main St. 0.4 1.5 0 7 Hopkins 3.0 3.7 0.4 5.6 . 1.1 4.1 1.9 0.4 2.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.2 ~' ; H , yman 0.4 1.5 = Cooper ~ 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 ~ 4.1 1.1 0 7 0.4 Durant Ave. 0.4 0®. 3.0 0.4 0.4 D ean St. ~ 1.1 S, 0.7 1.5 0.4 .4 Summit St. 0.7 Aspen Mt. Top of Min Ski Area N O GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Average Annual Accidents LEGEND Top of Mill 00 Intersection ® Grand Aspen 00 Mid-block • Study Intersection T~'4 #1933 3/4/99 FI llre 4 g Turning Movement Volumes Figure 5 shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections during the summer p.m. peak hour.. Volumes are based on counts collected by TDA, Inc. Volumes for the intersection of Durant Street and Galena Street were estimated by taking 1984 traffic counts for that intersection and factoring them based on traffic count changes between 1984 and 1995 at the intersection of Durant Street and Mill Street. Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Redevelu}nnext 10 Mnrcli 4, 1999 #I933/rptf~nal.nd TDA, Inc. t N ~ 48 34 43 '~ 10 in ~m ~ 851 ~_ ~E o = ~ ~ 31 ~ ~ 39 29 37 ~ ~ 33 948 30 17 682 55 ~,. 111 35 50 Main St. 705 ~ ~r 92 ~ 174 13 16 9 0 1 ~ 25 216 . 14 ~ ~ ~ ~ m d 24 ~ ~ _ 172 15 ~ 11 5 13 1 19 71 ~ 12 ~~ ~ 53 Durant Ave. 2 ~ ~~ Dean St. Estimated 63 ~ ~`x ''"~ ,~ volumes 2 0 18 9 ~~ Y *;~-.Glatt 18 3 12 'L 0 .~ `'~ hAspen ~ . ~ 184 ~~Y ~"-r't` ~ 41 Nr~N.. Nc _~ ~,`_ °59 ~ err 28 ~ 17 0 32 12 29 83 100 37 1 Summit St. 9 ~ err 118 ~ 5 23 15 ASpen Mf. Ski Area Top of Mill N O GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peek Hour LEGEND Summer Top of Mill Grand Aspen • Study Intersection ®i~ #1933 3/4/99 FI ure 5 g Figure 6 shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections during the winter p.m. peak hour. Counts were based on a conversion factor comparing summer and winter traffic levels= State Highway 82, entrance to Aspen DEIS, Colorado Department of Transportation Grand Aspen/Toy of Mill Redevelupmn~t 12 March $ 1999 #1933/rptf~nnl.nd TDA, Inc. cn t ~ ~E N ~ m` o 48 3443 ~ = ~ '~ 10 851 ~ 31 ~ c7 34 25 32 ~~ 19 825 15 ~ 0 682 Main St. 613 ~ ~r 55 ~,. 111 35 50 80 ~ 151 11 14 1 0 8 ~ ~ 188 12 . 1 ~ c a~ ~ ~ ~ °? _ 150 13 ~ 10 4 11 1 17 62 ~ 10 ~~ ~ 40 Durant Ave. 2 ~ ~~ Estimated 52 ~ 0 16 8 Dean St. ~ r'.~, ,; ~; ;~~ Grand~ volumes 16 3 11 'L 0 _ ., ~AsPen,s "~~ ,•r ~} ~~ 160 ~ 36 .. {}~ - ^~=_ u. 0 139 i^ 24 ~ 15 0 27 10 25 72 ~ 119 10 115 Summit St. 00~ err 0 ~ 87 215 4 ASpen Mt. Top of Mill Ski Area N GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Exisfing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour LEGEND Winter Top of Mill Grand Aspen • Study Intersection T~!4 #1933 3/4/99 Figure 6 Intersection Operations Based on the proposed guidelines for traffic impact analysis, intersection operating conditions were evaluated using the Hiahwav Capacity Manual Third Edition, updated 1994, and the latest version of Hi hwav Capacity Software for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The intersection and operating conditions are indicated by a level of service (LOS) letter designation. LOS provides a measure of delay ranging from LOS A (free flowing, minimal delay) to LOS F (extreme congestion, long delays). For signalized intersections, total delay is estimated. When volumes exceed capacity, the software indicates an incalculable result as "*" Although it is sometimes true that an intersection operates at LOS F when "*" appears, this is not always true. Additional information on LOS is provided in Appendix A. Table 1 shows the existing LOS for each of the study intersections during the summer and winter p.m. peak hours. All intersections operate at LOS B or better under existing conditions. Grnnd Aspen/Top of Mill Redevelo~~ment 14 Mnrd~ 4, 1999 #1933/rytfinnLad TDA, Inc. TABLE 1. EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS - WIlVTER & SUMMER Signalized Intersections Existing Summer Existing Winter Main Street/As en Street LOS LOS EB left A A EB throu h/ri ht A A WB left A A WB throu h/ri ht B A NB left/throu h/ri ht D C SB left/throu /ri ht B B OVERALL B B Main Street/Monarch Street EB left A A EB throu h/ri ht A A WB left A A WB throu h/ri ht A A NB left/throu h/ri ht D C SB left/throu h/ri ht B B OVERALL B B UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Existing Summer Existing Winter As en Street/Durant Avenue LOS LOS NB throu h/ri ht A A SB left/through/right B A EB left A A WB left A A OVERALL A A Monarch Street/Durant Avenue NB left/throu h/right B A SB left/through/right B B EB left A A WB left A A OVERALL A A Mill Street/Durant Avenue NB left/throu h/ri ht B B SB left/right A A EB left A A WB left A A OVERALL A A Galena Street/Durant Avenue NB left/right B A SB left/through/right B A WB left A A OVERALL A A Grad Aspen/Top of Miil Rrdevel~u~reirt 15 Mardi 4, 1999 #1933/rptfinnl.nd TDA, I-:c. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This section describes the estimated future traffic conditions in the study area without development of the proposed project. The year 2001, the scheduled project completion year, has been used for forecasting future traffic conditions. Under the directive of the City of Aspen planning department, a 2.0% annual growth rate was used to be consistent with the City's growth management plan. Roadway Imnrovements No roadway or signalization improvements are planned during the study period. Other Planned Projects One major project was identified by the Ciry of Aspen as planned for completion by year 2001. The Independence Place project (also known as the Superblock), located at Cooper and Spring Streets, would replace the existing City Market with a combination of retail and lodging space. The City of Aspen Planning Department expects this project to be downsized from the originally proposed project. For purposes of this study, we have assumed that the original proposed case to provide a worse case scenario. Public Transportation No significant changes are expected to the public transportation system. Turning Movement Volumes Figure 7 shows the projected background turning movement volumes during the summer p.m. peak hour. Grand Asperr/Top of Mill RedevrlupulrxE 16 Mnrck 4, 1999 #1933/rptfinnl.ad TDA, Lrc. ~ ~ ~E c~ 44 3344 ~ 39 ~~ 111' 20 Main St ~ ~~ 20 839 105 ~ 199 15 1~ 1 21 83 'L ~, ~~ ~ 67 Ave. - ~~ 2 73 2~ 020 ~ 116 14 33 96 59 2 o ~ ~r 135 9 "'i, s 2s 1 s N in r m c 0 54 38 51 ~ 'L 12 10' 37 816 62 ~, 125 39 60 i 10 0 1 ~ 29 ~~ ~ 251 , 17 ~ m c 203 err 17 ~ 12 6 16 Dean St .~~ ~a~3; Grande e° ' ,. "'" Aspen t - {r µ eS Summit St. Top of Mill GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND Top of Mill Grand Aspen • Study Intersection TDi^ #1933 3/4/99 Figure 7 m 20 3 13 'L 0 214 48 0 186 20 0 3~ Aspen Mt. Ski Area Background Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Summer ~' ~vrr~ Figure 8 shows the turning movement volumes expected under winter p.m. peak background conditions. Grand Aspen/I'op of Mill Redeuelopnrrrtt 18 Mnrclr $ 1999 #1933/rptfi-rnf.nd TDA, Ltc. r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 38 28 38 978 18 ~~ ~ Main St. 736 ~ ~r 91 ~ 173131 1 19 73 '` 129 ~~ ~ 54 Durant Ave. ~ ~ ~~ 2~ 0189~j 12 28 84 'L 101 139 11 ;8~ err 8 ~ 5 23 16 N 47 33 45 'L 11 ~ in 886 ~ ~ ~ ~ 32 7;6 ~ qtr ~ ~ 108 34 53 9 0 1 ~ 25 ~~ ~ 220 . 15 in m ~ c ~? co ~ C9 _ 178 ~ ~r ~ ~ 15 ~ 11 5 14 Dean St. ;3 ;-;, ~~ Grand '~ _" Aspen Summit St. Top of Mill GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND ~ Top of Mill Grand Aspen • Study Intersection TD~ #1933 3/4/99 Figure 8 18 3 12 ~ 0 187 42 °~ ~ err 17 0 3~ Aspen Mt. Ski Area Background Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Winter D 4 Traffic Operations Table 2 shows the background LOS for the summer and winter p.m. peak hours, compared with the existing conditions LOS. In the summer p.m. peak hour, the northbound left-through-right shared movement at Aspen Street/Main Street degrades to LOS * under background conditions. This indicates that the projected volumes for this movement exceed the calculated capacity. In the winter p.m. peak hour, all intersections remain at a LOS B or higher. Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Rrdwelop-nelit 20 Marel~ ~ 1999 #1933/rptfinal.ad TDA, Iric. ~W.r'' TABLE 2. BACKGROUND P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS -WINTER & SUMMER Signalized Intersections Existing Summer Background Summer Existing Winter Background Winter Main Street/As en Street LOS LOS LOS LOS EB left A A A A EB through/right A A A A WB left A A A A WB throu h/rig t B B A B NB left/throu h/ri ht D * C D SB left/throu /ri ht B B B B OVERALL B * B B Main Street/Monarch Street EB left A A A A EB through/ri ht A A A A WB left A A A A WB throu h/right A B A A NB left/throu h/ri ht D E C D SB left/throug /ri ht B B B B OVERALL B B B B UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Existing Summer Background Summer Existing Winter Background Winter As en Street/Durant Avenue LOS LOS LOS LOS NB through/ti ht A A A A SB left/through/right B B A B EB left A A A A WB left A A A A OVERALL A A A A Monarch Street/Durant Avenue NB left/through/right B B A B SB left/throu h/ri ht B B B B EB left A A A A WB left A A A A OVERALL A A A A Mill Street/Durant Avenue NB left/through/right B B B B SB left/right A A A A EB left A A A A WB left A A A A OVERALL A A A A Galena Street/Durant Avenue NB left/right B B A B SB left/through/right B B A B WB left A A A A OVERALL A A A A Grand As~er~fop of Mill Rrdc~eloyment 21 Mnrcli 4, 1999 #1933/rytfilinLnd TDA, Lic. PROJECT CONDITIONS This section describes the conditions in the future year with the addition of project traffic. The proposed project consists of two sites located on S. Mill Street and Galena Street south of Durant Avenue. Parking will be provided on site for all units. The Top of Mill site consists of: • 5 single family homes • 6 duplex units • 6 triplex units The other site will replace the existing Grand Aspen hotel with a new hotel. This project will consist of: • 150 room hotel • 8 affordable housing units for hotel employees Parking will be provided in a garage on site. Figure 9 shows the proposed project sites. Grand Aspe-t/Top of Mill Redevelo~~rnent 22 A4arch ~ 1999 #1933/rptfi-ial.ad TDA, Inc. ~~+, • •r .~ ~ 1 i ~w enocuarao+-.. •f -- --~ .. .: .. RIR1n: \ :: q j~ :. : ~" ~.. . -i~ ~ s+' ": ` ~ ., .1 ~ • fNRQiiIlAOI • \ 2 1ARQMf~fS/~lwfll \\` ur+~ff~ruwarrawn ' .~ 2 ~...e....~ (.IMfflf _ flflw~{~1fJtwlf7RnL1 _• L l\. - ~ • ~r;~ :.... _ fir= ~-- !~ ~•,•,`,.. _ -~ __ ...:. „f ~ !7 ~~ ~ <~•~ I~ I ~ C\\ ~ ~ ~ '1 ///I ~I J ~1® ' / //~ 4p2 J~Oft• 6Tr•M 7f/L ~L 1>A f~OpY y yM0 ! ~ ~ '~ I' ' aura sT W I ~ .~~~ ~0 I ; Y•f. ' i I SIOf1-L 'rte C - 1 ;~, ~ - ~- r; •~ ~ _ i• ~ --~--•---- ' - ~~. ' I '~ - ~ ~ I ~I II it i ~ L~I 1 l~I 1 i ~ `~' ~ ~` I ~ r-j .I I, ~; ~-~ i ~! ., ,~__.., ~.-~ U CE~If ~ ~ . I T ~ ~~ ~ fwrlJ IO •V K .~A\ GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT TDB! #1933 3/4!99 Figure 9 '""~ Trip Generation Estimates of project trips are based on trip generation data found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Tr1D Generation (6m Edition). It is assumed for this study that duplex and triplex units have similar trip generation rates as townhomes. Table 3 compares the ITE trip generation rates with those observed in the field. As seen in the table, ITE rates are higher for both single family and condominium residences and lower for hotels. The use of ITE rates for this study is expected to provide a more conservative result overall. TABLE 3. TRIP GENERATION RATE COMPARISON Source Trip Generation Rate er unit ITE Tri Generation (6~ Ed. Sin le Famil Residence and Use #210 1.46' Condominium/Townhome (Land Use #230) 1.02= Resort Hotel (Land Use #330 0.493 Field Observations Sin le Famil Residence° 1.27 CondominiumJTownhome5 0.56 Resort Lod eb 0.66 ~ Represents the rate as calculated usins the fitted curve equation. ` Represents the rate as calculated usin: the fitted curve equation. 3 Represents the average rate for this land use. ° Mountain Valley Development, Aspen s Shadow Run Condominiums, Steamboat Springs e Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill, 700 So. Galena, and Summit Place Transportation Study, TDA Inc. Grand Aspen/Tvp of Mill Rerlevele7r-rrent 24 March ~, 1999 #1933/rptfinat.ad TDA, Inc. .,.ter Using IT'E trip generation rates, we estimate that the proposed developments will result in a net increase of 18 trips. Table 4 shows the calculation of trip generation assumptions. Generated trips were calculated using occupancy rates for winter and summer. The winter occupancy rate at the Grand Aspen hotel is expected to be 85% and the summer rate is 65%. A 90% yeaz- round occupancy rate was used for the Top of Mill site. TABLE 4. PROJECT P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Location/Type Units % Occupied Trip Pate Trips In Trips Out Summer Top of Mill S. F. Residence 5 90% 1.46 4 2 Duplex 6 90% 1.02 4 2 Triplex 6 90% 1.02 4 2 Total Top' of Mill (summer) 12 6 Grand Aspen Site New Hotel 150 65% 0.49 21 27 Old Hotel (trips removed) 150 65% (0.49) (21) (27) Total Grand Aspen (summer) 0 0 Combined Total 12 6 Top of Mill Winter S. F. Residence 5 90% 1.46 4 2 Duplex 6 90% 1.02 4 2 Triplex 6 90% 1.02 4 2 Total Top of Mill (winter) 12 6 Grand Aspen Site New Hotel 150 85% 0.49 22 30 Old Hotel (trips removed) 150 85 % (0.49) (22) (30) Total Grand Aspen (winter) 0 0 Combined Total 12 6 Grnrrd Asyrn/Toy of Mili Rrdeueloyr-rertt 25 Mrtrcl- 4, 1999 #1933/rytfinnl.ad TDA, Inc. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution is the directional distribution ofsite-generated traffic. Figure 10 shows the trip distribution for trips to and from the existing hotel during the summer p.m. peak hour. These trips will be removed with redevelopment of the site. Project trips were assigned based upon existing traffic distribution. Grand Asyen/Toy of Milf Redrueluhmrnt 26 Mardi 4, 1999 #1933/rytfinal.nd TDA, Inc. _ in in _ t ~ U ~ _N C ~ C ~~ O ~2 Main St. 10 4 10 ~4 ~1 Ave. N 211 r" err 10 ~ 9 5 13 Dean St21 27 ~4 5 Summit St. 10 Top of Mill N Aspen Mt. Ski Area GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Trips for Existing Hotel PM Peak Hour LEGEND $UI'nl71 er Top of Mill u~ Grand Aspen • Study Intersection TD.4 #1933 3/4/99 Flgure ~ 0 13 ~~ ~~ 11 Figure 11 shows the trip distribution for trips to and from the existing hotel during the winter p.m. peak hour. These trips will be removed with redevelopment of the site. Project trips were assigned based upon existing traffic distribution. Grand Aspe,t/I'op of MiU Redeuelo~nnent 28 Marva 4, 1999 #1933/rptfinal.ad TDA, Lac. in ~ in ~ t in H ~ ~ in LL ~ ~ ~ 3 Main St. 11 5 11 in c m C7 11 ~ 11 5 14 11 ~ 5 ~1 Durant Ave. Dean St.22 =- ° r. ran Aspen ~5 •~ 6 Summit St. 11 Top of Mill e N 3 1 1 in °r c 2 14 ~ ~ 11 Aspen Mt. Ski Area GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Trips for Existing Hotel PM Peak Hour LEGEND Winter L Top of Mill Grand Aspen • Study Intersection TD~4 #1933 3/4/99 Flgufe ~/ Figure- 12 shows the trip distribution for new trips to and from the proposed hotel during the summer p.m. peak hour. Project trips were assigned based upon existing traffic distribution. Grmtd Aspen/I'op of Mill Redevelopment 30 Marelt 4, 1999 #1933/rptf~nnl.nd TDA, Inc. _ in ~ ~ L _ L ~ ` _ (A H C C (~ LL 1 Main St. „~ ~ ~ 4 •~ 8 in c a> 11 ~ ~ 11 ~ 4 ~1 Ave. Dean St. 1 1 1 in a> c 4" ~ 11 ~ ~ 10 ~: 27~ ~ r 9 18 ~3 I ,~ 5 Summit St. 11 Aspen Mt. Ski Area Top of Mill N GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Trips Added by Proposed Hotel LEGEND PM Peak Hour L_J Top of Mill Summer Grand Aspen II', • Study Intersection TDa #1933 3/4/99 Figure ~ 2 ~'""\ Figure 13 shows the trip distribution for new trips to and from the proposed hotel during the winter p.m. peak hour. Project trips were assigned based upon existing traffic distribution. Grand Aspen/I'op of Mil! Redevelopment 32 #1933/rptfinal.ad March 4, 1999 TDA, Inc. _ in v~ ~ U _ U) N C C ~ ~ •~ LL ~ 2 2 1 1 Main St. 11 1 4 ~~ 9 m c a~ 11 ~ ~ 11 ~ q ~1 m c x Dean St. ~~_ ~~ ~~xG'ran` 22 Aspen ~ 11 r~ ~ 11 ,~_ ~ r 10 20 4 I ,^^i 5 Summit St. 11 . Aspen Mt. Ski Area Top of Mill, N O GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Trips Added by Proposed Hotel LEGEND PM Peak Hour Top of Mill Winter Grand Aspen • Study Intersection TD~ #1933 3/4/99 Figure ~ 3 Figure 14 shows the trip distribution for new trips to and from the proposed Top of Mill project during the (year round) p.m. peak hour. Project trips were assigned based upon existing traffic distribution. Grand Aspe~r/Top of Mill Redeveloy~neitt 34 March ~ 1999 #1933/rptf~naf.ad TDA, Inc. in ~ r _ L ~ ` _ ~ HC C C C~ H ` ~ G LL ~ 1 Main St. 6 1 6 . ~a 6~ 213 6 ~~ 1 Dean St. / 12 It t. , 6 •~ 1 Summit St. 6 Top of Mill N ti in a~ x 3 ~ ~ 6 Aspen Mt. Ski Area GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Trips Added by Proposed Top of Mill LEGEND PM Peak Hour Top of Mill Year-Round Grand Aspen • Study InterseCfion TDa #1933 3/4/99 Figure ~ 4 0 Turning Movement Volumes Figure 15 shows the summer p.m. peak hour turning volumes for the project year. These volumes were determined by adding the estimated project trips for the proposed Grand Aspen and Top of Mill projects to the background volumes and subtracting the trips for the existing hotel. Grnnd Aspen/I'op of Mill Redevrlopnrent 36 March 4 I999 #I933/rptfinnl.nd TDA, bic. _ ~ v~ L y '~ N ~ l9 ~ 54 38 51 (n ~ 12 101 ~ 37 LL ~ 44 3344 ~~ ~ 39 111 20 ~ 34 816 Main St 839 ~ ~r 62 ~ 125 39 60 112 ~ .200 15 19 10 0 1 ~ 30 259 12 v~ . 4 ~ ~o c err ~ 2 13~ 5 2 6 1 21 90 '~ 14 ~~ ~ 27 6 Durant Ave. 2 ~ ~~ ` " 73 2 0 20 10 Dean St. "~ ~ ~y ' Grand ''~ ~ 20 3 13 ~ 0 Aspen mow. ~ e ~.l+ ?3 ~~~~' Y,` ~~ 198 Y'r °62~ err 55 ~ 39 0 75 14 33 96 'L116 so 2 it St S umm . 10 ~ 142 ~~ 9 ~. s Zs , s Aspen Mt. Top o f Mill Ski Area N GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT Traffic Volumes with Project PM Peak Hour LEGEND Summer Top of Mill Grand Aspen • Study Intersection TDd #1933 3/4/99 Figure ~ 5 Figure 16 shows the total turning volumes for the winter p.m. peak hour with the proposed projects in place. Grand Aspen/Top of Mill Redeueloprnent 38 #1933/rptfrnal.ad Mnrclr 4, 1999 TDA, Inc. in in ~ 47 33 45 'L 11 v ' v~ y `m ~ 886 '~ ~ ~ ~ 32 LL- ~ 38 28 38 ~ 34 ~~ 978 29 18 716 ~ ~ 109 34 53 Main St 736 ~ ~r 97 ~ 173 13 17 9 0 1 ~ 26 229 . 10 in ~ m c iti ~ c 24 ~ ~ _ 189 10 ~ 2 1 3 1 19 79 ~ 12 ~~ ~ 54 Durant Ave. 64 ~ ~r Dean St ~ t, 2~ 0189 ~+ ~,~~ ~~.,> 18 3 12 '~ 0 ~ Aspen + ~`. ~~ 171 s, := ~ 63 :y iz J' 4 r.^ 1'. °40 ~ qtr 51 ~ 36 0 71 12 28 84 ~ 101 139 11 Summit St. 24~ err 8 ~ 5 23 1 s Aspen Mt. Ski Area Top of Mill N GRAND ASPEN/TOP OF MILL REDEVELOPMENT LEGEND -, Top of Mill Grand Aspen • Study Intersection TD.4 #1933 3/4/99 Traffic Volumes with Project PM Peak Hour Winter Figure 16 c Traffic Operations Table 5 shows the project LOS for the summer and winter p.m. peak hours, compared with the background conditions LOS. Because there is a net loss in traffic at some locations, the LOS and average delay is expected to improve under project conditions at those locations. In the summer p.m. peak hour, the northbound left-through-right shared movement at Aspen Street/Main Street remains at LOS *. This indicates that the projected volumes for this movement exceed the calculated capacity. All other intersections operate at LOS B or better during the summer p.m. peak hour. In the winter p.m. peak hour, intersection operations remain unchanged from background conditions. Grand Aspen/Top of MiII Redevelopment 40 Mardi ~ 1999 #1933/rptfinal.ad TDA, bic. TABLE 5. PROTECT P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS -WINTER & SUMMER Signalized Intersections Background Summer Project Summer Background Winter Project Winter Main Street/As en Street LOS LOS LOS LOS EB left A A A A EB throw h/ri ht A A A A WB left A A A A WB throw h/ri t B B B B NB left/throu h/ri ht * * D D SB left/throu h/ri ht B B B B OVERALL * * B B Main Street/Monarch Street EB left A A A A EB throw h/ri ht A A A A WB left A A A A WB throw h/ri ht B B A A NB left/throu h/ri ht E E D D SB left/throw h/ri ht B B B B OVERALL B B B B UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Background Summer Project Summer Background Winter Project Winter As en Street/Durant Avenue LOS LOS LOS LOS NB through/ri ht A A A A SB left/throw h/ri ht B B B B EB left A A A A WB left A A A A OVERALL A A A A Monarch Street/Durant Avenue NB left/throw h/ri ht B B B B SB left/throw h/right B B B B EB left A A A A WB left A A A A OVERALL A A A A Mill Street/Durant Avenue NB left/throu h/ri ht B B B B SB left/ri ht A A A A EB left A A A A WB left A A A A O~gAI,I, A A A A Galena Street/Durant Avenue NB left/right B B B B SB left/throw /right B B B B WB left A A A A OVERALL A A A A Grand Aspen/Top of Mlll Redeueluprnent 41 Marc1~ $ 1999 #1933/rptfinnl.ad TDA, Inc. +~.~/ Parking Demand and Supply ,~ry:'~ The estimated peak parking demand was calculated using the following resources: Based on the 90'~ percentile rate per occupied bedroom from data obtained in a TDA study of condominium parking utilization in Aspen conducted in the winter of 1984 (see Appendix B for details). Based on the 90`~ percentile rate per occupied unit from the same study (see Appendix B for details). ITE Parking Generation rates for residential condominiums, low-mid rise apartments and non-convention hotels were also consulted. The proposed parking supply was based on Aspen City Code and information provided by Savanah Limited Partnership. The proposed parking supply exceeds the minimum supply established by the City Code. The following assumptions were used: • For the condominiums, peak winter occupancy will be about 95% and peak summer occupancy will be about 85%. • For the Grand Aspen Hotel, peak winter occupancy will be about 85 % and peak summer occupancy will be about 65%. • Parking demand per occupied condominium unit is approximately 27% higher in the summer than during the winter. • Practical capacity of the parking facility is estimated to be 95%. Grand Aspen/Top of MiII Redc~efoprrrerrt 42 Mnrdr 4, 1999 #1933/rptf~nal.ad TDA, brc. '~.r~ Table 6 provides a summary of the different rates used in analyzing parking demand and supply: TABLE 6. PARKING RATES Source Land Use Unit Winter Rate Summer Rate Aspen condominium stud Condominium Bedroom 0.36 0.46 Aspen condominium stud Condominium Dwellin unit 0.82 1.12 ITE Parking Generation Residential 1.11 (avg. rate 1.11 (avg. rate (Parking Demand) Condominium Dwelling unit weekday) weekday) Low/Mid-rise 1.04 (avg. rate 1.04 (avg. rate apartment Dwelling unit weekday) weekday) Non-Convention 0.52 (avg. rate 0.52. (avg. rate Hotel Room weekda weekda Aspea City Code (Parking Supply) Single 1 for each studio 1 for each studio family/Duplex Unit or 1-bedroom or 1-bedroom unit; otherwise 2 unit; otherwise 2 1 for each studio 1 for each studio Multi-family Unit or 1-bedroom or 1-bedroom unit; otherwise 2 unit; otherwise 2 Hotel Bedroom 0.7 0.7 Grm~d Aspen/Top of Mill Redeurlopmrnr 43 Mnrcl- 4, 1999 #1933/rpifinal.nd TDA, Lu. Table 7 identifies estimated peak parking demand for the Top of Mill and Grand Aspen project. The demand for the duplexes and triplexes is based on the parking utilization rates from the Aspen condominium study (see Table 6). The demand for the Gcand Aspen Hotel is based on the 1:TE parking generation rate (also shown in Table 6). TABLE 7. PARKING DEMAND Based on # of Dwelling Based on # of Bedrooms Units #Parking #Parking #Parking #Parking # Units # Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Bedrooms Summer Winter Summer Winter Top of Mill Du lexes 6 21 7 6 10 9 Top of Mill Tri lexes 6 24 7 6 11 10 Grand Aspen Hotel 150 150 54 71 54 71 Table 8 summarizes the proposed parking supply, using rates generally based on the Aspen City Code. TABLE 8. PARKING SUPPLY # Units # Bedrooms Parking S ace Rate #Parkin S aces Top of Mill Du lexes 6 21 2 S aces/Unit 12 Top of Mill Tri lexes 6 24 1 S ace/Bedroom* 24 Grand Aspen Hotel 150 150 0.7 S ace/Bedroom 105 *City code requires 2 spaces per dwelling unit (for a total of 12 spaces) Based on these results, the recommended supply is 36 parking spaces for the condominiums at Top of Mill (additional parking would be required for the single family homes), and 105 parking spaces for the Grand Aspen site (the 106 proposed spaces exceeds the minimum). These rates are higher than the minimums recommended by ITE for similar uses. Grand Aspen/Top of Mill RedeUelopnrenf 44 Mardr 4 1999 #I933/rptfirral.ad TDA, Inc. NIITIGATION During the summer p.m. peak hour, traff c operations for the northbound leg of the intersection of Aspen Street and Main Street degrade to LOS * under background conditions and project conditions. With minor adjustments of signal timing the LOS for the northbound leg of the Aspen/Main intersection can be improved to LOS D, while maintaining overall intersection operations at LOS B. Grand Aspen/Top of MiII Redeuelu~-nertt 4$ March 4, 1999 #1933/rptfinal.ad TDA, Lcc. ~.rr- APPENDIX A IlVTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative assessment of intersection operations based on the average delay (in seconds) incurred by vehicles. Delay is a measure of driver frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. For unsignalized intersections, the total delay is calculated. Total delay is the difference between vehicles' actual travel time through the intersection and the travel time if the vehicle had not berg stopped or slowed. For signalized intersections, stopped delay is estimated. Stopped delay is the time period when vehicles are in afully-stopped position, and does not include deceleration/acceleration time or queue move-up time. Level of service "A" represents minimal delays and is associated with free flowing traffic, while LOS "F" is associated with long delays and poor traffic flow. The range of delay for each letter for unsignalized and signalized intersections is: LOS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (Total Delay in Seconds) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (Stopped Delay in Seconds) A G5 55 B > 5 and 510 > 5 and 515 C > 10 and 520 > 15 and 525 D > 20 and 530 > 25 and 540 E > 30 and 5 45 > 40 and 5 60 F > 45 > 60 Souse: 1994 EiiB~Y ~P~~7' M~1 t7pdace Level of service. "F" is not necessarily indicative of intersection failure. Rather, LOS F may indicate that drivers would experience long delays due to the timing of the traffic signal or other operational problems. High volumes of traffic may still flow through an intersection at LOS "F". Delay is derived from analyzing the ratio of critical volumes to capacity. The softwaze module cannot calculate LOS or delay when volumes exceed capacity by a certain amount. In that case, "*" may appear in the LOS calculation. Generally, LOS is shown as "*" when volume exceeds capacity. Although it is sometimes true that as intersection operates at LOS F when "*" appears, this is not always true. APPENDIX B Append'a B. Aspen Condo Parking Ut~¢atM~tudy, TDA, Winter 1984 -~, ~rr++~~ •,,,,,r demand/occu ied unit demand/ occu ied bedroom a Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. a Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs: Fri. The Gant 0.73 0.71 0.72 0.79 0.78 0.75 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.36 0.35 Chaumont/Dumon 0.5 0.47 0.52 0.65 0.52 0.53 021 020 0?2 027" 022 0?2 Aspen Chateau 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.42 0.17 0.17 020 024 024 020 Aspen Square 0.72 0.71 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.76 0.57 0.56 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.60 Durant 0.83 0.8 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.37 0.35 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.36 Fasching Haus 027 0.37 0.43 0.3 D.5 0.37 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.12 021 0.15 5th Avenue 0.9 0.9 0.86 0.86 0.9 0.88 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 Alpenblick 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.5 0.57 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.18 021 0.11 Aspen Mountain 1.12 125 1.62 1.25 0.5 1.15 0.32 0.36 0.46 0.36 0.14 0.33 Lift 1A 0.72 0.59 0.97 0.91 0.75 0.79 0.33 027 0.44 0.42 0.34 0.36 MEDIAN 0.72 0.65 0.75 0.79 0.66 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.34 029 AVERAGE 0.63 0.63 0.727 0.738 0.663 0.28 028 0.32 0.33 0.30 AVO Average Vehicle Ooatpsory. 'The average rnunber of people riding ut a vehicle at one lima. Also rt:ferttd to as ACO for Average Car Oxupancy. BacJtgrotmd Growth A general level of traffic incsase not related to a specific site or project It is usually expressed as as antutal pe:cenfage late of growth. Capacity 'The rnaxinntm rntmber of vehicles that can be expected to travel over a givrn section of roadway or a specific lase during a gives time period under prevailing roadway and prevailing traffic conditions. CBD Central Business District Design Day ~- design day is generally a busy day during the peak business season, but not the busiest Scloction of s design day is oftrn used for determu»ng paridug needs and traffic volumes. A facility designed to serve the busiest day of the season would rtsstlt in substantial excess arpadry for all but a few days of the year, as unrealistic standard. The design day atarsdard provides a balance: adequate aQpaciry for most days of the year with recognition that it may be exceeded on five to ten days per year. Design Year The year a development is scheduled to open. Headway The time between vehicles moving is the same direction. Often used to indicate the frequency of buses on a particular bus mute. HOV xigh-occupancy vehicle. Level of Service (LOS) A measure of intersection or roadway operating quality ranging from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (long delay). Mode Split The pernentage of persons in a group which choose to travel by one of s variety of different modal choices such as auto, pedestrian, transit, and others. Parking Generation The number of paritirsg spaces occupied by one unit of measure (e.g., per employee, per apartment) sometimes calculated as paridrsg grneration t8te in TTfi's Parlang Generation Manual Pace-By T}tps la the case of a new development, particularly retail establishments, certain rza<aurants, banks, service stations, and convenience markets, trips arc attracted from the passing traffic on adjacent strew -that ia, traffic alszady "passing by" the site. Thus, when forecasted trips based on standard trip generrttiort rates or equations art distributed, some reduction is made to account for those trips. Peak Hoar The hour of the day during which the heaviest volume of traffic occurs on a roadway. Often there is an s.m. and p.m. peak hour. Practical Capatsty Paridng facilities art rarely completely full due w turnover and the difficulty in fording the few rzmaining open spaces. For example, for retail customers, practical capacity is generally 8596 of the supply. For office employees who art familiar with a parking faciIiry, practical capacity generally rises to 95 %. GLOSSARY `w.rr° Quetta Area Storage sParn of a street or within s pasiva; facility, for vehicles entering or eating. Shared Parking Patidag apace that; can be used to service two or more individual land uses without cx>rsflid or eaaoachment. The opporwnity to implement shared pedang is the zsatr>t of taro conditions: variation in the peak atxurrarlation of parlood vehicles as the rtutlt of diffe:+eot activity pauerrt of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by day, by season): relacionahips among Iand use actrvitiea that result in people's attraction to two or morn land uses on a single auto trip to a gn+rn area or development, Signal Plisse That part of a traffic signal's timacycle allocated to a traffic movement (e.g., left toms) or a wmbination of movements receiving the right-of--way simultaneously. SOV Single Occupant Vehicle Traffic Warrants Criteria used to aseeas the rseceasity for traffic control devices (e.g. traffic signal). Transportation Management TDM - Transportation Demand Management TMA -Transportation Management Association TMO - T:anaportation Management Ordinance TMP -Transportation Management Plea VMT -Vehicle Miles Travelled Trip A single or one-dizution vehicle movetaeat with either the origin or the destination (exiting or entering) inside a attrdy site. Trip Assignment The assignment of vehicle nip volumes to the roadway network and the assignment of site-generated vehicle trip volumes to individual driveways roadways of the development Trip Distribution The expected duzctional distribution of site- grnerated traffic on madwny lurks and intersections within the study area. Trip Ends One trip end is equal to one trip. For trip gene»ufon purposes, total trip ends for a land use over a given period of time ass the total of all trips rntering plus all trips exiting a site during that designated time. Trip Generation The number of trips generated by a development; sometimes calculated in trip ends, as is Tl'E'a Trip Generation Manual. Generally, trips both to and from a development arz counted. V/C Ratio Volume to cvpaciry ratio between the flow rate of vehicles and/or people to the capaciry of a traffic faciIiry. Italiazed terms within a defsnition are separately defused eisew)sere in rite glossary. Sources: TDA Inc., 1TE, Urban Iand Institute, litghx~ay Capacity Manual, FIA, APA. Version: 11 /92 VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants March 17, 1999 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Mitch Haas Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lots 3 and 5, Aspen Mountain PUD Traffic Analysis Dear Mitch: Attached is a copy of the updated traffic analysis for Lots 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The analysis was updated to reflect Savanah's current proposal to develop a hotel on Lot 5. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VA1~N ASSOCIATES. LLC ann, AICP c:\bus\city.ltrUtr37598.mh2 230 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen. Colorado 81611 970/925-6958 Fax 970/920-9310 -livt- '~" ~ ,/l ,~~ TABLE 12 ASPEN AREA SHORT-TERM ACCO TORY 1990-19995 SST FROM LODGING INVEN -a a j ,~---~ f~ -a a x N Short-Term Accommodations Faciti T e of'Accommodations pillows 46 118 Highlands Inn ~ 11 34 Maroon Creek Lodge 50 84 Red Roof Inn (aka Plum Tree) lb 62 Bell Mountain Lodge 40 80 Alpina Haus Lodge 5 17 83 North Star Lodge (a.k.a. 914 Waters Ave.) 15 39 Aspen Cortina Lodge 20 50 Brass Bed Inn 14 53 Copper Horse Guest House 20 58 Fireside Lodge 5 15 57 Little Red Ski House 11 37 Alpine Lodge 5 15 20 59 Heatherbed Lodge 14 52 Aspen Park Meadows 40 80 Pomegranate Inn (a.k.a. Aspen Country Inn) 2 13 41 Bavarian Inn 9 - 13 77 Christiana Lodge 25 52 As en Manor 37 43 361 1116 Totals *Uiits -Dwelling units with kitchens. **Dorms -Large shared rooms without kitchens. ***Rooms -Traditional lodge rooms without kitchens. ent, Aspen Chamber of Commerce, Aspen Central ~rvauons, Source: Aspen Pitkin Planning DePartm 1982 Short-Term Accommodations Unit Survey 8i Davis Horn Aspen Pitkin Planning Office February, Incorporated, May 1999. ~` "Are Aspen's Small Appendix 10 is a copy of a April 10 & 11, Aspen Times Weekly cover story, 78 a x ~~ ~~. Growth: Lodge Units To estimate the growth or loss of lodge units, the City and County Construction Reports were used as well as individual case records to estimate the change in lodge units since 1990. The construction reports list lodges under the category: "New Residential Nonhousekeeping Buildings," and include the following two sub-categories - "hotels, motels, tourist cabins" and "other nonhousekeeping shelter." Table 11 Change in Total Lodging Units 1990 -1997 9 Year City Units Metro Area Units City ~ Metro Area *Additions Losses: (if the actu; Copper Horse Cortina Fireside Lodge Northstar Aspen Country Inn Aspen Manor Bell Mountain Lodge Brass Bed Inn Alpina House Carriage House Aspen Park Meadows Subtotals The rate of change in lodge units In the Metro area etween 9 an 19 Is o. is is ue mai y to the closure of many of the small lodges in the "Economy and Moderate Rate Lodging" categories. The construction of the Ritr Carlton has helped to offset the loss in overall numbers of lodge units. However, those rooms fall into the "Deluxe Rate Lodging" category. The Lodge Unit counts were derived from a line-by-line review of the 1990 Lodge Inventory, discussions with Community Development staff regarding lodge unit counts in the 1990 - 1997 construction reports, and accounts for those lodge units that were either demolished, closed or converted to Affordable Housing. In 1998 and 1999, several more lodge units have been lost that are not addressed in this table including: The Little Red Ski Haus (20), Alpine Lodge (11), Heatherbed Lodge (21), and the Maroon Creek Lodge (13). (.lhjY I-ti 6Z' i~SGI'itLa~ ~ ~, ~ 'Bali w~a ~'7'Y WM~T~ ,lam ~o~r' ~T'G ~, -r R~r~ Report Compiled by AspenlPitkin Community Development Staff with Community Matters, Inc. version: 6110199 16 1990 base year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Net Change 1990- 1997 Avg. Annual Change in Units Growth Rate 1,191 1,198 1,198 1,455 1,455 1,455 1,455 1,178 -13 -1.6 -0.16% 133 126 126 126 126 126 126 127 -13 -1.6 -0.66% 1,324 1,324 1,324 1,581 1,581 1,581 1,581 1,305 -26 -3 -0.21% 257 al year is uncertain, tosses have been placed in 1997) -13 -16 -20 -22 -84 -21 -22 -29 -40 -10 -14 -7 257 -276 - -3 -0.21 ~. b 1 90 d 97 ' -0 21°/ Th~ ~ _3,g , I .~ ASPEN CHA.~iBER RESORT ASSOCI ON, INC. ,, MEMORANDUM TO: ACRA Board of Directors FROM: Diane Moore, President RE: 1999 Aspen Area Pillow Count Survey DATE: March- 2, 1999 At the September, 1998 Board of Director's meeting, several Board members requested that the ACRA compile an accurate pillow count of the Aspen area. During the past decade, there have been considerable changes in-the community's lodging base, due to demolitions, construction, renovations and conversions of lodge properties. We sent out letters on December 2, 1998 to all lodges, condominiums, and property management companies requesting an updated pillow count, including pillow count information from 1990. After numerous phone calls from Nell Arthur and Board members, we received approximately 98% of the pillow count information for 1998. A special thanks to Nell for her assistance with the pillow survey. We had asked the properties to provide us with the historical data from 1990, so that we could assess what trends, if any, had developed. Very few properties provided us with the historical data, so we were not able to make accurate comparisons from previous years. The ACRA and Aspen Central Reservations have pillow count information from previous years, but some of that information does not include property management companies or private homes that are periodically leased on a short term basis to guests. Property management companies and private home rental pillow figures are included in the 1999 pillow survey. We could draw some general conclusions from the comparison of the historical data, but its accuracy is questionable. Pillow count information from 1994 & 1996 reflects a total pillow count figure of 9,056 for both years (1997 & 1995 data was not updated). It should also be noted that the number of pillows available for short term occupancy fluctuates on a monthly basis. The attached graph lists the property name, type of property, and the subtotal for each particular category. We cannot list the specific pillow count data from each property as we assured confidentiality regarding the figures. Numerous properties were concerned and fearful as to how this information would be utilized (lodge tax, revisions to city regulations, building permit updates, etc...). J °ASPEN ~=~ hiu Gran~ic I'(.trr, :\~prn, G~I~n.ui~~ tiii~l t ~ Trlr^lu~nr..~-t' ~~~ •_;~? ~i' ~ F.t~: `?-i? 9'_'ll-l!-~ Inirrnec .\~i~{rrr;>: httF :i /~~ ~c~c. ~:~ en.c:~m ,~..~.~ "~,+° General Conclusions: • It appears that the number of pillows available for short term occupancy have decreased over the past few years by approximately 100 - 200 pillows. While the chart reflects that 393 pillows (economy properties) have been lost, there have been some gains in the number of pillows via property management companies, specifically with the rental of single family homes. The loss of 393 pillows is significant because these rooms were probably more accessible and affordable than a single family home rental. • Conversations with local property management companies indicate that the owners of condominiums are reducing the number of days that their condo's are available for short term vacation rentals. • All of the properties that have been converted from lodge use to another use were economy properties. • There is increased pressure to convert older, "economy properties" to affordable housing units due to the strong need for employee housing. The Christinia Lodge may consider operating the property as a lodge this summer, as opposed to renting the rooms as affordable housing units. • Only a few properties, such as the L'Auberge de Aspen and the Beaumont Inn, have added rooms to their properties (total of 16 additional pillows). Both of these properties are considered moderate lodging. 2 `"""' 1998 -1999 Aspen Area `~% Pillow Count Survey Prepared by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association Property Name Type 1998 Aspen Alps Condominium Assoc Deluxe Condo/Home Aspen Square Deluxe Condo/Home Brand Hotel Deluxe Condo/Home North of Nell Deluxe Condo/Home Prospector Deluxe Condo/Home Residence Suites Deluxe Condo/Home The Gant Deluxe Condo/Home PILLOW SUB TOTAL ~ 1,477 Aztec Condominiums Moderate Condo/Home Chateau Blanc Condominiums Moderate Condo/Home Lift One Condominiums Moderate Condo/Home Mountain Queen Condominiums Moderate Condo/Home Shadow Mountain Lodge Moderate Condo/Home PILLOW SUB TOTAL 240 Aspen Club Lodge Deluxe Lodge Aspen Meadows Deluxe Lodge Hotel Jerome Deluxe Lodge Hotel Lenado Deluxe Lodge Little Nell Hotel Deluxe Lodge Sardy House Deluxe Lodge St Regis Deluxe Lodge PILLOW SUB TOTAL 1,676 Aspen Mtn Lodge formerly Aspen B&B Moderate Beaumont Inn Moderate Boomerang Lodge Moderate Hearthstone House Moderate Hotel Aspen Moderate Hotel Durant Moderate Independence Square B&B Moderate Inn at Aspen Moderate Innsbruck Inn Moderate L'Auberge de Aspen Moderate Limelite Lodge Moderate Molly Gibson Lodge Moderate Mountain Chalet Moderate Mountain House Lodge Moderate Snowflake Inn Moderate T-Lazy-7 Guest Ranch Moderate PILLOW SUB TOTAL 1,865 "~ ,~,.,~ 1998 -1999 Aspen Area ... Pillow Count Survey Prepared by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association Property Name Type 1998 Chalet Lisl Economy Christmas Inn Economy Deep Powder Ski Lodge Economy Grand Aspen Hotel Economy Holland House Economy Skiers Chalet Lodge Economy Snow Queen Lodge Economy St. Moritz Lodge Economy Tipple Lodge Economy Tyrolean Lodge Economy Ullr Lodge Economy PILLOW SUB TOTAL 704 Accent Properties Property Management Allen Sharkey Braden Whitaker Property Management Aspen Classic Properties Property Management Aspen Group Inc Property Management Aspen Lodging Company Property Management Aspen Resort Accommodations Property Management Coates Reid and Waldron Property Management Frias Properties Property Management Houston O'Leary Property Management Interwest Realty Property Management La Blanca Via Rentals Property Management Little Lake Lodge Prop Mgmt Property Management McCartney Property Management Property Management Ute City Properties Property Management West Hyman Management Property Management PILLOW SUB TOTAL 3,007 1998 - 1999 PILLOW GRAND TOTAL 8,969 PROPERTY NAME TYPE CONVERTED TO Alpine Lodge Economy Free Market & Affordable Housing Aspen Manor Economy Closed and Vacant Bell Mountain Lodge Economy Free Market & Affordable Housing Christiana Lodge and Chalets Economy Affordable Housing Fireside Lodge Economy Luxury Condos Heatherbed Lodge Economy Affordable Housing Little Red Ski House Economy Private Residence Maroon Creek Lodge Economy Affordable Housing PILLOWS LOST 393 2 Alpine Lodge 1240 E Cooper Ave employee co ! Barvarian Inn 811 W Sleeker employee eco Buckhorn Lodge 730 E Cooper Ave lodge 9 eco Chalet Lisl 100 E Hyman Ave owner/op 9 eco Copper Hcrse 330 W Main Street employee eco Cortina 220 E Main Street employee eco Deep Powder Lodge 410 S Aspen St owner/op 9 eco Holland House 720 S Aspen St owner/op 20 eco Hotel Aspen 110 W Main St condo lodge 45 eco Little Red Ski Haus 118 E Cooper Ave ew~erfap ~~~~ iv ~9 eco Maroon Creek Lodge 1489 Maroon Creek Rd base area Bevel 11 eco Snow Queen Lodge 124 E Cooper St owner/op 7 eco St. Moritz Lodge 334 W Hyman Ave lodge 29 eco T-Lazy-Seven Ranch 3129 Maroon Creek Rd guest ranch 19 eco Tyrolean Lodge 200 W Main St owner/op 16 eco Aspen Club Lodge 709 E Durant Ave lodge 100 exp Aspen Meadows 845 Meadows Rd hotel 98 exp Brand Hotel 205 S Galena lodge 6 exp Fireside Lodge 130 W Copper Ave townhomes !b exp Hearthstone House 134 E Hyman lodge 17 exp Hotel Jerome 330 E Main Street hotel 93 exp Hotel Lenado 200 S Aspen St lodge 19 exp Little Nell 675 E Durant Ave hotel 92 exp Northstar 914 Waters Ave employee rP8 exp Red Roof Inn 39551 Highway 82 employee i8 exp Sardy House 128 E Main St lodge 20 exp St. Regis 315 F Dean St hotel 257 exp The Residence 305 S Galena lodge ~ 7 exp Aspen Country Inn 38996 Highway 82 employee mod Aspen Manor 411 S Monarch St abandoned mod Aspen Mountain Lodge 311 W Main St condo lodge 38 mod Aspen Square 617 E Cooper lodge Go-Jv0 104 mod Beaumont Inn 1301 E Cooper Ave owner/op 30 mod Bell Mountain Lodge 720 E Cooper Ave vacant land -~ od Boomerang Lodge 500 W Hopkins Ave owner/op 36 mod Brass Bed Inn 920 E Durant Ave townhomes mod Christiania Lodge 501 W Main St lodge 22 mod Christmas Inn 232 W Main St owner/op 26 mod Grand Aspen 515 S Galena hotel ~~~ 0 112 mod Heatherbed L~;;~ge 1679 Maroon Creek Rd employee od Independence Square 404 S Galena condo lodge 28 mad Inn At Aspen 38750 Highway 82 hotel Ce,Noo 112 mod Innsbruck Inn 233 W Main St owner/op 31 mod Inverness Lodge 122 E Durant owner/op 21 mod L Auberge d Aspen 435 W Main St owner/op 16 mod Lift One Condos 131 E Durant condo lodge 30 mod Limelite Lodge 228 E Cooper lodge 63 mod Molly Gii;~_n Lodge 101 W Main St condo lodge 50 mod Mountain Chalet 333 E Durant St owner/op 51 mod L--7 ;~, Mountain House Lodge 905 E Hopkins owner/op 24 mod Prospector 301 E Hyman ~jN ~ 23 mod Shadow Mountain Lodge 232 W Hyman Ave timeshare 10 mod Skiers Chalet 233 Gilbert lodge 18 mod Snowflake Inn 221 E Hyman Ave lodge 38 mod Tipple Inn 516 E Dean St cond 12 mod Tipple Lodge 530 S Galena condo ~0 8 mod Ullr Lodge 520 W Main St owner/op 23 mod Alpina House 935 E Durant Ave employee Aspen Siverglo 940 Waters Ave 24 Avalanche Ranch 12863 Highway 133 BRB Campground 7202 Highway 133 Carriage House 320 W Main St employee Crystal Valley Manor 215 Redstone Blvd Diamond J Ranch 26604 Frying Pan Rd Fasching Haus East 747 S Galena Filoha Meadows 14628 Highway 133 Frying Pan Ranch 32042 Frying Pan Rd Limelite Lodge 228 E Cooper Ave lodge Maroon Creek Club 10 Club Cr lodge Redstone Castle 58 Redstone Blvd Redstone Cliffs Lodge 433 Redstone Blvd lodge 13 Redstone Inn 82 Redstone Blvd 35 Shelley Burke 2262 Snowmass Creek Rd Snowmass Cottages 26801 Highway 82 The Pines Lodge 411 S. Aspen St employee ~~~ ~ ~, e ~~~. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Under $25,000 Total Compensation) This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Haas Land Planning ("Professional"). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon signing by both parties of this Agreement and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed no later than as determined for specific work projects. Upon request of the Ciry, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the Ciry, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates of $85.00 per hour. Ciry shall reimburse Professional for out-of-pocket expenses reasonable incurred in connection with the work, including but not limited to materials, mileage, copy fees and long distance telephone/facsimile charges. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed $5,000. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion within the first 10 days of each month, invoices for work performed. Such invoices shall detail hours worked, tasks worked on, hourly rates and expenses incurred. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. Payment by City shall be made within twenty (20) days of the billing date as noted on the invoice. Invoices may include Professional's work performed within the Scope of Work that has been carried out since July 2, 1999. 4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the YS1-971.doc Page 1 ,,~, ~w/ extent of the subcontract. The Ciry shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor. 5. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination or completion of work, all fmished or unfmished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. The terms and/or reasons for any termination of this Agreement, whether by the City or the Professional, shall be kept confidential between the parties of this Agreement. If any disputes arise out of the performance of this Agreement, both parties agree that the dispute will be resolved by a mediator agreeable to both parties. 6. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has not. employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. PS1-971.doc Page 2 ,. ~ ,, ;. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Ciry's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 10. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 11. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to: City: Julie Ann Woods City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Professional: Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, Colorado 81611 PS1-971.doc Page 3 ..~~„, 12. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 13. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 14. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. 15. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written. Y51-y7l.doc Page 4 .~ ATTESTED BY: ~~ CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: By: Title ~~-...;~Ci / ~.,~ 7~,,,,.,1'~,L Date: ~ ~~9q rtcvr~a~i 1 WITNESSED BY: ~ ~iQ~(It~ ~N~ Lac By: Title: PS1-971.doc Date: 8 6 ~9 Page 5 ,. f ~ .,,.:~ EXHIBIT "A" to Professional Services Agreement Scope of Work Performance of professional land use planning work associated with the review and evaluation of the "Conceptual Phase" of Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development (AMPUD). In addition to Community Development Department Staff, serves as a representative of the Community Development Department in all deliberations and meetings regarding AMPUD. Prepares memoranda and reports for Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council meetings regarding AMPUD. Professional shall submit written memoranda and reports to the Community Development Director in a timely manner so as to be reviewed, modified and included in the packet within adopted City deadlines. As determined and requested by the Community Development Director, attends Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council public meetings, staff meetings and meetings with applYcant regarding AMPUD. The Professional may be called upon and must be prepared to address the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council in the hearings/meetings as necessary to clarify information and/or the history of the project. The Community Development Director will provide at least three (3) working days notice to Professional and strive to coordinate meetings with the schedule of the Professional prior to setting any AMPUD meeting. The City shall meet with the Professional and provide information, direction and expertise to the Professional as necessary to assist in accomplishing the Scope of Work. PS1-971.doc Page 6 ~~~g'~~~ SUBDIVISIONlPUD AGREEMENT FOR TOP OF MILL SUBDIVISION/PUD 47to~~ EXECUTION CO Y i _ `-~ ~,%~ ~' ~/ ~b THIS SUBDIVISION/PUD AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered this b day of August 2002, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Colorado municipal corporation ("City") and TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("TOMI"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City and Savanah Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership ("Savanah"), are parties to that certain First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision ("First Amended PUD Agreement") dated October 3, 1988 and recorded in the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, on October 3, 1988 in Book 574 at Page 792, as the same has been amended as hereinafter more particularly set forth; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2001 TOMI acquired from Savanah certain real property situated within the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, which real property is also situated within the municipal boundaries of the City known as Lot 3, First Amended Plat Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development, according to the Plat thereof filed October 3, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 35 ('`Top of Mill"); and WHEREAS, the First Amended PUD Agreement directs that at such time as Top of Mill receives final PUD development approval, a PUD Agreement shall be executed by the parties setting forth such final approvals and incorporating all conditions and assurances that may be reasonably required by the City in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, TOMI has submitted to the City an Application for Final PUD Development Plan Approval (the "Application") pursuant to the June 1996 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Regulations of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code (the "1996 Code") including approval, execution and recordation of a Final Plat for Top of Mill (the "Final Plat"); and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the Application and the Final Plat, the proposed development and improvement of Top of Mill contained therein, and the effects of the proposed development and improvement of said lands on adjoining or neighboring properties and property owners; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed certain conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and recordation of the Final Plat, such matters being necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and 38181-16 ~ 47~ ~~(D Page: 1 of 47 08/16/2002 02:2~F SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXiJCiJTION COPY WHEREAS, TOMI is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by and faithfully perform the conditions and requirements imposed by the City in approving the Application and the .Final Plat; and WHEREAS, under the authority of Sections 26.84.040(C and D) and 26.88.050(C and D) of the 1996 Code, the City is entitled to certain financial guarantees to ensure that (i) the required public facilities are installed and (ii) the required landscaping is installed and maintained, and TOMI is prepared to provide such guarantees as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the approval, execution and acceptance of the Final Plat for recordation by the City, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF AGREEMENT 1.1 Prior Amendments to the First Amended PUD Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree that the First Amended PUD Agreement has previously been amended by the following, which shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Section M Amendments": (a) June 1990 Section M Amendment. (b) June 1991 Section M Amendment. (c) August 1992 Section M Amendment. (d) October 1992 Section M Amendment. (e) February 1993 Section M Amendment. (f) June 1995 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No. 33-95). (g) May 1998 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No. 8-98). (h) September 1999 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No. 38-99). (i) December 2000 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No. 53-00). (j) June 2002 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No. 15-02). 38181-16 ~~~~~~ Rage: 2 of 47 08/36/2002 02:27F SILVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY 1.2 Purpose of this Agreement. This Agreement is executed by the parties in accordance with the requirements of the First Amended PUD Agreement, as amended by the Section M Amendments, that a new PUD Agreement be executed at the time of final development approval for Top of Mill. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the complete and comprehensive agreement between the parties with respect to the development that has been approved for Top of Mill and to enumerate all terms and conditions under which such development may occur. The effect of this Agreement is to terminate, supersede and replace all provisions of the First Amended PUD Agreement and the Section M Amendments, which relate in any manner to Top of Mill. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the provisions ofthe First Amended PUD Agreement, as amended by the Section M Amendments, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. Nothing in this Agreement modifies, revokes, amends or affects any provision of the First Amended PUD Agreement, as amended by the Section M Amendments, which relates to Lot 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, unless expressly revoked or modified hereby. All provisions of the First Amended PUD Agreement, as amended by the Section M Amendments, which relate to Lots 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, shall remain in frill force and effect, except to the extent they may be otherwise amended. ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS 2.1 Zoning and Regulatory Approvals. (a) Resolution and Ordinance of Approval. Conceptual PUD development plan approval for Top of Mill was granted by the Aspen City Council in Resolution No. 99-93, approved and adopted on December 6, 1999. By adoption of Resolution No. O 1-50, adopted on May 29, 2001, the Aspen City Council granted amended conceptual PUD Development Plan approval for Top of Mill, which is to be subdivided into eight (8) development parcels, two (2) open space parcels and a parcel of approximately 2,745 square feet containing an existing parking garage ("Parcel 9") for the benefit of Lot 2, Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, known as the Summit Place Condominiums. By adoption of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2002, adopted on March 11, 2002 and recorded April 19, 2002 as Reception No. 466392 ("Ordinance No. 7"), the Aspen City Council granted Final PUD Development Plan and Subdivision Approval for Top of Mill. Ordinance No. 7 also granted (i) a growth management quota system exemption for the affordable housing units to be constructed on Parcel 2, Top of Mill; (ii) rezoning of that portion of Top of Mill previously zoned R-15 (PUD) (L); Moderate-Density Residential, Planned Unit Development, Lodge Overlay and a portion of Top of Mill zoned C, Conservation to L/TR (PUD), Lodge/Tourist Residential, Planned Unit Development; (iii) Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, and 8040 Greenline Review; and (iv) approval to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") on Parcel 3 of Top of Mill. The exterior boundaries of the eight (8) development parcels, two (2) open space parcels and Parcel 9 are depicted on the Final Plat for Top of Mill which will be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. The Final Plat for Top of Mill also depicts the allowed building set backs within the eight (8) 38181-16 4? ~ 107 Page: 3 of 47 08/16/2002 @2:27F SILVIA DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY development parcels. TOMI shall convey Parcel 9 to the Summit Place Condominium owners association immediately after the Final Plat for Top of Mill is recorded and, upon such conveyance, Parcel 9 shall not be covered by, or subject to this Agreement except as set forth in Paragraphs 2.1(b)(ii) and (iii) and 2.2(hh) below. The instrument by which TOMI conveys Parcel 9 shall contain a restriction to ensure that Parcel 9 will always serve to provide parking for the benefit of Lot 2, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and that development on Parcel 9 shall be limited to the existing garage and trash storage structures or any replacement thereof. Pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B ofthe Apri12000 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Regulations of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code, the Community Development Director, in consultation with TOMI, permitted and directed a modification in review procedures to combine Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plan, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review and Rezoning Review for the purposes of ensuring economy of time and clarity. This Agreement incorporates all the provisions of Ordinance No. 7. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the provisions of Ordinance No. 7, this Agreement shall govern and control. (b) PUD Variations. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 7, the Aspen City Council approved the following variations in the dimensional requirements of the L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residential and C, Conservation zone districts: (i) Maximum Lot Size. An increase in the maximum lot size for single family and duplex dwelling units. The size of Parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be as depicted on the Final Plat for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. (ii) Minimum Lot Size. A reduction in the minimum lot size requirement. The size of Parcel 9 and Open Space Parcel B shall be as depicted on the Final Plat for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. (iii) Minimum Setbacks. A reduction in the minimum setback requirements. The front, side and rear yard setbacks on Parcel 9 shall be as depicted on the Final Plat for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. (c) Parking, 8040 Greenline and Mountain Viewplane Approval. Pursuant to Ordinance 7, the Aspen City Council granted (i) special review approval of the off-street parking requirements for the affordable housing units approved for development on Parcel 2, Top of Mill, (ii) 8040 greenline approval for Parcels 1, 2 and 3, Top of Mill and (iii) mountain viewplane approval for all development parcels on the Top of Mill. The development of the free market single-family dwellings proposed for Parcels 4 - 8 shall be subj ect to a site and design specific 8040 Greenline Review prior to their development. These Parcels shall only be required to respond to review standards 26.68.030 (C)(3) and 26.68.030 38181-16 4 4f~ ~04~ Page: 4 of 47 08!16/2002 02:27P SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY (C)(7) of the 1996 Code. Ordinance No. 7 approves Parcels 4- 8 regarding 8040 Greenline Review Standards 26.68.030 (C)(1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11) of the 1996 Code thereby precluding any further review of such standards. (d) Tlested Rights. In accordance with the requirements ofC.R.S. 24-68-103(b) a properly noticed public hearing concerning the establishment of vested property rights for Top of Mill was conducted on March 11, 2002. As authorized by C.R.S. 24-68-102(4)(a), City and TO1V1I hereby agree that the Final Plat, the Top of Mill Final PUD Development Plan and all other documents recorded contemporaneously therewith, collectively constitute the site specific development plan as used in Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S., for Top of Mill. In accordance with applicable provisions of Ordinance No.7, Series of 2001, the City has granted vested property rights for a period of three (3) years trom the date of approval of Ordinance No. 7, for the development of "fop of Mill in accordance with the documents which are herein agreed to constitute the site specific development plan for Top of Mill. 2.2 Development Approvals. Top of Mill has been approved for subdivision into eight (8) development parcels, identified on the Final Plat and throughout this Agreement as Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, two (2) open space parcels which are identified as Open Space Parcels A and B on the Final Plat, and Parcel 9 which is identified as Parcel 9 on the Final Plat. The eight (8) development parcels on Top of Mill may be developed as follows: (a) Development on Parcel 1. Approval is hereby granted for the development of six (6) free market, four-bedroom, multi-family townhouse units on Parcel 1. Such units shall be contained in two (2) separate triplex structures. Each individual townhouse unit shall contain no more than 4,500 square feet of floor area. Development on Parcel 1 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 27,000 square feet. TOMI shall further subdivide Parcel 1 by the creation of a common interest community. Prior to the conveyance of any interest in Parcel 1, a common interest community plat for either a condominium or planned community (as determined by TOMI) shall be duly recorded. TOMI shall record the approved condominium (or planned community) subdivision plat for Parcel 1 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of its approval by the Community Development Director. If TOMI fails to record the approved plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the Community Development Director, the plat shall be invalid and TOMI shall be required to submit a new plat to the Community Development Director for approval. (b) Development on Parcel 2. Approval is hereby granted for the development of four (4) affordable housing units on Parcel 2. Such units shall be contained within a single multifamily structure. Three (3) of said units shall be three-bedroom units, each having no less than 1550 square feet of net livable area and the fourth unit shall be afour-bedroom unit having no less than 1870 square feet of net livable area; provided, however, that the actual amount of net livable area in each unit shall be determined at the time of building permit application. Development on Parcel 2 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 8,000 square feet. TOMI shall further subdivide Parcel 2 by the creation of a common interest 38181-16 5 L~~'1 ~ ~Q Page: 5 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIA DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY community. Prior to the conveyance of any interest in Parcel 2, a common interest community plat for either a condominium or planned community (as determined by TOMI) shall be duly recorded. TOMI shall record the approved condominium (or planned community) subdivision plat for Parcel 2 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of its approval by the Community Development Director. If TOMI fails to record the approved plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the Community Development Director, the plat shall be invalid and TOMI shall be required to submit a new plat to the Community Development Director for approval. The aff~~rdable housing units to be developed on Parcel 2 shall comply with all representations made by TOMI in connection with the Application and comply with the deed restrictions administered by APCHA. A master owner's association for Top of Mill to be known as "Top of Mill Master Association", or such other name determined by TOMI (the "Master Association") will be formed as a master association to exercise the functions set forth in the Master Declaration of Protective Covenants of Top of Mill (the "Master Declaration") and to own, lease, hold, operate, care for and manage certain property for the common benefit of owners of the Parcels within Top of Mill. A separate owners association shall be created for the affordable housing units on Parcel 2, which shall participate in, and be subj ect to the Master Association and Master Declaration. The Master Declaration shall provide that all annual and special assessments under the Master Declaration shall be allocated 1/17th to each of the four (4) affordable housing units on Parcel 2, and that until such time as the units are constructed, Parcel 2 shall be allocated 4/17th of all annual and special assessments. In addition, there will be a separate assessment for maintenance, repair, replacement or improvements to Top of Mill Street (the private road shown on the Final Plat) and the sidewalks within Top of Mill (the "Private Road Assessment"). Six percent (6%) of the Private Road Assessment shall be allocated to Parcel 2 (i.e., 1.5% per unit for each of the four (4) affordable housing units on Parcel 2). Notwithstanding the foregoing allocations, the Master Declaration shall provide that annual and special assessments and Private Road Assessments against any affordable housing unit on Parcel 2 shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1000.00) per unit per year. (i) Affordability of Parcel 2 Units. The four (4) affordable housing units approved for development on Parcel 2 completely satisfy all requirements of the City's Multifamily Housing Replacement Program with respect to the demolition of multi-family dwelling units on all of (i.e., Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. TOMI shall meet with APCHA to maintain the average price of the of the four (4) affordable housing units approved for development on Parcel 2 to APCHA Category 2, but to price one of the three bedroom units shall be priced between Category 1 and 2, and the price of the 4-bedroom unit shall be between Category 2 and 3, but marketed and sold as a Category 3 unit. Three of the four units on Parcel 2 shall be distributed and sold under the general lottery through APCHA. TOMI shall be able to choose a buyer for one of the units (and designate the unit to be purchased). However, the buyer chosen by TOMI must be a fully qualified employee under the category for the unit chosen; i.e., the potential buyer 38181-16 6 47~ifD~ 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 5,200 square feet, which shall include the ADU if constructed at the owner's election under Section 2.2(i), below. (g) Development on Parcel 7. Approval is hereby granted for the development of one (1) detached, free market single family residence on Parcel 7. Development on Parcel ? is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 6,500 square feet, which shall include the ADU if constructed at the owner's election under Section 2.2(i), below. (h) Development on Parcel 8. Approval is hereby granted for the development of one (1) detached, free market single family residence on Parcel 8. Development on Parcel 8 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 6,500 square feet, which shall include the ADU if constructed at the owner's election under Section 2.2(i), below. (i) Accessory Dwelling Units on Parcels ~, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Each of the single family detached units approved for construction on Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall contain an ADU, or the owner of each Parcel, at his election, shall make a cash in lieu payment thereof. The decision whether to construct an ADU or make a cash in lieu payment maybe made on aparcel-by-parcel basis. If an ADU is constructed, it shall be approved, deed restricted and in every other respect constructed in accordance with the City's ADU regulations in effect at the time of building permit application for each structure. If a cash in lieu payment is made, it shall be made in accordance with the City's ADU regulations in effect at the time of issuance of the applicable building permit. If an ADU is constructed on any Parcel, at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the ADU, APCHA shall have the right to conduct a site visit. (j) Exemption from GMQS. The thirteen (13) free market units approved for development on Top of Mill as hereinabove described are exempt from the City's growth management quota system as the development rights for such units are derived from the 47 residential development rights held by TOMI under the First Amended PUD Agreement. TOMI's construction of the four (4) deed restricted affordable housing units on Parcel 2 and the six (6) ADU's on Parcels 3-8 (or payment of cash in lieu thereof from the owners of Parcels 3-8), shall constitute compliance with all applicable City regulations with respect to the demolition and reconstruction of existing single family, duplex and multi-family residential units on all of (i.e., Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. No further affordable housing shall be required in connection with the development of Top of Mill as approved in this Agreement. It is understood that upon recording of this Agreement and recording of the Subdivision/PUD Agreement for Lot 5, Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, no residential credits associated with the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD will remain (it being understood that all remaining residential credits associated with the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD will have been used in connection with Top of Mill and said Lot 5. Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD). 38181-16 8 47100 Page: 8 of 47 SILVIA pgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO @8/16/2002 02:27F R 235.00 D 0,00 EXECUTION COPY (k) Calculation of Floor Area. The calculation of allowable floor area for all structures and units approved for development on Top of Mill shall be made in accordance with the City's floor area regulations in effect at the time of the building permit application for each particular structure; provided, however, the maximum allowable floor areas set forth in this Agreement shall not be reduced (i.e., all required adjustments for calculating allowable floor area, such as steep slopes, easements, etc., have already been considered in determining the floor areas set forth in this Agreement). (1) Parking. A minimum of twelve (12) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on Parcel 1; eight (8) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on Parcel 2; four (4) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on Parcel 3; and two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on each of Parcels 4 - 8. (m) Common Access Driveway, Access Road and Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter. (i) Common Access Driveway. Vehicular access to the townhouse units on Parcel 1 shall be from a common driveway from Mill Street. TOMI shall be responsible to construct the Parcel 1 common driveway in connection with the construction of any improvement on Parcel 1. After completion of construction of the common driveway, all costs associated with the maintenance and repair, including snowplowing, of the common driveway shall be paid by the owners of the units located on Parcel 1. (ii) Access Road. Vehicular access to Parcels 2 through 8 shall be from a private road, identified on the Final Plat as "Top of Mill Street", to be extended from the existing terminus of South Mill Street. TOMI has dedicated on the Final Plat, for the benefit of owners of Parcels 2 through 8, their guests and invitees, a perpetual non-exclusive easement for all ingress and egress purposes upon Top of Mill Street. TOMI shall be responsible for the construction of Top of Mill Street as a subdivision improvement in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement. After completion of said construction, all costs associated with the maintenance and repair, including snowplowing, of Top of Mill Street, shall be paid by owners of Parcels 2 through 8. (iii) Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter. TOMI shall install a sidewalk along the west side of Mill Street between Summit Street and the entrance to Top of Mill Street. TOMI shall install a curb and gutter on the west side of Mill Street adjacent to Parcel 1 and along Top of Mill Street. Such improvements shall be installed as subdivision improvements in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement and as shown on the Final PUD Development Plan for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. (n) Utilities. TOMI shall install all utilities shown on the Schematic Utility Plan for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. 38181-16 9 47~~~0 Page: 9 of 47 SILVIA DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.008/16D20 00 2.27P EXECUTION COPY All such utilities shall be installed as subdivision improvements in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement. TOMI shall be required to show to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ("ACSD") all service locations at the station numbers on the final utility plans For Top of Mill prior to building permit application. Additionally, TOMI shall indicate to the ACSD if main line easements within any City rights-of-way are to be dedicated by plat or by description. In addition, TOMI shall execute a "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" with ACSD prior to building permit application. Unless otherwise agreed to by TOMI and ACSD: (i) forty percent (40%) of the estimated total connection fees must be paid by TOMI to ACSD at the time service lines are stubbed off the main line into the specific Parcels of Top of Mill and (ii) the remaining balance of the connection fees shall be paid by the owner of the Parcel at the time service is established to such owner's Parcel. (o) Landscaping. TOMI shall install and otherwise implement all landscaping for Parcels 1, 2, 3 and Open Space Parcel A depicted on the approved Landscape Plan, which is to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. Landscaping for Parcels 4-8 shall be the responsibility of the respective owners of those Parcels. (p) Trail Easements. (i) Top of Mill Trail. The Final Plat vacates the Top of Mill Trail Easement as shown on the First Amended Plat Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development filed October 3, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 35 (the "First Amended Plat"). The new Top of Mill Trail Easement shall be dedicated to the public for pedestrian purposes, as more fully set forth in that certain Top of Mill Trail Easement Agreement between TOMI and the City of Aspen attached hereto as Exhibit "A-1", to be recorded after: (1) publicly dedicated trails through adjoining lands have been connected up with the easterly and westerly ends of said Top of Mill Trail Easement; (2) the City of Aspen notifies TOMI thereof; and (3) an as-built legal description is available (and provided by TOMI) for the portion of the Top of Mill. Trail Easement lying between the western boundary of Parcels 1 and 8 and the western boundary of Open Space Parcel B (it being understood that the Final Plat merely indicates the general vicinity of the new Top of Mill Trail Easement in that area and that the Top of Mill Trail Easement in that area will be located and aligned after the trail is constructed in that area). The public dedication shall also include the right, on the part of the public, to cross Top of Mill Street in order to utilize the Top of Mill Trail Easement. Until such time as said public dedication shall become effective, TOMI dedicates and sets apart to the Master Association for the exclusive use and benefit of the owners, from time to time, of Parcels 1 through 8, their guests and invitees, for pedestrian purposes, an easement across and through said Top of Mill Trail Easement. Upon conveyance to the Master Association of said Top of Mill Trail Easement and until the public dedication shall become effective, the Master Association shall be: (a) responsible for the maintenance of said trail and (b) entitled 38181-16 10 47~~a~ Page: 10 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY to adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use thereof. TOMI, for itself, its successors and assigns, shall improve the Top of Mill Trail Easement as it lies within Top of Mill by constructing afour-foot (4') wide single track path with underlying matting and acrusher-fine surface; provided, however, that TOMI shall have no obligation to improve that portion of the Top of Mill Trail Easement lying between the Aspen Mountain Trail and the western boundary of Open Space Parcel B unless and until publicly dedicated trails through adjoining lands have been connected up with the easterly and westerly ends of Top of Mill Trail Easement. If TOMI has not improved the Top of Mill Trail Easement as required herein at the time the public dedication becomes effective, TOMI shall deposit into escrow with the City of Aspen sufficient funds, in an amount determined by the City, to pay of the cost of completing said improvements. If said improvements have not been completed within five (5) years of the date this Agreement is recorded, whether due to the fact that publicly dedicated trails through adjoining lands have not been connected up with the easterly and westerly ends of said Top of Mill Trail Easement or otherwise, the funds deposited into escrow by TOMI for this purpose shall be released to the City and TOMI shall thereafter be relieved of any further obligation to improve the Top of Mill Trail Easement. Upon recordation of the Top of Mill Trail Easement Agreement, the portion of the Top of Mill Trail Easement depicted on the Final Plat located between the western boundary of Parcels 1 and 8 and the western boundary of Open Space Parcel B shall automatically be vacated and replaced by the portion of the Top of Mill Trail Easement in that area described in the Top of Mill Trail Easement Agreement. (ii) Aspen Mountain Trail. The Final Plat vacates the Aspen Mountain Trail as shown on the First Amended Plat. The Aspen Mountain 'Trail Easement shown on the First Amended Plat will be replaced by a new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement to be located and aligned in the general vicinity depicted on the Final Plat; however, the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement depicted on the Final Plat merely indicates the general vicinity of the new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement. The new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement shall be dedicated to the public for pedestrian and skiing purposes only as more fully set forth in that certain Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement between TOMI and the City of Aspen attached hereto as Exhibit "A-2", to be recorded at a later date (the "Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement"). The Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement shall be recorded after TOMI and the City of Aspen have agreed upon the actual location and alignment for the new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement. After TOMI and the City of Aspen have agreed upon the actual location and alignment for the new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement, TOMI shall provide in recordable form an as-built legal description of said new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement that shall be attached to, and recorded with, the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement. Upon recordation of the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement, the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement depicted on the Final Plat shall 38181-16 11 IIIItlIIINI~IIIIIIUI~IhIUllllllllllnllllllllul a~'a.,°.;~.,~ EXECUTION COPY automatically be vacated and replaced by the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement described in the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement. (q) Drainage. TOMI shall install the drainage improvements shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. Drainage improvements shall be installed as a subdivision improvement in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement. In addition, TOMI has granted the City a twenty foot (20') wide utility easement between Parcels 4 and 5 and over Open Space Parcel A as depicted on the Final Plat to be used solely for the purpose of allowing the City to install, maintain and repair a storm drain pipe within said easement, as more fully set forth in that certain Storm Drain Pipe Easement Agreement between TOMI and the City of Aspen attached hereto as Exhibit "B" to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. (r) Air Quality. During all construction activities on Top of Mill, TOMI shall comply with the Fugitive dust control specification included as part of the Construction Management Plan that will be submitted prior to building permit issuance. All development within Top of Mill shall comply with the Environmental Health Department's woodburning stove/fireplace regulations in effect at the time of issuance of the applicable building permit. (s) Improvement Districts. On behalf of itself and all future owners of any property within Top of Mill, TOMI hereby agrees to join any future improvement districts that may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements that benefit the subject property under an assessment formula. To the extent any future improvement districts are formed for storm sewers, storm water retention or slope movement, TOMI shall receive a credit against any amounts that may be assessed against it for amounts paid pursuant to subparagraphs (dd), (ee) or (ff) below. (t) School Land Dedication Fees. The owner of each Parcel shall pay the required School Land Dedication Fee to the City of Aspen, which is due and payable at the time of building permit application for the development of its parcel. This fee shall be assessed at the rate of the regulations and calculations in effect at the time of the building permit application. (u) Park Development Impact Fees. The owner of each Parcel shall pay the required Park Development Impact Fee to the City of Aspen, which is due and payable at the time of building permit application for the development of its parcel. This fee shall be assessed at the rate of the regulations and calculations in effect at the time of the building permit application. (v) Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting within Top of Mill shall comply with the Site and Exterior Lighting Plan to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. TOMI shall be required to submit detailed "cut sheets" for the proposed 38181-16 12 47~~@~ Page: 12 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIq DgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY street lights on Top of Mill indicating the correct lumens on the lighting plan as part of the detailed building set to be examined during building permit review. (w) Work in Public Rights-of--Way. TOMI shall first receive the approval of the appropriate City Department and/or utility/service district prior to commencement of any work within a public right-of--way. (x) Damage to Public Rights-of--Way. TOMI shall repair any publicright-of--way damaged during construction on any Parcel within Top of Mill prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure on said Parcel. (y) Construction Hours. Construction activity within Top of Mill shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on Sunday. (z) Construction Management Plan. During all construction activities on Top of Mill, TOMI shall comply with the Construction Management Plan that will be submitted prior to building permit issuance. (aa) Infrastructure and Removal of Fill. TOMI shall have the right to apply for permits for construction of infrastructure and removal of fill from Top of Mill at any time after approval of Ordinance No. 7. (bb) Erosion Control. Erosion control plans, including potential natural resource protection structures, and a detailed plan for irrigation systems and other plantings within the City of Aspen right-of--way shall be submitted by TOMI to the Parks Department for approval prior to the application of building permits. Separate erosion control plans shall be submitted by the owners of each Parcel prior to the issuance of a building permit for their respective Parcels. (cc} Street Impact Fees. TOMI and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC have contributed $83,000.00 in Street Impact Fees to the City of Aspen in connection with the proposed development on Top of Mill and on Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. No additional street impact fees will be charged in connection with Top of Mill or Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. (dd) Storm Sewer. The City of Aspen has agreed to install a storm sewer pipeline adjoining Mill Street and the southern property line of Top of Mill that will run down Mill Street and tap into the City's existing storm sewer line at or above Durant Street. TOMI has paid the City $14,000.00 towards the cost of designing a complete infrastructure system for South Mill Street and will pay up to an additional $66,000.00 towards the cost of such system within 30 days after completion, as long as it is completed by October 1, 2002. Once 38181-16 ~~ 47~~0~ Page: 13 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIA DRVIS P3TKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY the infrastructure has been constructed at Top of Mill, TOMI shall connect the Top of Mill storm sewer system with the City's and there shall be no cost to TOMI to do so. (ee) Rio Grande Ponds. The City has a plan to upgrade its storm water retention ponds at Rio Grande Park, the cost of which shall be borne by all new development in the City. TOMI and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC shall contribute $144,000.00 towards the construction of such upgrades within six (6) months of the latest to occur of (i) the recording of the Final Plat or (ii) the recording of the final plat for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. No additional costs of the upgrades will be charged to TOMI, Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC or the owners of any real property within "I'op of Mill or Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. If the City has not proceeded with the aforementioned upgrades within five years of the date of this Agreement, the entire $144,000.00 (plus accrued interest) shall be returned to TOMI and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC. (ff) Slope Movement Monitoring System. The City Engineering Department has requested TOMI to voluntarily contribute $55,000.00 towards the cost of studying and/or developing a slope movement monitoring system for slopes above the City of Aspen. Although TOMI is not aware of any need for such system, or has ever been shown the necessity of such a system above Top of Mill, TOMI has agreed to contribute $55,000.00 for such purpose with the restriction that such funds be used solely for studying and/or developing a system for slopes above Top of Mill. TOMI's contribution under this paragraph shall be made within six (6) months of the recordation of the Final Plat. The City shall hold such funds in escrow and shall be dispersed only for the purposes described in this paragraph and upon mutual approval of TOMI and the City. If the City has not proceeded with the aforementioned study and/or development within three years of the date of this Agreement, the entire $55,000.00 (plus accrued interest) shall be returned to TOMI. (gg) Fire Protection. Fire sprinklers and alarm systems shall be installed in all the proposed buildings on Top of Mill as required by the City of Aspen Fire Marshal. Appropriate "booster pumps" (if required) rather than pressure tanks for the sprinkler system shall be used to gain the necessary water pressure as required by the City Fire Department. The owner of each Parcel shall be responsible for ensuring that any buildings constructed thereon shall comply with this condition of approval. In addition, TOMI shall submit a fire safety plan for the demolition of the existing structures to be preformed by TOMI and the construction of the proposed development of Top of Mill to the Engineering Department at the time of building permit application. (hh) Development on Parcel 9. Development on Parcel 9 shall be limited to the existing garage and trash storage structures and any replacement thereof (whether due to casualty, obsolescence or otherwise), which replacement shall be for the same use; occur only within the footprint of said existing structures and the existing square footage of said structures cannot be increased. The provisions of this Paragraph 2.2(hh) and 2.1(b)(ii) and (iii) above shall be binding on Parcel 9. 38181-16 14 IN~INN~hIII~~I,I~NII~I~NI~IU~I '~.o=°°~~._~~ EXECUTION COPY 2.3 Subdivision Improvements. TOMI shall complete the following subdivision improvements, all as depicted on the Final PUD Development Plan for Top of Mill, which is attached to and recorded as a part of the Final Plat. (a) Excavation and removal of approximately 28,000 cubic yards of excess fill to bring the site back to the base elevations utilized in the site grading plan. (b) Construction of approximately 1,000 linear feet of sidewalk both in the public right-of--way (820 linear feet) and internal to the project site. (c) Installation of two handicap sidewalk ramps. (d) Installation of up to 4 street lights in the public right-of--way and on Top of Mill Street. (e) Construction of approximately 1,2001inear feet of new curb and gutter along the west side of the South Mill Street as well as along Top of Mill Street. (f) Construction of approximately 900 linear feet of 8 inch diameter ductile iron water main extension including two fire hydrants and related gate valves and fittings. (g) Construction of approximately 480 linear feet of 8 inch diameter PVC sewer main extension including 6 sewer manholes and appurtenances. (h) Installation of approximately 650 linear feet of electric primary, gas, phone and cable TV lines. (i) Installation of site drainage improvements including 6201inear feet of storm drain, 6 inlet structures and 3 manholes to handle storm runoff from new impervious areas. (j) Placement of 4,500 square yards of asphalt or concrete paving. (k) Construction of approximately 500 linear feet of 4-foot wide gravel path within Top of Mill Trail Easement. (1) Construction of approximately 590 linear feet of 4-foot wide gravel path within Aspen Mountain Trail Easement. 2.4 Cost of Subdivision Improvements. The current estimated cost of the subdivision improvements described in Section 2.3 above, as more specifically set forth in the Engineer's Estimate of Cost prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. dated May 3 1, 2002, a copy of which is 38181-16 15 47~~@0 Page: 15 of 47 SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235 pg8~15^2002'02:27F EXECUTION COPY attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof by this reference, and as approved by the City Engineer, is $746,925.00. TOMI shall complete construction of the aforesaid subdivision improvements in accordance with a Construction Schedule to be submitted to the City Engineering Department simultaneously with submission of the financial guarantee described in Section 2.6 hereof. 2.5 Landscape Plan and Related Costs. TOMI shall install all landscaping on Parcels 1, 2, 3 and Open Space Parcel A depicted on the approved Landscape Plan, which is to be recorded contemporaneously with the Pinal Plat and this Agreement. Landscaping for Parcels 4-8 shall be the responsibility of the respective owners of those Parcels. TOMI shall ensure the success of all landscaping installed by TOMI pursuant to the Landscape Plan for a period of two (2) years from the date of installation. TOMI shall replace any landscaping installed by TOMI that fails during such two (2) year period except where damage or destruction of such landscaping is caused by individual property owners. After installation and initial grow-in of such landscaping, the Master Association shall have the responsibility to irrigate, mow, trim, and otherwise maintain the landscaping within Open Space Parcel A, the homeowners association for the townhouses on Parcel 1 shall have the responsibility to irrigate, mow, trim, and otherwise maintain the landscaping within Parcel 1, and the homeowners association for the affordable housing units on Parcel 2 shall have the responsibility to irrigate, mow, trim, and otherwise maintain the landscaping within Parcel 2. The owners of the duplex units on Parcel 3 shall have the responsibility to irrigate, mow, trim, and otherwise maintain the landscaping within Parcel 3. The current estimated cost of implementing the Landscape Plan and for assuring the success of said landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation, as more specifically set forth in the schedule prepared by DHM Design Corporation dated May 15, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and made a part hereof by this reference, and as approved by the City Engineer, is $82,182.00.00 for Parcel 1; $47,600.00 for Parcel 2; $ 31,023.00 for Parcel 3; and $55,887.00 for Open Space Parcel A. 2.6 Financial Assurances. (a) In order to ensure construction and installation of the subdivision improvements described in Section 2.3 above, and to guarantee 100 percent of the current estimated cost of the subdivision improvements, TOMI shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit from a financially responsible lender in the amount of $746,925.00 (the "Subdivision Improvements Letter of Credit"). The Subdivision Improvements Letter of Credit shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the first residential structure on Top ofMill. (b) In order to ensure construction and installation of the landscaping improvements described in Section 2.5 above, and to guarantee 125 percent of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements (including 2 years of maintenance thereof), TOMI shall provide to the City irrevocable letters of credit from a financially responsible lender in the amount of $102,727.50 (i.e., 125% of $82,182.00) for the landscaping improvements on Parcel 1; $59,500.00 (i.e., 125% of $47,600.00) for the landscaping improvements on Parcel 2; $38,778.75 (i.e., 125% of $31,023.00) for the landscaping improvements on Parcel 3; and $69,858.75 (i.e., 125% of $55,887.00) for the 38181-16 16 471~~a Page: 16 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27P SILVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY landscaping improvements on Open Space Parcel A; (each, a "Landscaping Letter of Credit", and collectively, the "Landscaping Letters of Credit"). The Landscaping Letter of Credit for Parcel I shall be provided to the City at the time of building permit application for Parcel 1. The Landscaping Letter of Credit for Parcel 2sha11 be provided to the City at the time of building permit application for Parcel 2. The Landscaping Letter of Credit for Parcel 3 shall be provided to the City at the time of building permit application for Parcel 3. The Landscaping Letter of Credit for Open Space Parcel A shall be provided to the City with the first Landscaping Letter of Credit for Parcels 1, 2 or 3 (e.g., if TOMI applies for a building permit for Parcel 1 before Parcels 2 or 3, then the Landscaping Letters of Credit for Parcels 1 and Open Space Parcel A shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Parcel 1). (c) The Landscaping Letters of Credit and the Subdivision Improvements Letter of Credit (together, the "Letters of Credit") shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Manager, and give the City the unconditional right, upon default by TOMI to draw on funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any outstanding and delinquent bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess letter of credit amounts to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed before the unused remainder, if any, of such Letter of Credit is released to TOMI. Provided, however, that TOMI shall be given fourteen (14) days written notice of default (and the right to cure during said period) prior to the City's ability to make a draw under any Letter of Credit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, delays or other problems resulting from acts of God or other events beyond the reasonable control of TOMI shall not constitute a default hereunder so long as a good faith effort is being made to remedy the problem and the problem is in fact resolved within a reasonable period of time following its occurrence. As portions of the improvements required are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect the subdivision improvements and the City Parks Department shall inspect the landscaping improvements, and upon approval and written acceptance, a reduction in the outstanding amount of the applicable Letter of Credit shall be authorized in an amount equal to the agreed estimated cost for the completed portion of the improvements; provided, however, that ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer or City Parks Department, as the case maybe, and with respect to landscaping improvements, an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of the estimated cost thereof shall be retained until the landscaping improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years. (d) It is the express understanding of the parties that compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 2.7 below pertaining to the procedure for default and amendment of this Agreement shall not be required with respect to the enforcement and implementation of these financial assurances and guarantees to be provided by TOMI as set forth above. 2.7 Noncompliance and Request for Amendments or Extensions by TOMI. In the event that the City Council determines that TOMI is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the City Council shall notify TOMI in writing specifying the alleged non- „, ~ ~I~I~Bq~II~N~I~I~NNh~lgl ~; , eoo EXECUTION COPY compliance and asking that TOMI remedy the alleged non-compliance within such reasonable time as the City Council may determine, but not less than 30 days. If the City Council determines that TOMI has not complied within such time, the City Council may issue and serve upon TOMI a written order specifying the alleged non-compliance and requiring TOMI to remedy the same within thirty (30) days thereafter.- Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such order, TOMI may file with the City Council either a notice advising the City Council that it is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine any one or both of the following matters: (a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did exist, or (b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non-compliance, which is determined to exist. Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in the order of noli-compliance and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non- compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate, including the imposition of daily fines until such noncompliance has been remedied, the withholding of permits and/or certificates of occupancy, as applicable; provided, however, no order shall terminate any land use approval. The City Council may also grant such variances, extensions of time or amendments to this Agreement, as it inay deem appropriate under the circumstances. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the time periods for performance if TOMI demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate said extension(s) result from acts of God or other events beyond the reasonable control of TOMI; despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner. 2.8 Top of Mill Construction Schedule. Development of Top of Mill shall comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The development shall occur in accordance with the time frames set forth below, which are contained in Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2002 ("Ordinance No. 15-02"): (a) TOMI may submit building permit applications for construction of infrastructure and removal of fill any time after approval of Ordinance 7, but such applications shall be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after recordation of this Agreement and the Final Plat. (b) TOMI may submit building permit applications for the improvements to be constructed on Parcels 1 and 2 any time after recordation of this Agreement and the Final Plat. 38181-16 "' 47110 Page: 18 of 47 SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R Z35.00$/16D20000 2.27E 471@@ Page: 19 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIp ppVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY (c) TOMI may submit building permit applications for the improvements to be constructed on Parcels 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 any time after approval of Ordinance 7, but not before a building permit is issued to Bavarian Affordable Housing, LLC for "Phase I" of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Project. (d) No certificate of occupancy for any towrlhome unit to be constructed on Parcel 1 shall be issued until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the affordable housing units to be constructed on Parcel 2. (e) The certificate of occupancy for the free-market improvements to be constructed on any of Parcels 3,4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall not be issued until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the on-site accessory dwelling unit on any such Parcel or the owner of such Parcel has paid the applicable affordable housing impact fee. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the provisions of Ordinance No. 15-02, this Agreement shall govern and control. ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.1 The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of TOMI and City and each of their respective successors and assigns. 3.2 This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 3.3 If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section or the application thereof in any circumstance is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, and the application of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section in any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby. 3.4 This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contains the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder. TOMI, its successors or assigns may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council for an amendment to this Agreement or an extension of one or more of the time periods required for performance hereunder. The City Council shall not unreasonably deny such petition for amendment or extension after considering all appropriate circumstances. Any such amendments or extensions of time shall only become effective upon the execution by all parties hereto that are affected by the proposed amendment (it being understood that after TOMI conveys Parcel 9 as described in Section 2.1(a) above, Parcel 9 shall not, except as provided in Paragraphs 2.1(b)(ii) and (iii) and 2.2(hh) above, be covered by, or subject to this Agreement; and, excepting only said Paragraphs 2.1(b)(ii) and (iii) and 2.2(hh), this Agreement may be amended without the consent of the owner of Parcel 9). The 38181-16 19 EXECUTION COPY provisions of this Agreement shall supersede and replace Section M of the First Amended PUD Agreement as it relates to Top of Mill. 3.5 Numerical and title headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only, and shall not be deemed determinative of the substance contained herein. As used herein, where the context requires, the use of the singular shall include the plural and the use of any gender shall include all genders. 3.6 Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, City agrees to approve and execute this Agreement and the Final Plat, and cause the same to be promptly recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of the recordation fee by TOMI. 3.7 Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement shall be considered to be given if hand delivered or if deposited in the United States Mail to the parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns: City: City of Aspen City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 i~i~~mm~uu~mu,~u~n~u~ 4711Q@ Page: 20 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F 00 D 0.00 TOMI: Top of Mill Investors, LLC c/o Four Peaks Development, LLC 1000 S. Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 With copy to: Ronald Garfield, Esq. Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 3.8 The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations herein contained shall be deemed covenants that run with and burden the real property more particularly described herein and any and all owners hereof, their successors, grantees or assigns, and further shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforceable by or against the parties hereto, their successors, grantees and assigns. [Signatures on Next Page) 38181-16 20 EXECUTION COPY IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. CITY: ATTEST: r~~.~~~ Kathryn S. Koc~l'i,~ City Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM: •; Y ~~ Joh`ti Wdreester, `City Attorney TOMI: TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC, a Delaw limited liability comp f / By: David ar er, Director [Acknowledgments on Next Page] 4?110 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.008g16D20000 2,27E 38181-16 21 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, 471~Q0 Page: 22 of 47 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 ~1sp20000 2.27E STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) EXECUTION COPY The above and foregoing document was acknowledged before me this ~ ~0~~ day of z~yt- , 2002, by ~`j-~l E-+~ ~l ~ v~ ~-~~d ~ ~ iLyD as Mayor and Kathryn .Koch as City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation. Witness my hand and off My commission expires: STATE OF ~~~b~ ) ss COUNTY OF '~~t~ ) The above and foregoing document was acknowledged before me this 8th day of August 2002, by David Parker as Director for Top of Mill Investors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Witness my hand and official My commission expires: 1NYCOMMISSION EXPIRES Notary Public f.: ~~ ~~~tiR V F~ ~ 38181-16 22 ~~~~~~ Page: 23 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27P SILVIA OgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY EXHIBIT "A-1" CITY OF ASPEN TOP OF MILL TRAIL EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT is made on , 2002 and is granted by Top of Mill Investors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," to the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the City." For good and valuable considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Easement. Grantor hereby grants to the City anon-exclusive ten foot (10') foot wide easement, hereinafter referred to as the "Top of Mill Trail Easement" or the "Easement" over and across the real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, for use by members of the public solely for pedestrian purposes. The easement granted herein shall also include the right, on the part of the public to cross Top of Mill Street as shown on the Final Plat of Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD recorded 2002 in Book at Page as Reception No. (the "Final Plat") in order to utilize the Easement. The City shall be permitted to make improvements to the Easement only to the extent required for drainage, safety and maintenance of the trail. No other improvements by the City (e.g., lighting, etc.) shall be permitted. While the Easement runs through lands owned by Grantor, access to the Easement may only be obtained by first crossing other lands not owned by Grantor. Obtaining access to the Easement shall be the responsibility of the City. Except as specifically provided herein, no other lands of Grantor may be used to access the Easement and nothing herein shall be construed as a grant, express or implied, over lands of Grantor not described in Exhibit "A" for access to the Easement. Grantor reserves the right to use and enjoy the Easement and the land beneath and the airspace above for all purposes and uses which do not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment by the City or members of the public of the rights herein granted. Without limitation to the foregoing, Grantor shall have the right to grant any easements to utility companies over or under the Easement. The City agrees to maintain the Easement at its sole expense; provided, however, that the City shall have the right to assign its maintenance responsibilities to whatever person or entity the City deems is desirable for the effective utilization and maintenance of the Easement granted herein. If the City fails to maintain the Easement within a reasonable period after notice from Grantor that the City has failed to do so, Grantor shall have the right, but not the obligation, to maintain the Easement and the City shall reimburse Grantor for any out-of-pocket costs incurred by Grantor. The Easement is granted subject to all existing easements, restrictions and covenants of record. 38181-16 23 EXECUTION COPY Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the City recognizes that Grantor will be engaged in construction in connection with its proposed development of the Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD and that use of the Easement during construction is potentially dangerous and likely to be disruptive to Grantor. Therefore, neither the City nor any member of the public shall have the right to use the Easement until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the townhomes to be constructed by Grantor on Parcel 1, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD. In addition, after a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the townholnes to be constructed by Grantor on Parcel 1, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD, Grantor shall have the right to temporarily close the Easement from time-to-time when Grantor reasonably determines that use of the Easement will potentially conflict with Grantor's construction activities. Upon recordation of this Easement Agreement, the portion of the Top ofMill Trail Easement depicted on the Final Plat located between the western boundary of Parcels 1 and 8, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD and the western boundary of Open Space Parcel B, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD shall automatically be vacated and replaced by the portion of the Top of Mill Trail Easement described in this Easement Agreement in that area. 2. Easement Utilization. This Easement is solely for use by the public for pedestrian purposes. No hunting, horses or pedal bikes, such as mountain bikes shall be permitted on the Easement. The use of motor vehicles is also prohibited, except to the extent necessary from time to time for the construction and maintenance of the trail or for emergency vehicles when necessary. The grant of the easement, as described herein, shall be strictly construed. 3. Trail Construction. Subject to seasonal conditions, Grantor shall improve the Easement as it lies within Top of Mill by constructing afour-foot (4') wide single track path with underlying matting and acrusher-fine surface. If, at the time this Easement Agreement is recorded, Grantor has not yet completed such improvements, Grantor shall deposit into escrow with the City sufficient funds, in an amount determined by the City, to pay of the cost of completing said improvements. If said improvements have not been completed by [Insert date that is five (5) years after the date that the Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD Agreement is recorded], whether due to the fact that publicly dedicated trails through adjoining lands have not been connected up with the easterly and westerly ends of the Easement or otherwise, the funds deposited into escrow by Grantor for this purpose shall be released to the City and Grantor shall thereafter be relieved of any further obligation to improve the Easement. 4. Maintenance, Hold harmless and Insurance. The parties expressly acknowledge that the Easement is granted fora "recreational purpose" under, and Grantor is entitled to the benefits, protection and limitations on liability afforded by Colorado law governing recreational easements, including, but not limited to, Colorado Revised Statute § 33-41-101, et se ., as amended. By granting the Easement, Grantor shall have no obligation to repair, clear or otherwise maintain the area within the Easement, or to insure or indemnify the City or any member of the public for any injury, claim or damage to any person or property, whether alleged to have occurred as a result of use of the Easement or due to the condition of the trail. 38181-16 24 47~~00 Page: 24 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SIL'VIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY By accepting the Easement granted herein, the City agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to defend and hold Grantor and its successors and assigns harmless, subject to the procedural requirements and monetary limits of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-10-101, et se ., as amended, for any injury, claim or damage to any person or property as a result of use of the Easement or due to the condition of the trail. 5. Right to Relocate. Grantor retains the right to relocate the Easement and/or the trail located therein, with the obligation to reconstruct any improvements thereon, at its sole expense and with the prior written approval of the City as to relocation, procedure and method of reconstruction of the public trail, which approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld as long as the proposed relocation and reconstruction serve the purposes of the City, as expressed herein, to the same extent as this Easement, and so long as the improvements so constructed also serve said purposes. 6. Amendment. This Easement and the rights and obligations granted and assumed herein may not be modified except by a writing signed by Grantor and City, or their respective successors and assigns, as applicable. 7. Notices. Any notices given pursuant to the terms of this Easement shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested, properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid, to the addresses provided below or to subsequent assigns, as applicable, as long as prior written notice of the change of address has been given to the other parties listed below. Said notices shall be sent to the parties hereto at the following address unless otherwise notified in writing: Grantor: Top of Mill Investors, LLC 1000 S. Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Scott Writer With a copy to: Ronald Garfield, Esq. Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 City: City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: City Manager 8. Venue. Grantor and City agree that his Easement is made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 38181-16 25 4711@0 Page: 25 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY 9. Enforcement. Each of Grantor and the City shall have the right and power to bring suit in its own name for any legal or equitable relief due to lack of compliance with any provisions of this Easement. The failure of a party to insist upon the performance of any provisions or to exercise any right or option available to it, or to serve any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquishment for the future, of any such provision. If any court proceedings are instituted in connection with the rights of enforcement and remedies provided in this easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement of its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in comnection therewith. 10. Designation of Successor. Grantor, by instrument duly recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado, may designate a party to succeed to all the rights, privileges and remedies of Grantor hereunder: 11. Term. The term of this easement shall be permanent and perpetual, so long as the City shall comply with the terms, provisions and conditions set forth herein. 12. Successors and Assigns. All the provisions of this easement, including the benefits and burdens created thereby, shall run with the land and be binding upon all persons who hereafter acquire any interest in the property described in Exhibit "A", whether as an owner, renter, trust deed or mortgage beneficiary, or otherwise. All provisions of this Easement inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. [Signatures on Next Page] iu~~~~~~~i~~u~n~~i 4?~~@~ Page: 26 of 47 @8!16/2002 02:27F 00 D 0.00 38181-16 26 EXECUTION COPY ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney GRANTOR: TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company By: Print Name: Title: CITY: CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal corporation By: Print Name: Title: 4?~~00 Page: 27 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27P SILVIR ORVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 38181-16 ?~ EXECUTION COPY STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUN"CY OF PI fKIN ) The foregoing Easement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by , as of Top of Mill Investors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Witness my hand and off cial seal. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) ) 5S. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Easement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by , as of the City of Aspen, a Colorado Municipal corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 471100 Page: 28 of 47 08!16/2002 02:27P SILVIfi DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 38181-16 28 EXECUTION COPY EXHIBIT "A" TO EXHIBIT "A-1" (Leal Description of Top of Mill Trail Easement) Top of Mill Trail Easement, according to the Final Plat of Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD, a planned community recorded , 2002 in Book at Page as Reception No. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 471@~ 08916/2002f02?27F SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 38181-16 29 EXECUT[ON COPY EXHIBIT "A-2" CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN MOUNTAIN TRAIL EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT is made on , 2002 and is granted by Top of Mill Investors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," to the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City." For good and valuable considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Easement. Grantor hereby grants to the City anon-exclusive thirty foot (30') wide easement, hereinafter referred to as the "Aspen Mountain Trail Easement" or "Easement" over and across the real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, for use by members of the public strictly as a trail for pedestrian and skiing purposes. The City shall be permitted to make improvements to the Easement only to the extent required for drainage, safety and maintenance of the trail. No other improvements by the City (e.g., lighting, etc.) shall be permitted. While the Easement runs through lands owned by Grantor, access to the Easement may only be obtained by first crossing other lands not owned by Grantor. Obtaining access to the Easement shall be the responsibility of the City. No other lands of Grantor may be used to access the Easement and nothing herein shall be construed as a grant, express or implied, over lands of Grantor not described in Exhibit "A" for access to the Easement. Grantor reserves the right to use and enjoy the Easement and the land beneath and the airspace above for all purposes and uses which do not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment by the City or members of the public of the rights herein granted. Without limitation to the foregoing, Grantor shall have the right to grant any easements to utility companies over or under the Easement. The Easement is granted subject to all existing easements, restrictions and covenants of record. The City agrees to maintain the Easement at its sole expense; provided, however, that the City shall have the right to assign its maintenance responsibilities to whatever person or entity the City deems is desirable for the effective utilization and maintenance of the Easement granted herein. If the City fails to maintain the Easement within a reasonable period after notice from Grantor that the City has failed to do so, Grantor shall have the right, but not the obligation, to maintain the Easement and the City shall reimburse Grantor for any out-of-pocket costs incurred by Grantor. 38181-16 30 47110Q Page: 30 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the City recognizes that Grantor will be engaged in construction in connection with its proposed development of the Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD and that use of the Easement during construction is potentially dangerous and likely to be disruptive to Grantor. Therefore, neither the City nor any member of the public shall have the right to use the Easement until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the townhomes to be constructed by Grantor on Parcel 1, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD. In addition, after a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the townhomes to be constructed by Grantor on Parcel 1, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD, Grantor shall have the right to temporarily close the Easement from time-to-time when Grantor reasonably determines that use of the Easement will potentially conflict with Grantor's construction activities. 2. Easement Utilization. This Easement is solely for use as a trail for pedestrian and skiing purposes by the public, which for purposes of this Easement includes the right to use horses and pedal bikes, such as mountain bikes. No hunting shall be permitted on the Easement. The use of motor vehicles is also prohibited, except to the extent necessary from time to time for the construction and maintenance of the trail or for emergency vehicles when necessary. The grant of the easement, as described herein, shall be strictly construed. 3. Trail Construction. Subject to seasonal conditions, Grantor shall improve said Easement by constructing afour-foot (4') wide single track path with underlying matting and a crusher-fine surface, installation of trail signs at the ends of the trail identifying the trail name and public access, which signs shall be designed and built in accordance with City of Aspen Parks Department standards. 4. Maintenance, Hold harmless and Insurance. The parties expressly acknowledge that the Easement is granted fora "recreational purpose" under, and Grantor is entitled to the benefits, protection and limitations on liability afforded by Colorado law governing recreational easements, including, but not limited to, Colorado Revised Statute § 33-41-101, et seq., as amended. By granting the Easement, Grantor shall have no obligation to repair, clear or otherwise maintain the area within the Easement, or to insure or indemnify the City or any member of the public for any injury, claim or damage to any person or property, whether alleged to have occurred as a result of use of the Easement or due to the condition of the trail. By accepting the Easement granted herein, the City agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to defend and hold Grantor and its successors and assigns harmless, subject to the procedural requirements and monetary limits of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended, for any injury, claim or damage to any person or property as a result of use of the Easement or due to the condition of the trail. 5. Right to Relocate. Grantor retains the right to relocate the Easement and/or the trail located therein, with the obligation to reconstruct any improvements thereon, at its sole expense and with the prior written approval of the City as to relocation, procedure and method of reconstruction of the public trail, which approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld as long as the 38181-t6 31 47~~00 Page: 31 of 47 08/16!2002 02:27F SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY proposed relocation and reconstruction serve the purposes of the City, as expressed herein, to the same extend as this Easement, and so long as the improvements so constructed also serve said purposes. 6. Vacation of Prior Aspen Mountain Trail Easements. Reference is made to the Final Plat for the Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD recorded , 2002 in Book at Page as Reception No. (the "Final Plat"). The Final Plat (i) vacates the Aspen Mountain Trail as shown on the First Amended Plat Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development, according to the Plat thereof filed October 3, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 35 (the "First Amended Plat") and (ii) depicts the general vicinity of a new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement that will be located, aligned and dedicated by this Easement Agreement. Upon recordation of this Easement Agreement, the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement depicted on the Final Plat shall automatically be vacated and replaced by the Easement described and dedicated in this Easement Agreement. 7. Amendment. This Easement and the rights and obligations granted and assumed herein may not be modified except by a writing signed by Grantor and City, or their respective successors and assigns, as applicable. 8. Notices. Any notices given pursuant to the terms of this Easement shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested, properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid, to the addresses provided below or to subsequent ,assigns, as applicable, as long as prior written notice of the change of address has been given to the other parties listed below. Said notices shall be sent to the parties hereto at the following address unless otherwise notified in writing: Grantor: Top of Mill Investors, LLC 1000 S. Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Scott Writer With a copy to: Ronald Garfield, Esq. Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 City: City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: City Manager a~ ~ ii~~~~~~~ ~7~~~~ Page; 32 cf 47 08!]6/2002 02:27F 00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY 9. Venue. Grantor and City agree that his Easement is made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 10. Enforcement. Each of Grantor and the City shall have the right and power to bring suit in its own name for any legal or equitable relief due to lack of compliance with any provisions of this Easement. The failure of a party to insist upon the performance of any provisions or to exercise any right or option available to it, or to serve any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquishment for the future, of any such provision. If any court proceedings are instituted in connection with the rights of enforcement and remedies provided in this easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement of its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in connection therewith. 11. Designation of Successor. Grantor, by instrument duly recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado, may designate a party to succeed to all the rights, privileges and remedies of Grantor hereunder. 12. Term. The term of this easement shall be permanent and perpetual, so long as the City shall comply with the terms, provisions and conditions set forth herein. 13. Successors and Assigns. All the provisions of this easement, including the benefits and burdens created thereby, shall run with the land and be binding upon all persons who hereafter acquire any interest in the property described in Exhibit "A", whether as an owner, renter, trust deed or mortgage beneficiary, or otherwise. All. provisions of this Easement inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. 471100 Page: 33 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIA GAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 38181-16 EXECUTION COPY ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,~ y =rfl / "AL'L' c"` ~:.~ Jb~in Wisrce er City A~ ttorney GRANTOR: TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company By: Print Name: Title: CITY: CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal corporation By: Print Name: Title: 47~~00 Page: 34 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27F SILVIA DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D @.00 X8181-16 34 EXECUTION COPY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF PITKIN by Delaware limited liability company. ss. The foregoing Easement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 ~ of Aspen Mountain Investors, LLC, a Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF PITKIN by Municipal corporation. ss. The foregoing Easement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 . as of the City of Aspen, a Colorado Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 47 "I ~ 00 08g 16/2002f 02 27F pgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 SILVIA 38181-16 35 EXECUTION COPY EXHIBIT "A" TO EXHIBIT "A-2" [Attach Leal Description of Aspen Mountain Trail Easementl COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 4? 'I "I @~ 1 Page 36 cf 47 27P I 08/16/200 00 2: R 235.00 p 0~ SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO 38181-16 36 EXECUTION COPY EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF ASPEN STORM DRAIN PIPE EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT is made on , 2002 and is granted by Top of Mill Investors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," to the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the City." Por good and valuable considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Easement. Grantor hereby grants to the City anon-exclusive twenty foot (20') foot wide utility easement, hereinafter referred to as the "Easement" over and across the real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, for use by the City solely for installation, maintenance and repair of a storm drain pipe. While the Easement runs through lands owned by Grantor, access to the Easement may only be obtained by first crossing other lands not owned by Grantor. Obtaining access to the Easement shall be the responsibility of the City. Except as specifically provided herein, no other lands of Grantor maybe used to access the Easement and nothing herein shall be construed as a grant, express or implied, over lands of Grantor not described in Exhibit "A" for access to the Easement. Grantor reserves the right to use and enjoy the Easement and the land beneath and the airspace above for all purposes and uses which do not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment by the City or members of the public of the rights herein granted. Without limitation to the foregoing, Grantor shall have the right to grant any easements to utility companies over or under the Easement. In the event that the City damages any landscaping or other improvements located in the Easement in connection with the rights granted hereunder, the City shall promptly repair any such damage and restore the land within the Easement to its prior condition. The Easement is granted subject to all existing easements, restrictions and covenants of record. 2. Easement Utilization. This Easement is solely for use by the City for installation, maintenance and repair of a storm drain pipe. The grant of the easement, as described herein, shall be strictly construed. 3. Amendment. This Easement and the rights and obligations granted and assumed herein may not be modified except by a writing signed by Grantor and City, or their respective successors and assigns, as applicable. 38181-16 37 ~ 4711~~ I Page: 37 of 47 SILVIq DgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235 pg8/16^2002'02:27p EXECUTION COPY 4. Notices. Any notices given pursuant to the terms of this Easement shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested, properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid, to the addresses provided below or to subsequent assigns, as applicable, as long as prior written notice of the change of address has been given to the other parties listed below. Said notices shall be sent to the parties hereto at the following address unless otherwise notified in writing: Grantor: Top of Mill Investors, LLC 1000 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Scott Writer With a copy to: Ronald Garfield, Esq. Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 City: City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: City Manager 5. Venue. Grantor and City agree that his Easement is made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 6. Enforcement. Each of Grantor and the City shall have the right and power to bring suit in its own name for any legal or equitable relief due to lack of compliance with any provisions of this Easement. The failure of a party to insist upon the performance of any provisions or to exercise any right or option available to it, or to serve any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquishment for the future, of any such provision. If any court proceedings are instituted in connection with the rights of enforcement and remedies provided in this easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement of its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in connection therewith. 7. Designation of Successor. Grantor, by instrument duly recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado, may designate a party to succeed to all the rights, privileges and remedies of Grantor hereunder. 8. Term. The term of this easement shall be permanent and perpetual, so long as the City shall comply with the terms, provisions and conditions set forth herein. 9. Successors and Assigns. All the provisions of this easement, including the benefits and burdens created thereby, shall run with the land and be binding upon all persons who hereafter 38181-16 38 47 ~ ~ 0th Page: 38 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27P SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 EXECUTION COPY acquire any interest in the property described in Exhibit "A", whether as an owner, renter, trust deed or mortgage beneficiary, or otherwise. All provisions ofthis Easement inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. GRANTOR: ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sohn Worcester, City Attorney TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company By: Print Name: Title: CITY: CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal corporation By: Print Name: Title: 47'I 1 @@ 08g16/2002f 02?27P SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 38181-16 39 EXECUTION COPY STATE OF col.oRADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Easement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by , as Delaware limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) of Top of Mill Investors, LLC, a Notary Public The foregoing Easement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by Municipal corporation. as of the City of Aspen, a Colorado Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 47 ~ ~ ~ o f a7 Page• 02;27P o R 235.00 ~ 16 D 0 00 SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY ~ 38181-16 40 EXECUTION COPY EXHIBIT "A" TO EXHIBIT ~B" (Leal Description of Storm Drain Pipe Easement) Twenty foot (20') wide utility easement between Parcels 4 and 5 and over Open Space Parcel A, according to the Final Plat of Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD, aplanned community recorded 2002 in Book at Page as Reception No. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. II~N~N~UIVRNIN~IV~~~IIII~INI 471100 Page: 41 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27P 00 D 0.00 38181-16 41 EXHIBIT 'C' EXHIBIT TOP OF MILL SUBDIVISION /PUD SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS May 31, 2002 INTRODUCTION Below is an updated schedule of the public improvements for the Top of Mill project including estimated costs developed with the General Contractor for the project, Resort Builders. This list is based on the site improvements anticipated in the Construction Management Plan for the project but includes only right-of-way improvements and main utility extensions that benefit the project and parcels as a whole. I have excluded utility service lines and improvements internal to each parcel. SITE IMPROVEMENTS Common public improvements to serve the overall Top of Mill Subdivision /PUD project site are shown on drawings submitted as exhibits to the Final Plat titled GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN, ROAD PLAN & PROFILE and SCHEMATIC UTILITY PLAN and include the following: 1. Excavation and removal of approximately 28,000 cubic yards of excess fill to bring the site back to the base elevations utilized in the site grading plan. Estimated cost: $300,000. 2 Construction of approximately 1,000 linear feet of sidewalk both in the public right-of- way (820 linear feet) and internal to the project site. Estimated cost: $23,000. 3. Installation of two handicap sidewalk ramps at the intersection of South Mill and Summit Streets. Estimated cost: $1,200. 4. Installation of up to 4 street lights in the public right-of-way and on the private access. Estimated cost: $8,000. 5. Construction of approximately 1,200 linear feet of new curb and gutter along the west side of South Mill Street and along the internal access road. Estimated cost: $23,100. 6. Construction of approximately 900 linear feet of 8 inch diameter ductile iron water main extension including two fire hydrants and related gate valves and fittings. Estimated cost: $89,700. 7. Construction of approximately 480 linear feet of 8 inch diameter PVC sewer main extension including 6 sewer manholes and appurtenances. Estimated cost: $61,400. 47'1 100 Page: 42 of 47 SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO I R 235.00 /16p20 0002.27E May 31, 2002 Top of Mill Subdivision / PUD Schedule of Public Improvements Page 2 8. Installation of approximately 650 linear feet of electric primary, gas, phone and cable TV lines. $45,150. 9. Installation of site drainage improvements including approximately 620 I.f. of storm drain, 6 inlet structures and 3 manholes to handle storm runoff from new impervious areas. Estimated cost: $60,375. 10. Placement of 4,500 square yards of concrete paving. Estimated cost: $118,000. 11. Construction of approximately 500 linear feet of 4 foot wide gravel "Top of Mill Trail" in a 15 foot easement. Construction of approximately 590 linear feet of 4 foot wide gravel "Aspen Mountain Trail" in the 30 foot ski easement. Estimated cost: $17,000. Total estimated cost of the public improvements for the Top of Mill project; $ 746,925. JHfjh 00140SIA4 ~F7~ ~~~ Page: 43 of 47 SILVIq DgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235. 08~16p20 0002'27F EXHIBIT 'D' TOP OF MILL Date: May 15, 2002 Landscape Quantities Prepared By: DHM Design Corporation Parcel 1 Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Sod 2,635 SF $1.00 $2,635 2 Native Seed 12,675 SF $1.00 $12,675 3 Cedar Mulch 1,395 SF $0.60 $837 4 Edging 87 LF $2.50 $218 5 Irrigation 16,705 SF $1.00 $16,705 6 Shrub Bed Prep 1,395 SF $1.70 $2,372 7 5 gal Shrubs 71 EA $45.00 $3,195 8 1 gal. Perennials 193 EA $14.00 $2,702 9 2.5" cal. Deciduous Trees 9 EA $550.00 $4,950 10 2.25" cal. Deciduous Trees 16 EA $400.00 $6,400 11 3" cal. Deciduous Trees 33 EA $500.00 $16,500 12 3.5" cal. Deciduous Trees 5 EA $600.00 $3,000 13 10' Evergreen Trees 3 EA $600.00 $1,800 14 14' Evergreen Trees 4 EA $1,200.00 $2,400 15 17' Evergreen Trees 2 EA $1,700.00 $3,400 Subtotal $79,788 3% Mobilization Fee $2,394 Total $82,182 Assumes that 12" of topsoil has been provided & placed by the Contractor Cobble mulch at dripline has not been included 47~~~m .~0g16 20000 2?27P 'aILVIA DAIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235 TOP OF MILL Date: May 15, 2002 Landscape Quantities Prepared By: DHM Design Corporation Parcel 2 Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Sod 3,054 SF $1.00 $3,054 2 Native Seed 1,078 SF $1.00 $1,078 3 Cedar Mulch 130 SF $0.60 $78 4 Edging 185 LF $2.50 $463 5 Irrigation 4,262 SF $1.00 $4,262 6 Shrub Bed Prep 130 SF $1.70 $221 7 5 gal Shrubs 36 EA $45.00 $1,620 8 1 gal. Perennials 17 EA $14.00 $238 9 2.5" cal. Deciduous Trees 4 EA $550.00 $2,200 10 2.25" cal. Deciduous Trees 11 EA $400.00 $4,400 11 3" cal. Deciduous Trees 23 EA $500.00 $11,500 12 3.5" cal. Deciduous Trees 4 EA $600.00 $2,400 13 10' Evergreen Trees 4 EA $600.00 $2,400 14 14' Evergreen Trees 12 EA $1,200.00 $7,200 15 17' Evergreen Trees 3 EA $1,700.00 $5,100 Subtotal $46,214 3% M obilization Fee $1,386 Total $47,600 Assumes that 12" of topsoil has been provided & placed by the Contractor Cobble mulch at dripline has not been included i~~~~, 1'~'7 ~ ~ @~ { 47 Pa9e~' 02:2?P 08/160 0000 00 TOP OF MILL Date: May 15, 2002 Landscape Quantities Prepared By: DHM Design Corporation Parcel 3 Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Sod 785 SF $1.00 $785 2 Native Seed 4,780 SF $1.00 $4,780 3 Cedar Mulch 775 SF $0.60 $465 4 Edging 170 LF $2.50 $425 5 Irrigation 6,340 SF $1.00 $6,340 6 Shrub Bed Prep 775 SF $1.70 $1,318 7 5 gal Shrubs 31 EA $45.00 $1,395 8 1 gal. Perennials 58 EA $14.00 $812 9 2.5" cal. Deciduous Trees ~ 4 EA $550.00 $2,200 10 2.25" cal. Deciduous Trees 9 EA $400.00 $3,600 11 3" cal. Deciduous Trees 9 EA $500.00 $4,500 12 3.5" cal. Deciduous Trees 0 EA $600.00 $0 13 10' Evergreen Trees 2 EA $600.00 $1,200 14 14' Evergreen Trees 1 EA $1,200.00 $600 15 17' Evergreen Trees 1 EA $1,700.00 $1,700 Subtotal $30,120 3% Mobilization Fee $904 Total $31,023 Assumes that 12" of topsoil has been provided & placed by the Contractor Cobble mulch at dripline has not been included 471100 Page: 46 of 47 SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00$/16D 0 00 2.27E TOP OF MILL Date: May 15, 2002 Landscape Quantities Prepared By: DHM Design Corporation Infrastructure Parcel Number Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Sod 835 SF $1.00 $835 2 Native Seed 12,675 SF $1.00 $12,675 3 Cedar Mulch .1,395 SF $0.60 $837 4 Edging 87 LF $2.50 $218 5 Irrigation 14,905 SF $1.00 $14,905 6 Shrub Bed Prep 1,395 SF $1.70 $2,372 7 5 gal Shrubs 74 EA $45.00 $3,330 8 1 gal. Perennials 142 EA $14.00 $1,988 9 2.5" cal. Deciduous Trees 10 EA $550.00 $5,500 10 2.25" cal. Deciduous Trees 6 EA $400.00 $2,400 11 3" cal. Deciduous Trees 9 EA $500.00 $4,500 12 3.5" cal. Deciduous Trees 2 EA $600.00 .$1,200 13 10' Evergreen Trees 1 EA $600.00 $600 14 14' Evergreen Trees 2 EA $1,200.00 $1,200 15 17' Evergreen Trees 1 EA $1,700.00 $1,700 Subtotal $54,259 3% Mobilization Fee $1,628 Total $55,887 Assumes that 12" of topsoil has been provided 8~ placed by the Contractor Cobble mulch at dripline has not been included 4~~~~@ SILVIA DAVIS PI7KIN COUNTY CO R 235. 08836/02000002 27F CITY OF ASPEN STORM DRAIN PIPE EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT is made on August l w, 2002 and is granted by Top of Mill Investors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," to the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the City." For good and valuable considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Easement. Grantor hereby grants to the City anon-exclusive twenty foot (20') foot wide utility easement, hereinafter referred to as the "Easement" over and across the real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, for use by the City solely for installation, maintenance and repair of a storm drain pipe. While the Easement runs through lands owned by Grantor, access to the Easement may only be obtained by first crossing other lands not owned by Grantor. Obtaining access to the Easement shall be the responsibility of the City. Except as specifically provided herein, no other lands of Grantor may be used to access the Easement and nothing herein shall be construed as a grant, express or implied, over lands of Grantor not described in Exhibit "A" for access to the Easement. Grantor reserves the right to use and enjoy the Easement and the land beneath and the airspace above for all purposes and uses which do not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment by the City or members of the public of the rights herein. granted. Without limitation to the foregoing, Grantor shall have the right to grant any easements to utility companies over or under the Easement. In the event that the City damages any landscaping or other improvements located in the Easement in connection with the rights granted hereunder, the City shall promptly repair any such damage and restore the land within the Easement to its prior condition. The Easement is granted subject to all existing easements, restrictions and covenants of record. 2. Easement Utilization. This Easement is solely for use by the City for installation, maintenance and repair of a storm drain pipe. The grant of the easement, as described herein, shall be strictly construed. 3. Amendment. This Easement and the rights and obligations granted and assumed herein may not be modified except by a writing signed by Grantor and City, or their respective successors and assigns, as applicable. 47~ ~rD~ Page: 1 of 5 08/16/2002 02:35P SILVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 79320-1 1 4. Notices. Any notices given pursuant to the terms of this Easement shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested, properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid, to the addresses provided below or to subsequent assigns, as applicable, as long as prior written. notice of the change of address has been given to the other parties listed below. Said notices shall be sent to the parties hereto at the following address unless otherwise notified in writing: Grantor: Top of Mill Investors, LLC 1000 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Scott Writer With a copy to: Ronald Garfield, Esq. Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 City: City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: City Manager 5. Venue. Grantor and City agree that his Easement is made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 6. Enforcement. Each of Grantor and the City shall have the right and power to bring suit in its own name for any legal or equitable relief due to lack of compliance m with any provisions of this Easement. The failure of a party to insist upon the ~, r w N a performance of any provisions or to exercise any right or option available to it, or to ~ N N serve any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquislunent for ~ z- a ;~ the future, of any such provision. If any court proceedings are instituted in connection ~ a m with the rights of enforcement and remedies provided in this easement the prevailing m , party shall be entitled to reimbursement of its costs and expenses, including reasonable ~ N attorneys' fees, in connection therewith. "~~~ 7. Designation of Successor. Grantor, by instrument duly recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado, may designate a party to succeed to all the .~ rights, privileges and remedies of Grantor hereunder. 'i 8. Term. The term of this easement shall be permanent and perpetual, so ....~.. 0 - long as the City shall comply with the terms provisions and conditions set forth herein ~"'~~ , . ~~ a ~ 9. Successors and Assigns. All the provisions of this easement, including ~ ..~ the benefits and burdens created thereby, shall run with the land and be binding upon all "" =~ persons who hereafter acquire any interest in the property described in Exhibit "A", 793? 0-1 2 whether as an owner, renter, trust deed or mortgage beneficiary, or otherwise. All provisions of this Easement inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. GRANTOR: TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC a Delaware limited liability c pany ~~_ By: David Parker, irector CITY: CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal corporation By: ~> Pri Name: l-} ~ i n ~I~-+~Qe~-u~ Title: 1`'l A~b~ ATTEST: -~°~~~ .~ Kathryn S. Koc ity Jerk - APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7 j f ~~' TG' 0. ~f~ ,y f; John Wdree`ster; ity Attorney I,~,IIhIh~,NI~~NI~,~ppII~IVINVIVIIIN 47~~01 Page: 3 of 5 08/16/2002 02:35P 00 D 0.00 79320-I STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Easement was acknowledged before me this 81h day of August 2002 b David Parker as Director of To of LLC, a Delaware limited Y P ~~~;~ liability company. ~P.••'""••~/n Witness my hand and official My commission expires: Notary STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing asement ,.was 2002 by ~~~. City f Aspen, a Colorado Municipal cc Witness my hand and oftici 1 sea . My commission expires: ~ `7` ~c G~ MYC0111MISSION EXPIRES 11 /09/2002 iged before me this ~~~`~~ day of as ~~ ~ of the Y• PVB. t.C f ,. L,; [Acknowledgements on Next Page] 47~~0~ Page: 4 of 5 08/16/2002 02:35F SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 79320-I 4 EXHIBIT "A" (Leal llescription of Storm Drain Pipe Easement) Twenty foot (20') wide utility easement between Parcels 4 and 5 and over Open Space Parcel A, according to the Final Plat of Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD, aplanned community recorded ~ugySk ~ to , 2002 in Book ~ at Page~__ as Reception No. ~I7 (Ogg COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATI/ OF COLORADO. 47~~~~ 08916 2@ 2 02:35P SILVIA DgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 79320-1 ~