HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.433 E Durant Ave.60A-89 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 6/14/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: iq,�� 2737-182-85-001>005 60A-89
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Mountain Subd4v4-s on GM05 Amendment & PUD
Submission for Lot 5
Project Address:
Legal Address: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Lots 1-5
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership
Applicant Address: c/o Hadid Aspen Holdings 415 E. Durant 5-4272
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Representative Address/Phone: 130 Midland Park Place F2
Aspen, CO 81611 5-8080
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1,950.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 7 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date , 3 All PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
✓ City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
�- City Engineer
Pap�`csept:�`° _ Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
�- Housing Dir. ✓ -Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
�- Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
v— Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
�- Aspen Consol. Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: f / / INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: T
V.
City Atty 'N City E i eer Zoning ,, Env. Health
Housing - Other: f
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
1Y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O' Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Directo
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Ice Rink Conceptual PUD Review
DATE: June 25, 1990
SUMMARY: As part of the Aspen Mountain PUD Phase II, Hadid Aspen
Holdings Inc. has submitted an application for review of a
portion of Lot 5 that is planned for the Ice Rink/Park. Because
this portion of the original PUD was only reviewed on a limited
conceptual basis, as part of the full review for Phase I, the
applicant has requested, and staff agreed to a four step PUD
review process which will include subdivision, GMQS Exemption for
Essential Public Services and rezoning of this parcel .
Conceptual PUD review at Council requires a public hearing. At
two separate meeting in April and May, the Planning and Zoning
Commission conceptually reviewed this application. Their
concerns are included in the KEY ISSUES section of this memo.
The April 3 and May 22 Commission memos are also attached for
your review.
BACKGROUND: Phase II of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development identifies the development of Lot 5 to
include more lodging on the south side of vacated Dean Street and
the "Ice Rink/Park" on the north side of Deane Street.
During the discussion that amended the PUD, Savannah and the City
agreed that the FAR for the southern portion would be 115, 000
square feet. Any floor area on the northern portion of the lot
(the rink/park site) which is not considered an Essential Public
Service, would be in addition to the 115, 000 square feet.
In an effort to construct the park amenities in a timely fashion
U and to comply with the PUD Agreement, the applicants have
submitted an application to subdivide the park parcel from the
rest of Lot 5, rezone it to Park, seek a GMQS Exemption for
Essential Public Services, and deed restrict the parcel for
public use. The PUD review is a four step process. Subdivision,
rezoning, and GMQS Exemption will be reviewed next steps 3 and 4 .
The First Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development/Subdivision Agreement sets out the bulk and area
requirements for all of Lot 5. The use of the "park" parcel will
be a public amenity with the provision of an ice rink and support
19
services.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: At this point, the applicant is presenting
conceptual plans for the ice rink and support facilities. Please
see attached elevations of the purposed development.
The plans include the rink area with support services including a
garage for the Zamboni, locker rooms, Pro Shop, offices, and food
service. Although food service is not planned to be incorporated
for several years it is staff' s recommendation that all functions
planned for the site be identified.
The applicant will request a GMQS Exemption for Essential Public
Services for the rink/park facilities. The applicant intends to
include food service facilities in this exemption. Staff is very
concerned that the level of food service remain a support for the
rink/park facilities and not become the primary function of the
site. At what commercial level this food service evolves has yet
to be decided. The applicant and members of the P&Z believe that
some level of food service is necessary to support the ice
rink/park activities.
KEY ISSUES: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this
proposal at two separate meetings. The following issues were
raised:
April 3 review -
1. Regarding the Durant Street side of the Park: the Commission
had the desire to create more public access to draw people to the
rink/park, to "open up. . .and make it more inviting. . .having an
entrance that is conducive to the public coming to it" . The
Commission believed it was important that this facility appear
open to the community.
2 . Food Service: important that there be food service; bakery
service/coffee shop type of service; concern for the size; could
the food service be incorporated into the other services at the
.rink?
May 22 review -
1. Food Service: Perry Harvey submitted a conceptual restaurant
design.
The restaurant is approximately 1800 square feet and 18-20 feet
high.
It is staff's interpretation that, unless a very strong
connection can be made between the food service and the
rink/park, the 1800 square feet required for this food service
must come from the 115, 000 square feet that is available for
Phase II or compete for that extra square footage through the
Growth Management Quota System.
s =.
GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities is a review by the
City Council. This review usually does not occur until step 4 of
the 4 step review process, however a food service facility is a
threshold issue and should be discussed at Council's conceptual
review.
Conceptually staff recommended that the food service should be
relocated to within the existing profile of the south elevation
(Deane Street) . Staff is also concerned that seating for 70
people is too much for the site.
Unfortunately, this review is not coinciding with the
redevelopment of the Grand Aspen site. If food service is to be
included in that new development, it could be located adjacent to
vacated Deane Street and available to support activities of the
ice rink/park. More open space would be preserved on the
rink/park site.
The Commission did not totally agree with staff' s suggestions.
The Commission while agreeing that some sort of food and beverage
service was important, did not want the food entity to become a
full service restaurant
2 . The Commission requested staff to reiterate, as a condition
of approval, the applicant's representations as to the public
nature of the rink/park. During the rezoning process and the
development of the deed restriction for the site, the public
nature of the site shall be emphasized.
3 . Again, the Commission requested that the Durant sidewalk
become internal and the vegetative buffer be located between the
street and sidewalk. This is an attempt to draw the public into
the experience of the rink/park helping to emphasize the public
nature of the site. The applicant agreed and will revise the
plan to reflect the new sidewalk.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of conceptual PUD review with the following conditions:
1. Before Council review the applicant shall submit open space
calculations for this parcel.
2 . The majority of the new trees and landscape features along
Durant Street shall be located between the street and pedestrian
walkway.
3 . The parking and housing mitigation for this park/rink
activity shall be required during the redevelopment of the Grand
Aspen site.
4 . If food service is added the facility must be connected to a
grease interceptor prior to discharge to the ACSD system.
3
5. The rink and summer activity center must be connected to
either a dry well or the City stormwater system.
6. The applicant shall use a cooling system for the rink which
is the least environmentally impactive system.
7 . Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, a fugitive
dust control plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health
Department for approval by the State Health Department.
8 . The "elephant ear" curb and gutter shown on page 50 at the
southwest corner of the block is not recommended because it
results in incomplete snow removal and street cleaning. If
review bodies approve this design, the engineering department
should specify the length of the extension into the street
because we have received complaints about the "elephant ears" at
Little Nell .
9 . Previous representations of the applicant as to the public
nature of the rink shall be formally spelled out in the deed
estriction at the zoning phase of the approval .
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve conceptual PUD review for the
Ice Rink/Park for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD
with the conditions as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Commission memos: April 3 and May 22
B. New design elevations
V�
4
Plant List
Symbol Botanical Name Comrtan Name �Bgend
4 ' } pm wn-t Cowan Gnen sawn
�'/ E."T-p� I c e
' Popwnr•ndo-nl glprn
(Sal U.— .m
0 T a
Rink
F-iC1 mak's „„1 cab" Rubey Park Transif Station
Lol Five Aspen
Mountain Subdivision
and PUD
D U R A N T S T R E E T
Mou,aain r;ha.�,l '`q I c 9. R i n k
„-se- / . a .._._ 1 e• O . 111.UD
.HE
o .
--�•_ — ' • • _-- i ' �. . 1 11.NG5CU[.aCart[CrWO
�� i �• * DESIGN WORKSHOP,INC.
j' •�- //��l F- :,0 [.5, GUM\NC 5l.((•
w \— --------- j D. E A N S T R E YEl
I
--
se.. cj:....
■ z --
p-t2 --arlion Hotel J I I t w _-"-' 3:i�c.�•.
Site Plan
\c7 A.�"w•••{NV^'KLr,L%P� :/w:.La: w,E�•:�np
�G L(/•TIQ•,G .. �lW. •eC V1 Gy..f'f£N�
�vWGr D'v�EV •✓lAT I•1(M
HAGMAN YAW —
ARCHITECTS
—
_ urt,cac+uoo�un _
1
s'
\
-�
c = _m _- - .
\� �\��_ ,1,11 � �h w::• 1 \♦� 1 1). I � I�
=
VIEW FROM DURANT AND GALENA —
L
i
r
HAGMAN YAW
ARCHITECTS '-
sainc IA L
orc miowuaieu
lla aH:an�
i —
•
SHADE SUPPORT
i� 47-_....� a .
A
yac Q-O
- --- — - — ---- - ----- - - - a=-4w, -k`
-- -- - i •� OQ. CL
-0 [_REMURANT,
UP
--- r — ---- �, —iiir ff —Lai up
MAINT. r ENTRY] \ X - DUMBWAITER
SHOP, GENERAL OFFICE . � ����£ Y CH.
-� �- STORAGE _ ! ` PRO SHOP 9TORAC J` i/;•' �" 'R:
������ r
CHILLER ZAMBONI SKATE STORAGE f /< r j�C SERVpIG•L 81SH' STOR i* �
ttt n l "WASHING T"-
BOI.ER Pi I I f i MEN
L——` E u L < RF\ISMX ti:
_-� CHANG@iG�AR y� < �� KITCHEN
MELTING PIT J LOCKERS
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
r-
L
1
i
M1
r—HAGMAN YAW
7 ARCHITECTS
u lcaotwwll _
_ nr an eer
� o
-7A
OPEN TO
- - - RESTAURANT
BELOW
STAIR
I
P '!
—,
- - - DN' - DUMBWAITER
OBSERVATION DECK OBSERVATION DECK
�ECEIVIIQG'
PLANTER `—PLANTER TRASH cx�
DN
EXHAUST FLUES-/
UPPER LEVEL PLAN `
\L }
2 '
ii
I ' >
HAGMAN YAW
Q .�: ��7 c = ARCHITECTS
�' �J �� ). iit caauoueieu r
L EAST ELEVATION
A -
WEST ELEVATION
SECTION A-A PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION
Blom
i \ �l I LIA1111 LIL[Ir 7-74
NORTH ELEVATION
3
/
/
/
\
`
^ �
. �
/
/
/
/
`
\
�
`
\ `
`
`
fV ft || U| || | | | || | |U | U| | U ||/rr -
' ' '
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Ice Rink
DATE: May 22 , 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, at their April 3 , 1990 meeting, tabled
the Public Hearing for conceptual review of this application so
the applicant could provide more information.
The applicant seeks Conceptual PUD review for the Park/Ice Rink
portion of Lot 5. I have attached the April 3 memo for your
review of the proposal.
OUTSTANDING ISSUES: During the April 3 review, several issues
were raised by the Commission those being:
1. Regarding the Durant Street side of the Park: the Commission
had the desire to "open up—and make it more inviting. . .having
an entrance that is conducive to the public coming to it" ; create
more public access to draw people to it. Planning and Zoning
commented that it was important to the community that this
facility appear open to the public.
2 . Food Service: important that there be food service; bakery
service/coffee shop type of service; concern for the size; could
the food service be incorporated into the other services at the
rink?
NEW INFORMATION: Perry has submitted new plans with a conceptual
restaurant design. Please see attached plans.
C The restaurant is approximately 1800 square feet and 18-20 feet
high. Please see attached letter from Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
1 for an explanation of the food service aspect of this project.
It is still staff' s interpretation that, unless a very strong
connection can be made between the food service and the
rink/park, the 1800 square feet required for this food service
must either come from the 115,000square feet that is available
for Phase II or compete for that extra square footage.
GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities is a review by the
City Council. This review usually does not occur until step 4 of
the 4 step review process, however a food service facility is a
threshold issue and should be discussed at Council 's conceptual
review.
In terms of addressing the Commission' s concerns about existing
trees, the applicant has relocated the access ramp to avoid the
two large Cottonwoods, the significant Aspen tree on Galena has
not been identified for removal, and the sidewalk at the corner
of Durant and Mill has been reconfigured to avoid the two large
Spruce trees.
INFORMATION NEEDED: In order to continue review, the applicant
should submit information regarding open space. The park/rink
has been calculated as part of the open space for the entire PUD.
The applicant shall submit calculations that determine the amount
of open space that is being eliminated with the addition of food
service and other services. Those calculations will be used to
determine the proposal 's compliance with the PUD agreement.
SUMMARY: Conceptually staff believes the food service should be
relocated to within the existing profile of the south elevation
(Deane Street) . Staff also finds that food service seating for
70 people is too much for the site.
Unfortunately, this review is not coinciding with the
redevelopment of the Grand Aspen site. If food service is to be
`) included in the new development, it could be located adjacent to
vacated Deane Street and incorporated simply into the activities
of the ice rink/park. More open space would be preserved on the
rink/park site. At a minimum this concept would reduce the space .
requirements of the food service activity on Lot 6.
Staff will elaborate on these points during our presentation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of conceptual PUD
review with the following conditions:
-(1) Before Council review the applicant shall submit open space
calculations for this parcel.
2 Th` food e�yice ac -'y.1 -shat i�naorpor-ated t the
_ can ree�--profi1e'. I ��
3� The majority of the new trees &alorig Durant Street shall be
ocated between the street and pedestrian walkway.
4 . The parking and housing mitigation for this park/rink
activity shall be required during the redevelopment of the Grand
Aspen site.
5. If food service is added the facility must be connected to a
grease interceptor prior to discharge to our system.
6. The rink and summer activity center must be connected to
either a dry well or the City stormwater system.
7 . The applicant shall use a coolant system for the rink which
2
does not use an ozone-depleting halogenated hydrocarbon compound.
-8. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, a fugitive
dust control plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health
Department for approval by the State Health Department.
9. The "elephant ear" curb and gutter shown on page 50 at the
southwest corner of the block is not recommended because it
results in incomplete snow removal and street cleaning. If
review bodies approve this design, the engineering department
should specify the length of the extension into the street
because we have received complaints about the "elephant ears" at
Little Nell.
1
i
i
3
Maria Middelberg
69 Harney RD.
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Scarsdale
Att . Mr . Welton Anderson , Chairman New York 10583
1 3 0 S . Galena Telephone (914) 472-4730
ASPEN, Col . 81611
3-26-90 HM/m
Re . Savannah Application represented by Hadid Aspen Holdings ,
Inc .
Public Hearing 4-3-90 :
Dear Chairman Anderson .
I will not be able to attend the Public Hearing, notice of which
was mailed to me by Hadid Aspen Holdings , Inc .
However, I had the opportunity to review the development plans
9 and like to express my full support for this application in
particular and the entire develcpment prcpcsed by the Hadid
Organisation around Durant- S . Galena- and S . Mill-Streets in
general as filed with the zoning commission and the building
department .
I grately appreciate your expediting all necessary procedures the
developer has to go through to build and finish as soon as
possible all the projects :
The Ritz Carlton and the Grand Aspen Hotels , the Ice Rink
and the other residential projects at the end of S . Mill Street .
Fellow owners of the Alpenblick Townhouse Condominium and myself
are exited about the development around cur homes in Aspen and
are locking forward to see the projects finished as soon as
possible .
Very Truly Yours ,
Maria R . Middethers
North
Of ell � ' J
555 E. Durant • Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-1510 April 13, 1990
The Aspen Planning & Zonning Board
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Members:
I am employed by the North of Nell Condominium Association as their manager
and wish to express some concerns the North of Nell has in relation to the
proposed Ice Rink for the lots directly west of our building. I have read
the proposal and response provided by the planning staff, and have also attended
the initial meeting held on April 3rd where the proposal was presented and
discussed.
The initial reaction of most of our owners to the concept of an Ice Rink at
this site is positive. While they view it as having the potential to benefit
the neighborhood and Aspen, they also have some significant concerns about
noise, especially from Summer activities, particularly at night.
North of Nell has had a long history as the recipient of unwanted noise from
the Tippler and the former Little Nell establishments that has made us aware
that the noise abatement ordinance is woefully inadequate in both. substance
and the timely availability of enforcement to control noise pollution. Like
most buildings in Aspen, the North of Nell is not air-conditioned, and in order
to sleep in the Summer, one must crack the sliding glass doors to obtain air.
This allows sound to enter the building. We also have a problem in the Winter
in that the noise penetrates the building' s exterior walls and glazing to such
an extent that the new Little Nell Hotel (according to General Manager Eric
Calderon) is significantly bothered by noise from the Tippler. The primary
weakness in the existing noise abatement ordinance is that it does not address
the ability of the bass notes to penetrate buildingsat decibel levels of 55
or lower. In case you are wondering what all this has to do with an Ice Rink,
please bear with me.
-2-
In reading and listening to the Hadid proposal, it is apparent that the
potential for noise pollution to the neighborhood is significant. With
the proper controls and limitations on usage, however, we feel this is a
manageable problem. Specifically we would ask that the following types of
controls and limitations be made a part of the approval for the use and
re-zoning to "Park".
Limitations:
Rock Concerts and other types of Concerts using amplified music (prohibited).
Outside speakers or public address systems restricted to levels acceptable to
immediate neighbors.
Hours of operation (as a. Park-type facility) 10:00 a.m, to 9:00 p.m.
Controls:
Special Events should be subject to approval via a permit review process much
as current events in Wagner Park. Use and control of the park should be in the
hands of the City of Aspen.
The North of Nell would like to see sound level monitoring/measuring equipment
permanently installed on the North of Nell building which would objectively
record noise levels for use by the Aspen Police or others.
In summary, we like the concept of an Ice Rink, but would ask that sufficient
controls and limitations be agreed on now to limit conflict later. We fully
realize that we are in a mixed use neighborhood, but that does not .give one
use the right to significantly deprive another use of its rights. Incidentally,
the possible argument/rationalization that the replacement for the Grand Aspen
Hotel will be as close to the Rink as the North of Nell (from a sound standpoint)
is not relevant inasmuch as it will (or can be) built with air-conditioning and
superior sound insulation permitted by new construction. The North of Nell has
not sat on their hands in dealing with the sound problem inasmuch as they have
installed over 45 additional sliding glass door units (at considerable expense)
specifically to fight the neighborhood noise. It certainly would appear that
this is the time to restrict the potential for future conflict and we would ask
that you do your very best to accomplish that. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dc: ald B. Helmich
Manager
cc: Board of Managers
ASD(•ii City Council , ' Planning Staff
May 15, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611.
Dear Leslie,
In anticipation of our continued conceptual review
of the ice rink before the Planning & Zoning
Commission I want to formally amend our
application to include a food service capability
on the site. I have included plans which show a
walk through, primarily self-service restaurant
with indoor seating for approximately seventy
people.
During the April 3rd meeting the consensus at
Planning & Zoning was that food service needs to
be incorporated into the plan but not as a full
service restaurant. We agree with this and are
proposing a design which allows for skaters to
enter the restaurant, go through a self-service
line and have a warm place to sit and eat. There
will be a small wait staff to service non-skaters
and to clean the restaurant area. The restaurant
area will also be used for private parties and
fund raising events. Outside tables will be
primarily for summer use as a replacement for the
interior seating. The seating area is sized to
correspond to the rink capacity. We anticipate up
to 150 people skating during busy periods.
The food service is envisioned as soups, salads
and sandwiches with deserts and snacks. It is not
intended that the food service provide a full
menu. Nonetheless the kitchen and storage will be
adequate for private or public events which
require different menues.
;t
Page 2
Leslie Lamont
5-15-90
We envision this block as a community activity
center rather than as passive open space. To
provide for the widest range of community uses and
to attract as many people as possible, this level
of food service is imperative in our evaluation.
I look forward to reviewing these plans with the
commission on May 22nd.
Sincerely,
Perry Har ey
Director
Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
PH/ks
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision Phase II: Conceptual PUD
Review and Conceptual Rezoning for Park/Ice Rink
Portion of Lot 5
DATE: April 3 , 1990
SUMMARY: The purpose of this review is Conceptual PUD review for
the Park/Ice Rink portion of Lot 5 which is Phase II of the Aspen
Mountain Subdivision/PUD. This PUD has been approved and
reconfirmed in the past pursuant to the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision/PUD signed October of 1988. Although the Aspen
Mountain PUD was reviewed and approved, the development of Phase
II (Lot 5) has not been thoroughly reviewed by the public and
other review entities. Therefore review of this application will
be considered conceptual and final PUD review.
This April 3 meeting was scheduled as a public hearing. The
original intention was to consolidate the four step PUD review
process into 2 steps. Thus subdivision and rezoning would also
be reviewed concurrently with PUD review. Recently, the
applicant requested that the process be broadened to a four step
process so a conceptual discussion can occur regarding the
program and operation of the Park/Rink.
With the four step process a public hearing is not necessary at
this first step. Renoticing of the public hearing will occur for
future public hearings associated with the four step process, but
the applicant does welcome public input at this time.
The applicant requested (please see attached letter A) to
bifurcate the review of Phase II of the Aspen Mountain PUD. In
order to complete the Ice Rink in time for the opening of the
Ritz-Carlton Hotel (as required by the PUD Agreement) , review of
the Park/Rink must begin at this time.
The 1988 PUD agreement also requires the applicants to subdivide
the Ice Rink parcel from the Lot 5 parcel .
Review of the Ice Rink requires a four step PUD review,
subdivision , rezoning from Commercial Lodge (CL) and
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) to Park, . and a GMQS Exemption
for essential public services.
The Commission, will review conceptually the PUD and staff
requests a conceptual review of the rezoning. Council will
review the GMQS Exemption.
0001- 4"Ok
Staff recommends approval, with conditions, of the conceptual
PUD.
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership c/o Hadid Development
Companies, represented by Perry Harvey
LOCATION: Parcels A through I, Block 91 which is the block
between Durant and Deane Streets and Galena and South Mill
Streets.
ZONING: CL and L/TR
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant request conceptual PUG review
for the development of an park/ice rink with accessory uses.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, B.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Proiect description
The applicant proposes to develop an Ice Rink and Park on the
27, 080 square foot parcel (Parcels A through I, Block 91) that
will be subdivided from Lot 5. The subdivision and development
of Lot 5 and the subdivided Ice Rink parcel constitute Phase II
of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
The Aspen Mountain PUD agreement requires the subdivision of Lot
5 into two parcels. One to be developed into the ice rink and
park and the other for the replacement project for the Grand
Aspen site. The future review of the Grand Aspen site will be a
four step PUD review process.
The park/rink is intended to serve as an activity center to be
developed and maintained by Savanah Ltd. The development of the
park will be in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and will
be ready for use at the same .time as the Hotel.
The development plan for the Park is to provide an ice rink for
public winter skating; in the summer, the rink and landscaped
area will be used for a multitude of purposes, including but not
limited to ballet rehearsals, community dances, plays, private
parties, art exhibits, musical performances and fund raising
events. The applicant is still working on the programmatic
details of the park.
During the winter, it is proposed that the rink be available for
public skating with skate rental and public changing areas.
Because the applicant is requesting essential public service
status (GMQS Exemption for essential public services) , they are
seeking several variations the Commission should comment upon:
2
1. Permission to extend the curbline along the north and east
side of the Park approximately 10 feet into the existing street
right of way, along Durant Street, in order to maintain the
largest possible rink size and still provide a reasonable buffer
from traffic. This would also eliminate the parking on this side
of the street.
2 . Exemption from Park dedication and tap fee payments (Council
approval required) .
3 . Waiver of off-street parking requirements.
The applicant is dedicated to creating a multi-use facility that
will be both a great asset for the community and an economically
self-sustaining facility.
B. Conceptual PUD Review
Many of the PUD review criteria are not applicable to this
proposal. This memo will only review those criteria that would
apply for this proposal.
Pursuant to Section 7-903 B. the review standards for a PUD are ;
as follows:
1. General Requirements
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE : The Plan designates this area as
Recreational/Accommodation the propose of which is "to allow for
the recreation and accommodation needs of the visitor to Aspen in
an area that is especially suited for this because of its unity
with and identity to, the proposed transportation system, the ski
area and the central area. . . "
The recreational element in the heart of the tourist district is
consistent with the Land Use designation and is well located to
serve the needs of visitors because of its central location to
other tourist services.
b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: The park/rink compliment Wagner Park and Rubey Park.
Again the rink is designed as a tourist amenity but with strong
community emphasis. A community pass program is planned for the
rink.
3
The programming of this activity center is very important.
Adjacent condominium owners have expressed strong concern
regarding noise and late night activities.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the
future development of the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: The development of this activity center will enhance
the surrounding area.
d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to
the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the
applicant.
RESPONSE: The applicant is seeking a GMQS Exemption, Essential
Public Services, for the development of the ice rink and the
necessary accessory uses e.g. the changing rooms, Zamboni
storage, ticket counter.
The applicant also proposes the eventual addition of a restaurant
on the site to enhance the services of the site. Unless the
applicant demonstrates that the restaurant is also an essential
public service or essential support of the park/rink, development
allotments will be necessary for the construction 'of a restaurant
w
on the site.
2 . Land Uses: the land uses permitted shall be those of the
underlying Zone District.
RESPONSE: The applicant seeks to rezone the parcel from CL and
L/TR to Park. An open recreational facility and accessory
building and uses are permitted uses in the Park (P) Zone
District.
3. Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements shall
be those of the underlying Zone District.
RESPONSE: Pursuant to Section 5-220, the dimensional
requirements in the P zone shall be set by the adoption of a
Conceptual and Final Development Plan. The applicant shall
present, at the Commission meeting, the dimensions of the
facilities that will occupy the park.
The applicant requests an increase, on the Durant side of the
parcel, of approximately 10 feet into the Durant Street right-of-
way. This would facilitate a wider rink but would necessitate
removal of the parallel parking on that side of the street. The
Engineering Department, does not support extending the curbline
10 feet into Durant Street. Please see attached referral
comments B.
4 . Off-street Parking: The number of off-street parking spaces
4
may be varied from that required in the underlying Zone District_
RESPONSE: The P zone enables parking to be set by special review
for uses other than residential or lodge.
This facility is located directly across the street from the
Rubey Park Transit Center. The applicant intends the park to be
a strong draw for tourists staying in close proximity to the
park/rink. There will be six angle parking spaces on the west
end of the park/rink. The redevelopment of the Grand Aspen site
will incorporate a parking garage that was determined, during
review of the Aspen Mountain PUD, to be adequate to accommodate
the whole parking needs of Phase II development, the first of
which is the park/rink.
5. Open Space: This 27, 080 parcel will be virtually all open
space pursuant to -the definition of open space. If a restaurant
is added in the future (as the applicant has proposed) it will
reduce the amount of open space but is expected to be negligible
relative to the open space of the whole park.
6. Landscape Plan: There shall be approved as part of the Final
Development Plan a landscape plan which exhibits a well designed
treatment of exterior spaces.
RESPONSE: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan of the
site. Overall the applicant intends to provide extensive
(according to the site plan approximately 80 additional trees)
landscape treatment on the entire site.
Development of the site, unfortunately identifies the elimination
of several distinctive Cottonwoods and Blue Spruce which is not
supported by staff. During a site visit, staff and the applicant
discussed the possibility of preserving the large trees on the
periphery of the site. Specifically the two large Cottonwoods on
the corner of Durant and Galena, the two Blue Spruce at the west
end of the parcel, and the large 14" Spruce near the southwestern
corner. Staff believes that it is possible to - adjust the
sidewalk improvements around these trees. The access ramp at the .
corner of Galena and Durant should also be adjusted to
accommodate the two Cottonwoods. The Engineering Department
believes that at least one Cottonwood is in the City right of way
and would be reluctant to grant a tree removal permit. An
attempt should be made to relocate the other significant Spruce
that are located within the site. Please see the referral
comments from the Engineering and Parks Departments B.
For presentation purposes, staff has a site plan outlining the
recommended changes to the landscape plan.
7. Architectural Site Plan: The applicant will present
elevations of the accessory improvements and will go over in
5
detail the site plan of the whole parcel. Please see attached
site plan C.
8. Lighting: at the time of this writing, the applicant was
still exploring a lighting plan.
9. Public Facilities: The applicant intends to rezone and deed
restrict the parcel as a Park. It is unclear at this time
whether the applicant should deed the parcel to the City. The
applicant has also agreed to construct and operate the facility,
but continued maintenance and operation of the facility must be
further defined.
There are adequate public facilities available for the proposal.
10. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: This proposal poses
little impediments to pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The
parcel is primarily pedestrian oriented. Vacated Deane Street
(which is part of Lot 5) is adequate for delivery purposes. If a
restaurant is added in the future a service ramp may be installed
at the Deane/Galena corner. Deane street may also serve as a
dropping off point thus limiting the potential for congestion on
the Durant side of the park/rink.
Staff is concerned that the parcel does not provide enough direct
pedestrian access off of Durant Street versus the openness of the
entrance opposite the Grand Aspen site. It is very important
that there well defined public access and that the public are
drawn into the rink area. There is one direct access at the
Durant/Galena corner and in the summer rock paths are planned for
the west end of the parcel. Staff understands the potential
' security problems posed by numerous access points, however direct
access from the public side of the park/rink should be
emphasized.
C. Rezoning
Although rezoning will not be formally addressed until Step 3, it
is important to determine whether the Commission finds rezoning
of the parcel appropriate in concept before further review of
this application.
The applicant proposes to rezone the parcel from Commercial Lodge
(CL) and Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) to Park (P) . The
permitted uses in a P Zone are open-use recreational facility,
park, playfield, playground, golf course, riding stable, nursery,
botanical garden; and accessory building and uses.
Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards for rezoning considers
among others, compatibility with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, effects on traffic and road safety, consistency and
6
compatibility with the community character, changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood, and
conflict with the public interest.
The surrounding land uses are Wagner Park, Rubgy Transit Center,
North of Nell condominiums, the Mountain Chalet and the proposed
Ritz-Carlton Hotel and redevelopment of the Grand Aspen site.
The parcel will be primarily open space and will create a pocket
of openness in a very intensively developed portion of the City.
The programming of the year round activities must be carefully
identified as some residents have expressed strong concern to
late night activities and potential noise problems.
D. Summary of Staff Concerns
Staff supports the concept of a park/rink at this location.
There are however several outstanding issues:
1. Public access from the Durant street side should be more
inviting and accessible.
2. The two large Cottonwoods and three large Spruce trees on the
periphery of the site shall be preserved in their existing
location. The applicant should design the site improvements
around these significant trees.
3 . The details of the year round programming must be identified
very carefully and with sensitivity to surrounding property
owners.
4 . The engineering department does not support extending the
curbline along the north and east side 10 feet into the street
right of way. This would seriously reduce the parking available
in the area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of conceptual PUD
review with the following conditions:
1. The two large Cottonwoods and three large Spruce trees on the
periphery of the site shall be preserved in their existing
location pursuant to the revised site plan as recommended by the
Park and Planning Departments.
2 . If a restaurant is added it must be connected to a grease
interceptor prior to discharge to our system.
3 . The rink and summer activity center must be connected to
either a dry well or the City stormwater system.
7
4 . The applicant shall use a coolant system for the rink which
does not use an ozone-depleting halogenated hydrocarbon compound.
5. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, a fugitive
dust control plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health
Department for approval by the State Health Department.
6. The "elephant ear" curb and gutter shown on page 50 at the
southwest corner of the block is not recommended because it
results in incomplete snow removal and street cleaning. If
review bodies approve this design, the engineering department
should specify the length of the extension into the street
because we have received complaints about the "elephant ears" at
Little Nell.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Savanah Limited Letter
B. Referral comments
C_ Site Plan
ice.rink.pz
8
ATTACHMENT A
I IMA 1)
:\Speli
Inc.
March 28, 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum
City of Aspen Planning Director
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
I
Thank you for your letter of March 22, 1990 outlining your !
understanding of the PUD Agreement as ratified by the voters on
February 13 , 1990.
Based on your confirmation we do want to proceed with bifurcation
of the Lot 5 "Phase II" submission to facilitate the review of the
Park and Ice Rink subdivision and rezoning as expeditiously as
possible.
We are operating on the agreement outlined in Resolution ll between
ourselves and City Council which states in part that we may
construct " . . .1.15,000 square feet of countable floor area ratio,
exclusive of the floor area that might be built on the Park on Lot
5. " The improvements envisioned for the Park include locker rooms,
skate rental , sharpening and sales, mechanical equipment, storage
and a restaurant as a future addition. The May 9, 1988 Council
minutes quote Alan Richman as saying that the code now allows that
essential community facilities may be commercial .
I look forward to beginning the review and approval process of this
portion of the PUD.
Sincerely yours,
Perry Ha vey, Director
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
PAH/ld
A"11'f�C1ulEiJ'i Is
MEMORANDUM
To : Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C
Date : March 19, 1990
Re : Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Ice Rink and Park
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made
a site inspection, the engineering department has the following
comments :
1 . The application opens with a discussion of the background of
the project . On page 2 there is a discussion of the city
personnel changes since the beginning of the project. The
engineering department has also experienced personnel changes,
and the engineer who worked on this project for the past six
years is no longer on staff . Without an extensive research
project, the engineering department is unable to certify this
application' s representations concerning the background of the
application from 1983 to date.
2 . City staff who are experienced in ice rink operation are of
the opinion that some form of food service should be available,
which could be a snack bar or vending machines .
3 . City staff members are concerned that it be clear to appli-
cants and review persons that the park and ice rink will not be
considered amenities which can be conveyed to the city for city
operation and maintenance as public facilities .
4 . The City ice rink manager has already shared information,
experience and expertise with the ice rink designers and is
willing to confer as needed in the future .
5 . Page 29, item 10, construction schedule : It was my under-
standing that the construction of the ice rink and park were to
be completed before additional construction was performed on the
hotel .
6 . The engineering department recommends against approval of the
"elephant ear" curb and gutter shown on page 50 at the southwest
corner of the block . This type of construction results in
incomplete snow removal and street cleaning. If review bodies
approve this design, the engineering department should specify
the length of the extension into the street because we have
received complaints about the "elephant ears" at Little Nell .
7 . It appears that the applicant desires to remove one or two
large cottonwood trees located in the public right-of-way at the
northeast corner of the project. The city would not permit this
in any other instance, and we recommend that it not be permitted
in this instance . The City normally seeks site designs which
accommodate such trees .
8 . This reviewer has .been involved in landscaping and site
restoration for various city projects . It is ironic that the
City performed at a higher level of consideration of existing
vegetation for the Maroon Creek Hydropower Project, which is out
in the middle of the woods with only six or so residences within
a half a mile of the site . At that project, the City did not
remove vegetation "for convenience" sake . We situated the
building and the driveway so as to result in the fewest trees
removed .
In the case of this current application, there are a number of
trees which the applicant apparently intends to remove which
should be left in place . It is suggested that the P & Z or
Council visit the site and be shown exactly what trees the
applicant is proposing to remove . It is this reviewer 's opinion
that a better project would result if the major trees are left in
place and the ice rink and landscaping are designed around the
trees .
This reviewer would prefer to see more of the native species such
as cottonwood trees (cottonless varieties ) and aspen. An
historical species which would also be nice to see is lilac .
Fewer maples and crabapples could be used for counterpoint . The
Mahonia Repens and Potentilla are indigenous species which are
good to see on the planting list . Another ground cover which
does well is phlox. The foliage is attractive when the plant is
not in bloom. When in bloom, the plant has lovely, dense
isplays of a small flower which comes in three or four colors .
NQIJPage 80, item 1 : The engineering department does not support
ex ending the curbline along the north and east side 10 feet into
the street right of way. This would seriously reduce the parking
available in the area.
10 . Page 87, item 2: There is insufficient explanation for
engineering review about the "infeasibility" of building the ice
rink over parking. To the best of my knowledge, the problems
could be solved through proper engineering. If this comment has
substance in this review, we should see a more lengthy discussion
by a registered engineer .
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
MEMORANDUM
Li,S'LI I. I A—CNT, ILA,...I :G OFI' CL
CHUCK ROTH, CITY ENGINEER
FROM: BILL NESS, PARK SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: MARCH 27 , 1990
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION/PUD ICE RINK AND PARK
I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO RETAIN THE TWO OLD COTTONWOOD TREES
LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF GALENA ST. AND DURANT BY REROUTING THE
SIDEWALK/ZAMBONI ACCESS AROUND THE TREES.
THE NEXT CLOSEST COTTONWOOD TREES ARE LOCATED AT THE CHART HOUSE, MONARCH ST
AND DURANT.
THE TWO LARGE SPRUCE TREES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE (MILL ST. ) , OF THE PARCEL,
ALSO SHOULD BE LEFT AT THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATIONS AND DESIGN THE SIDEWALK AROUND
THE TREES, TO THE EAST OF THE TREES.
s
l
Aspetii Cwzsolidatecl �t{Ilitatloli Astrict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537
March 19, 1990
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Mnt. Subdivision
Ice Rink and Park
Dear Leslie:
We are responding specifically to the ice rink and park portion
of this application at this time. We currently have sufficient
collection and treatment capacity to serve this portion of the
Aspen .Mountain Subdivision.
It appears from the application that the only connections being
considered for this part of the subdivision are public rest rooms
and potentially a restaurant. If a restaurant is added it must be
connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharge to our
system.
Our rules and regulations prohibit all surface water connections
such as outside floor drains or drains associated with the ice
rink itself . The rink and summer activity center must be
connected to either a dry well or the City stormwater system.
Due to the magnitude of the Aspen Mountain PUD it is strongly
recommended that the applicant' s engineer work closely with the
District on each segment. Each segment of the PUD will require a
separate tap permit.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
cc: Hadid Holdings, 415 E. Durant Ave. . Aspen
Doremus and Wells. 608 E. Hyman Ave. , Aspen
ASPEN4PITI<IN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
From_ Environmental Health Department
Date: March 18, 1990
Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Ice Rink and Park
Parcel ID# 2737-182-85-001<->005
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the -As en
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1-2.3, of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual' Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
G public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers". The applicant
states that the District Engineer for the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District has confirmed that the existing sewage
collection system at this site is adequate.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This
conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring
G such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici-
pal water utility system". . In the previously submitted Aspen
Mountain PUD, the applicant committed to improvements that will
be made to the existing municipal system.
AIR QUALITY:
Placement of the majority of the development on the site nearest
�'' the commercial facilities to lessen automobile travel would have
a beneficial impact on air quality.
We strongly recommend the applicant install automatic timed shut-
130 South Gale-nip Srre er A,"pcjn, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070
ASPENJ6-P1TK1N .
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMENT
Aspen Mtn. Sub./PUD Ice Rink/Park
March 18 , 1990
Page 2
off devices on all gas log fireplaces or fireplace appliances.
This will prevent these devices from being left on for extended
periods of time while guests are gone. This will prevent wasteful
burning of gas. The allowed number of gas log fireplaces is two
per building, regardless of the number of rooms or dwelling units
in the building.
If the ice rink is to be Mechanically cooled, the applicant is
urged to consider use of a coolant system for the ice rink which
does not use an ozone-depleting halogenated hydrocarbon compound.
The underground parking structure should be adequately ventilated
to ensure that carbon monoxide levels inside the parking area are
within occupational health standards, and that carbon monoxide
levels outside the parking facility are significantly below the
sea level standard for ambient concentrations.
It is recommended that the operators inform visitors, in any
promotional material, that cars are not needed while staying in
this facility, and perhaps providing a map of bus routes.
A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to this office and
approved by the State Health Department prior to beginning of any
earthmoving or clearing of land. Prior to demolition of any
existing buildings, the applicant should conduct testing to
determine if any asbestos is present, and should contact this
office if any is found. Authority for this request may be found
in the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
The applicant should provide vans for vanpools, or contribute to
RFTA's vanpool programs in the areas where offsite housing units
are provided, so that these workers will not drive into Aspen
individually.
NOISE:
There will obviously be noise generated during the construction
phase of this project that will impact the immediate
neighborhood. Long term impacts will be less likely as long as
the applicant is aware of noise mitigating measures that will
prevent unwanted sound from leaving the property.
Should noise complaints be registered with this office, Chapter
16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be
the document used in the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
G�
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/SeO-5070
ASPEN6PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMENT
Aspen Mtn_ Sub./PUD Ice Rink/Park
March 18, 1990
Page 3
The applicant discusses the possibility of the addition of a
restaurant to this site at a future date. Prior to construction
of any food and/or beverage service facility, the applicant must
have a Food Establishment Plans and Specifications Review done by
this department, to ensure that this facility is in compliance
with Title 12, Article 44, Part 2, C.R.S. 1973 - Food Service
Establishments, and with the Rules and Regulations Governing the
Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of
Colorado, dated July 1, 1978 or subsequent rules that may be in
effect at the time the restaurant plans are submitted.
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past r
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative i
impacts to humans.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado £31611 303/920-5070
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Electric Department
Environmental Health Department
Parks Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Housing Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Ice Rink and Park
DATE: March 2, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Hadid Aspen Holdings for Phase Two of the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision/PUD.
At this time only the Ice Rink and Park are going to be reviewed.
Please review this material and return your comments on the Ice
Rink and Park to me no later than March 19, 1990_ Please keep
this application on file in order to review the rest of the Phase
II project in the future. Thank you.
S co I C
fv'fputo
I
FIRST AMENDED PLAT
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
•>o l u�.•f
•'»�O.OfJa,.•e fDl llOrt tLIrCM VfL'.a Awiu�Tra•. �O •.•.• r.�
'YoI rO,O+.Q M rt.•�l•'•M'NrvM rlwa.
n.(fWJt)WfSMrM rtlr•Il f()rl Rl I
--------------------- t. • •
t v tfH•R 1 KNA'/yyrrL 4!+♦ ,T) r• I „ .•,�,. .
LOT 4
♦ :V 4'p .
;, �. .. -'.��- ~I •� ins .•..'�18{Yit•t t i
�,.E r.. .j• ------L----------------------- -----------------
I J eta >.,.ev•�,., �
�•``�Q , GALENA STREET
`i
i 1 C . ! r I ._••-�ac'�'z•. a ..___....--_•---r--_•__---___-__•_•
„t
z °; ` !; I� LOT 5 I I` '}I•
SOUTH MILL STREET .�c:pn LOT 3
11 .nil•ur wv.,Y ra„ - {
,LOT
LOT 1
{ 111 •'� I 1I , i • t 1 � .. .! • Nj ._.;._..�f 1 �i • � ..• e. ,
fr I 1 ly 1 ,r•
OPEN SPACE a
EASEMENT
I ...MONARCH STREET •�.•-...,-,_—.s. �L .... .._.. ... .__.:.. i S 1, .. .•., .. ��• I.
1 •
I I , Lo•�w�,Lv.l�n nl
P.U.D. VARIATIONS
R.' ..• r r:r Ji �.,r ...� n•r l.::i iii u nl .rw,✓. rt
1••.�s^..L
NOTES
.�•u Pt r•. UWR•,H.• w .. RL Yt nQ':w Pry• ♦YW aM ^.rnrwN OrVrlXDa .ortl � ) I0...-•,. Wl ,'� �%/,fit
.�.Wa rJ U•6,—•eT f�.L•,I••••'�ri ..� • a ..�V �•_.l.•L..•,. fv,. .. . u.••r f.rr•.rr 't+VJI�.•�. , i 0,4.. 1 r '1•T R. i[.I r� .
1•fM ? <L.r r tt/Lr•• • Y urt niD O•M ••. ,M,11rJ•O�'�T) ,lr.,.0. . 4'f r', - °•'a' fV,I+vY•f• u.[n
Kit 1..••. • �L� .. .•• w.t
f. ..^1 f4•Irn•fY,r Irf.• •! .•✓nu• •t •rl.� MJK w)r , . ul ya,TpnMxl ••••L,`K b.l_!wY.•rfltLiirn.w•VI•u •1�1•r.r tJCt lr w. •• •t1 Rrl.nr.,... •LLCaJt=
�orP•rrr.•,. ..r V �.L. .o,L. Lnn a+M. .;. ao•om�.c ` �° +
,_
,.i•.•.no �Mt•..•.,r�).� Ulc'1 Y r.._� t..•'..rK •r�. ^MM..1 i! u.r•rV! ,u, Vr. �w rY. ��1 , rr.nvr.•. ,C '�
w1 U.)RrTP•Cr)I.KL Au CT' • ' µ.•r,...Y w Y.•t LI L!•••�_•�� VCt VJ• .OT l .,•f~•X.a,rw,a.nu 1rK t) •r , IK . •'fY•.•r r.Lar.•... ,P n�r•p,aq �).'•r•gyC.n rC>0.�+•" '. n.L^I•
�n Crn P)r•ti.T•i1.T' 4_RS •MC Una l ....n,ter.
IG tV•„O.O•nC IQtL'\ WL..J�nV M w.L i)O PLa,b r't •yyM/KL •n•<tl ll0 a Tt•M.r nL'rLh>/+al,D ti.tP'OL.b tr••,0.1 t �l � , •wire,:' [ V
Raw
..n.Yth toA/.'Il M1.IV r,Rrt ^/L+T.df L 'f...,IJJ•. %tv[L l4tL•n,lYf`fr �O t f,rW,K L),.ar�iyKT,M,a..J•fO.L••T Jr.V[Vin ` M.. �"i�•�r r .4r LL`K-'•n'tIV>`� n' '.
�[O.W<L �A•arr+••r• ,...,, ....••.rw >rIrANV. uL4 ytt• �•'.__•_L.,.,,.rr•, ^" ,,...r_U a'n0•tt''it w•F<��i�� r.C••.
„O. L,L1.LO ,1)010 r'r \IS,DTK lt0 r A4.6 rAJn 0tYV+YKt TOKnwrofnP Wn l.r � .y.n.•.. f(CCr,):....
v' �nl •i�•:r.KLC lr Y •tr r4••KMa)WfUta rnTw At i./•tr.✓LK p ♦r4 tla L¢K. q KU. _�
r1..•, rLLf�/• Y. • L• I...O rL, NLT'CL i•./IOMW4r,•L••KV'r.Ltr; •rrnl �_�_
• T•Y>„1>,rrM.YMI�K•Mr MI•p L•P W Vrl R f•O
-s•
Plant List
�ymbol Botancal Name Common Name 1B99nd - -
o PAM P�/W" �,� ,� Ice
O. P.—erm,wa„ AW. 7 ` E Wq T—a R~
(Sul Rink
I I Ac«P+�anaa, wm.q wwr f`.t EeMi01nN sb
�hJ \•r f Tr,neWM _
®' Rubey Park Transit Station - Lw Fire •AsDen
ww„p.cw, Gwatsw Mountain Subd1Y4106
an0 PUD
sm A,IIOIrO� rr
D U R A N T S T R E E T
��` I IAD:I DI
Ice R1nk �r \ —
I II DE.'SN*DRXSRCP,IN,
� \ IL
----- E A N S T R E E T ¢ �..'... A'-
w /
I I t
I .T
arson Hotel l Phase Two (See Sheet 1-4) .r
Q
L j
' h ,nIII,9 Pl.!
-.t,e—v-6 L3
6vPtiC( D.TGO M..•r � NM
sa
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25, 1990
Councilman Tuite acting as chairman called the meeting to order at
5: 00 p.m. with Councilmembers Pendleton and Peters present.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Janet Sheldon, Fourth Street, brought up concerns about the
worsening traffic problems and the speed at which people drive in
residential areas. Ms. Sheldon said people do not know the speed
limit. Ms. Sheldon suggested speed limit signs be posted in the
residential areas and stop or yield signs at the intersections.
John Goodwin, police chief, told Council this comes up more often
because of more cars and more people. Goodwin told Council there
is a community meeting scheduled Wednesday June 27th at 7 p.m. with
residents of the Cemetery Lane area to discuss their traffic
concerns. The residents of the west end will be invited. Ms.
Sheldon said she would like to see something done right away.
Carol O'Dowd, city manager, said the solutions or suggestions that
can be handled administratively will be put into place.
Katharine Thalberg said there are increased traffic problems due
to the streets that are blocked off to traffic. Ms. Thalberg told
Council there is no lighting on Gillespie and North avenue; the
lighting in the west end should be consistent.
Councilman Tuite asked about increased police personnel in the west
end. Goodwin said his department would have to stop doing
something else. Goodwin pointed out the merchants wanted to see
the police walking downtown, the Cemetery Lane residents would like
traffic control as well as officers answering calls for service.
Goodwin said he cannot promise this on a scheduled basis.
Bruce Edmondson said the whole town is moving too fast; Main street
is extremely dangerous and almost impossible to walk across. No
one seems to have a consciousness about pedestrians. Edmondson
suggested the city talk to the media and the community about
creating a consciousness of having everyone slow down. Robert
Razie said Aspen is becoming like everywhere else with a lot of
noise, pollution, idling buses and equipment. Razie agreed there
should be a community effort to slow down and suggested announce-
ments after music or other events to that effect. Razie said the
entire community is out of control with speed.
Councilman Peters said he feels this is the way the town has chosen
to develop. It is a big job to ask the police department to
diffuse the choice of town. Bob Lewis agreed about the concern of
safety in the downtown. Lewis said it is predicted the tourists
and drivers will continue to increase 2 or 3 times in the next 10
years. Lewis suggested Council look into an expanded mall system
and a car free downtown. If Council does not begin to keep cars
out of downtown, there will be gridlock in a few years.
1
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25 1990
Councilman Peters asked the police department to supply Council
with personnel implications from the outcome of the neighborhood
meetings. Goodwin said he does not have the resources to provide
coverage for every neighborhood the way people would like it.
Goodwin told Council he will come back with some alternatives from
the neighborhoods and the cost implications. Jacob Lieberman
suggested a banner across Main street alerting drivers that
pedestrians have the right of way.
2 . Al Blomquist told Council that Lyle Reeder has closed off the
trail on his property up on Shadow Mountain. Bill Efting,
assistant city manager, told Council staff is aware of this closure
and is negotiating with Reeder. Jed Caswall, city attorney, told
Council he is working on the prescriptive easement aspects of this.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Peters said there seems to be a lot of vested
rights ordinances and asked if there is another way Council can do
this. Amy Margerum, planning director, said state statute requires
Council to have a public hearing. Vested rights can now be
incorporated into final approval ordinances; however, there are
some projects which receive final approval from P & Z and will
still have to have a vesting ordinance.
2 . Councilman Peters moved to remove O'Leary's encroachment
request from the consent agenda; seconded by Councilwoman Pendle-
ton. All in favor, motion carried.
3 . Councilwoman Pendleton thanked everyone who worked on and who
came to the town meeting. Councilwoman Pendleton suggested a work
session as a follow up to see how some of the suggestions might be
implemented.
4 . Councilman Tuite asked about IX(g) Loan Agreement Approval
Housing Authority Hopkins Property. Council agreed to discuss this
at the July 2nd work session and to put this on the July 9th
agenda.
5. Councilman Tuite told Council it appears RFTA and the Ski
Company have reached a consensus on the bus service.
6. . Councilman Tuite asked about the fireworks and Fourth of July
since it is so dry. John Goodwin, police chief, told Council he
is meeting with the fire department this week to discuss the Fourth
of July and fireworks.
2
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25, 1990
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilman Peters moved to approve the consent agenda as amended;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. The consent agenda is:
A. Resolution #26, 1990 - Polling Places
B. Minutes May 1; June 11, 1990
All in favor, motion carried.
ENCROACHMENT REQUEST - O'Leary's
Jed Caswall, city attorney, told Council O'Leary's presently has
a 3 foot encroachment for a wooden deck facing Hyman street which
has been there for 5 to 7 years. In 1983 the then lessee of the
property requested an encroachment which was denied by Council.
Caswall told Council the engineering department has tried to
contact the owner of the property to discuss this encroachment; all
requests have been ignored. When O'Leary's applied for their
liquor license renewal, it was determined they did not have
possession to the premises they sought to have licensed. O'Leary's
has now sought an encroachment license to maintain the deck and to
be able to serve alcohol.
Chuck Roth, engineering department, told Council staff has
recommended denial because the applicant did not come in for a
building permit and a permit to build in the right-of-way. Staff
is basing this denial on the denial by Council in 1983 . Paul
Taddune, representing the applicant, said the current operator of
O'Leary's is an innocent victim. When they purchased the business
the deck was already there. O'Leary's has now done what the city
has requested. Roth said this may not be a proper use for the
public right-of-way and could be a precedent for other restaurants.
Caswall said an encroachment license has benefits for the city, and
there are equities that weight in favor of the applicant. Caswall
told Council from a liability standpoint, the city knows there is
an encroachment in the right-of-way and has liability for allowing
it to remain. Caswall said the choices are to have the applicant
remove it, the city remove it or enter into a license agreement.
In this agreement the licensee assumes the legal liability for this
encroachment. An encroachment license can be revoked at any time
upon notice to the licensee. The license specifies when the
encroachment is withdrawn, the licensee is financially responsible
to remove the encroachment. The encroachment license requires the
licensee to have public liability insurance in an amount reflecting
that the city is exposed to. Caswall pointed out right-of-way is
one area in which the city can be sued and governmental immunity
is waived. The license requires O'Leary's to have public liability
insurance for that encroached area and the city is to be named co-
insured.
3
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25 1990
Councilman Peters moved to approve the encroachment license;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton.
Councilman Peters said this encroachment is only 3 feet and is for
an establishment that is well run and used by locals. However,
this encroachment was established by flaunting Council 's action and
staff. Councilman Tuite said he would like staff to work a policy
out in the next few months.
All in favor, motion carried.
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL - O'Leary's
Jed Caswall, city attorney, told Council this has been noticed as
a public hearing in order for the applicant to show possession of
the overall premises. Councilman Tuite opened the public hearing.
There were no comments. Councilman Tuite closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Peters moved to approve the renewal for the liquor
license for O'Leary's; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 1990 - Bennett Condominiumization
Councilman Tuite opened the public hearing. There were no
comments. Councilman Tuite closed the public hearing.
Kim Johnson, planning department, told Council this is a condo-
miniumization of a duplex at 534 Spruce Street. The applicant
needs to comply with the conditions granting this including the
technical requirements for platting. The planning department has
required an affordable housing impact fee to be paid by the
applicant or they file deed restrictions on their unit. One unit
is an accessory dwelling unit. .
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #38, Series of
1990, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite, yes.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #39 , SERIES OF 1990 - Amending Corkscrew Employee Housing
Councilman Tuite opened the public hearing. There were no
comments. Councilman Tuite closed the public hearing.
Chuck Brandt, representing the applicant, told Council the
applicant owns a one-bedroom 650 square foot price restricted to
moderate unit. The applicants requested release of the deed
4
Regular meeting Aspen city Council June 25 1990
restriction of the rental unit in exchange for a two-bedroom 800
square foot unit. The applicants paid $150, 000 for the substitute
unit and have agreed to do some refurbishing. The original
ordinance adopted in December had an error, which this ordinance
is resolving. Brandt requested changing the classification for
resale from low to moderate. If the unit is sold in the low
category, there will be a $35, 000 loss. Changing the unit to
moderate will still result in a $9,000 loss.
Councilman Peters said what the community has lost over a number
of year is the accessibility of this unit, which has been empty for
7 years. Councilman Peters said he feels this is creating a
windfall for the applicant. Councilman Peters said it can also be
argued that Contran Corporation is gaining $80, 000 by not having
a deed restricted unit on site. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed and
supports the ordinance as written. Councilman Tuite said he would
support changing the category to moderate.
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #39, Series of 1990, on
second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Peters, yes; Pendleton, yes; Tuite, no.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #42 SERIES OF 1990 - Appropriations
Councilman Tuite opened the public hearing. There were no
comments. Councilman Tuite closed the public hearing.
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #42 , Series of 1990, on
second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite, yes;
Motion carried.
1989 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Jerry Alger, Grant Thornton city's auditors, told Council the
auditors did not have any qualifications nor any findings to be
mentioned in the report; this is a clean opinion. Alger told
Council in the general fund revenues increased $950, 000. Alger
said overall there was a drop in the fund balance of $300, 000
comparing to a drop of $500,000 in 1988. There is a trend to spend
more than is being taken in. There is a carry over balance of
$1, 800, 000 representing 3 months of normal activities, which is
good from a bond raters' standpoint.
Alger said in the land acquisition revenues there was $6, 600, 000
compared to $4 , 000, 000 in 1988. $1, 000, 000 is a one-time payment
for Truscott place another $1, 000, 000 was from new sources of
revenue. There are adequate revenues to meet the debt service
requirements. Overall operations for the year were good. The
5
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25 1990
balance sheet shows a stable position in relation to prior years.
Alger said the city personnel are doing a good job and the audit
went well.
Councilman Peters asked about the disaster recovery. Cindy Wilson,
finance director, told Council data processing is working on
outside storage and how much there should be. One concern is how
much backup there should be, like another entire computer system
or just backup information. On the gasoline inventory, public
works department is looking into a program which they may share
with the county.
Councilman Peters moved to accept the 1989 financial statements as
presented; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor,
motion carried.
MODIFICATION OF ANIMAL CONTROL RESPONSE
John Goodwin, police chief, pointed out over the years the animal
control calls have increased; the wildlife calls have increased in
the same proportion. Last year these increased 10 percent without
an increase in personnel. Goodwin told Council they are looking
at ways to decrease some of their responsibility. One thing they
looked at was wildlife calls as statutorily they are not required
to go to these calls. Skunks and raccoons are the main wildlife
calls.
Goodwin said one alternative is to go on a call for the first time,
give some advice on how to keep this from happening. A second call
would be $50. Goodwin told Council it takes approximately 100
minutes to handle a skunk call. Another alternative is to move
personnel from parking control to animal safety areas. Someone
asked if the skunks had to be put away. Goodwin passed out the
health code, Section 25 C.R.S. requiring if the police department
picks up a skunk, it has to be killed. Originally skunks were
picked up because they were thought to be rabid.
Councilwoman Pendleton said she would support dealing with this by
changing some time priorities around within the department.
Councilwoman Pendleton said she would like to see skunk control not
dropped but to be taken care of by the city. Councilman Peters
agreed and said this is a public safety issue. Asking people who
are not trained to dispose of these animals is asking for trouble.
Council agreed the city should continue skunk control until there
is a private sector willing to take this over. Council agreed to
provide one free wildlife response per residence per year and
change a fee after that. Carol O'Dowd, city manager, said charging
something after the first call makes sense; this is not a service
that benefits everyone. Ms. O'Dowd said staff will draft an
administrative policy.
6
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25 , 1990
ORDINANCE #44 SERIES OF 1990 - Amending Noise Ordinance
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #44, Series of 1990;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #44
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 16-
3 (b) (20, 16-3 (b) (2) (a) AND 16-3 (b) (3) (a) OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF AMPLIFIED
MUSIC was read by the city clerk
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #44, Series of 1990, on
first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton.
There was no staff present to discuss the ordinance. Councilman
Peters withdrew his motion.
ICE RINK CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW
Councilman Tuite opened the public hearing.
Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council this is a conceptual
PUD for the parcel of land between Durant and Dean streets, a
portion of lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The ice rink and park
are a portion phase two. Ms. Lamont said there are other acti-
vities requested for the lot; Zamboni storage, pro shop, skate
rental area, locker rooms and some level of food service. The
applicants are requesting that the food service be an GMP exemption
and not be reviewed until step four. Staff feels the food service
issue should be discussed at step two. This project was reviewed
by P & Z twice. P & Z felt Durant street needed to be brought in
more with the parcel so there is more of a public appeal. Staff
and P & Z want a discussion of the level of food service with the
applicant.
Ms. Lamont said in the food service, the hours of operation should
coincide with the hours of operation of the rink and that no liquor
license should be considered. P & Z felt the food service should
be cafeteria style without waitpersons. The applicant should
clearly indicate how the food service will be subordinate to the
other activities of the ice rink. The applicant requested a 72
seat food service area. Ms. Lamont told Council staff did some
comparisons with restaurants in the community and feels comfortable
that 72 seats is not too big. Staff and P & Z feel food service
is a necessary activity on this site. Ms. Lamont told Council
staff feels strongly any space used for food service should be
either competed for under GMP or should be taken out of the 115, 000
7
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25 1990 f
square feet the applicant has allocated for phase two of the PUD.
Ms. Lamont pointed out there is not a competition in the park zone;
however, this parcel is currently located in the CL zone.
The second issue is public use of the park and rink. Ms. Lamont
said it is important this function as a community amenity. To
insure this, staff is asking the applicant to identify by whom and
when the park will be used. Any private functions will require a
special events permit, which will also enable people to apply for
a special event liquor license permit. Ms. Lamont recommended a
draft deed restriction be submitted with the final application.
Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, showed a location plan
of lot 5. The entire parcel of lot 5 is 113 , 000 square feet.
Under the underlying zoning it will take 128, 000 of FAR. The
applicants agreed in discussions leading to the amended PUD that
the applicants would do 115, 000 square feet of FAR exclusive of any
FAR approved for the northern portion of lot 5, the park and ice
rink. Harvey said during the process it was also agreed not to
go back and request GMP for any additional FAR for any part of the
PUD. Harvey pointed out the northern 27, 000 square feet of lot 5
allows for 42 , 000 square feet of FAR in CL which has 2: 1 FAR. By
agreeing this would be open space and a community activity center,
all the FAR was moved to the rear portion of the lot.
Harvey told Council the applicants have submitted the application
for all of lot 5 calling for a park and ice rink, a total of 24
hotel rooms, 37 residential units, 115, 000 square feet of FAR.
Because of time constraints, the ice rink portion has been split
off. Harvey said at a conceptual level the applicant is taking
Council through how they got to where they are and what they are
trying to do and get some feedback about uses, etc.
Harvey told Council a hockey rink is 85 by 180; a minimum studio
rink is 60 by 150; the applicants rink is 70 by 170 feet. Harvey
said they wanted the rink as large as possible in order to do
skating shows and to accommodate as many people as possible.
Harvey showed the entry at the corner. The surface is 4 feet below
the level of Durant street and 10 feet below Dean street. All the
equipment is underneath so pedestrians can walk onto a plaza
overlook. Harvey said the applicants want to make this as active
a center as possible. Harvey said this will be an artificial rink
with a shade
structure of fabric panels that can be pulled back at night. The
lighting for the rink will be as low as possible to illuminate the
rink without impacting pedestrians and automobiles. The proposed
restaurant has a footprint of 935 square feet.
Harvey pointed out that every two hours the rink has to be cleared
in order for the Zamboni to go over it's surface. There has to be
8
• Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25, 1990
a place for people to go during that 15 minutes. Harvey told
Council they envision this area as an activity center in the summer
time for fund raisers, art exhibits, etc. and this should have a.
liquor license. Harvey said he would prefer not to come back to
Council every meeting to get a special event permit. Harvey said
the applicants will outline the hours of public use. Harvey told
Council they feel the food service is an essential community
service and for this facility.
Councilman Peters said he would like the food service element
dropped from the application. Councilman Peters said the property
should be treated the way it has been represented to the public;
that it will be provided as a public park and ice rink rather than
limiting its use. Councilman Peters said he would rather rely on
the integrity of zoning this parcel park rather than a deed
restriction. Councilman Peters said if there is a deed restric-
tion, he would like the applicant to address specifically what the
public access is going to be; that food service not be allowed and
that liquor could be served during specific approved special events
rather than having a liquor license. Councilman Peters said this
will be a place used by kids and a liquor license is not appro-
priate.
Councilwoman Pendleton said she feels the food service is an
essential part of the application. This is not the same kind of
ice rink that the city runs. If this is going to be multi-func-
tional, it should have a restaurant. Councilwoman Pendleton said
a restaurant should be very scaled down with a kitchen that could
be used for catering special events. Councilwoman Pendleton said
if the restaurant is essential, it should be built at the same time
the ice rink is built. Councilwoman Pendleton said °a liquor
license in not appropriate.
Councilman Tuite said the ice rink was always represented as being
,for the community. Councilman Tuite said the ice rink was clas-
sified as an amenity; however, the public use has not been tied
down, he fees have not been discussed. Councilman Tuite asked
what the guarantee is that this facility will be operated during
the winter for the benefit of the community. Harvey said in the
deed restrictions or use permits or documentation of the zoning,
there will be hours of operation. Harvey told Council they intend
to market this through lodges and to have season passes. Council-
man Tuite said the food service facility should either be competed
for or should come out of the 115, 000 square feet.
Ms. Lamont said before final application the submission should have
how the food service element will be handled, the hours of opera-
tion, that the food service will be operated the same hours as the
ice rink. The level of service should be very minimal for food
service; no liquor license, and no exemption for the food service.
9
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25 1990
element. Amy Margerum, planning director, pointed out the plan has
a space for a pro shop and sale of skating related items. Council-
members Tuite and Pendleton said this facility goes with an ice
rink. Councilman Peters said he does not feel this is an ap-
propriate use.
Harvey pointed out that in order to get the desired rink size and
to maintain the circulation in the plaza, the applicants are asking
to encroach 8 feet into Durant street. The rink will be 6 feet
into Dean street. Harvey said one of the original issues in the
PUD was to get people to cross at corners of Durant. The plan has
tried to create a landscape buffer for dust and noise and retain
a sidewalk where people can look into the rink. Councilman Veters
said he does not feel an encroachment is appropriate on the Durant
side. Harvey said they can eliminate the planting. The applicants
are trying to create a rink that will last into the future and were
told that 60 by 150 is the absolute minimum skating rink size. The
proposed rink is 70 by 170. Harvey said they can shrink the rink.
Councilwoman Pendleton said she would not like to see the rink
shrunk. Councilman Peters complimented Chuck Roth, engineering
department, for a thoughtful memo on landscaping and right-of-way.
Councilwoman Pendleton.moved to grant conceptual PUD review for the
ice rink/park for lot 5 Aspen Mountain subdivision PUD with
conditions as recommended by P & Z and Council; seconded by
Councilman Tuite All in favor, with the exception of Councilman
Peters. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 1990 - Sanders Vested Rights
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #46, Series of 1990;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #46
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS FOR THE SANDERS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW was read by
the city clerk
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #46, Series of 1990, on
first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Peters, yes; Pendleton, yes; tuite, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #47, SERIES OF 1990 - Arundale Vested Rights
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #47, Series of 1990;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
10
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25, 1990
ORDINANCE #47
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS FOR THE ARUNDALE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW was read
by the city clerk
Councilman Peters moved- to adopt Ordinance #47, Series of 1990, on
first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite, yes. Motion
carried.
LOAN AGREEMENT - Housing Authority Hopkins Property
Councilman Tuite moved to table this item; seconded by Councilman
Peters. All in favor, motion carried.
WATER AGREEMENTS - Red Mountain
John Musick, water counsel, told Council the water agreements and
ordinances have been renegotiated. There. are two agreements; West
Red Homeowner's and Leslie Wexner. The homeowners are represented
by a board of trustees who requested a time payment provision be
inserted to give them 30, 60 and 90 days. The homeowners will have
to file an action in court to secure the approval for this agree-
ment if they are unable to get unanimous approval by all home-
owners. The payments will be $60, 000, $40, 000 and $59, 000 in 30,
60 and 90 days from the date of approval of the agreement. The
Wexner agreement has had some minor amendments.
Musick said the city needs to secure easements for these projects,
some of which are not on land owned by West Reds or by Wexner. The
Wexner easements are approved. The West Reds easements need to be
approved either by the court or by unanimous approval of all the
homeowners. Musick said there are at least two people who do not
want to give approval. Musick told Council this morning the homes
in West Reds did not have any water supply. There is a single
source of supply for water and no fire protection. Walter Ganz,
homeowner, said there is a meeting of the homeowners association
in early July and they may be able to get approval. Musick pointed
out the city has no obligation to serve these homeowners.
Musick told Council the Board for one of the easements has ex-
pressed approval but needs to have a homeowners meeting in order
to do it formally. The owner of property for another easement has
been out of town for weeks and unreachable. Musick told Council
the bids on these projects expire July 2 . Rich Cassens told
Council the city has received one 30-day extension on each contract
on Red Mountain. Cassens said the landscaping and revegetation of
the Red Mountain tank cannot be completed this year if the project
11
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25 1990
is delayed any longer. Musick recommended Council not notice award
of bids until the easements are all signed.
Councilman Peters amended Ordinance #50 to reflect Council direc-
tion to Musick to not proceed with any, contracts unless bid
extensions are received until after the date for second reading and
that approval of first reading is contingent upon all easements
being acquired to no consideration; seconded by Councilwoman
Pendleton.
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #50, Series of 1990;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #50
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: APPROVAL OF WATER SERVICE AGREE-
MENT WITH LESLIE WEXNER was read by the city clerk
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of
1990, as amended on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman
Pendleton. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters,
yes; Councilman Tuite, yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #51, Series of 1990;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #51
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: APPROVAL OF WATER SERVICE
AGREEMENT WITH THE RED MOUNTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA-
TION was read by the city clerk
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #51, Series of 1990,
amended to reflect Council direction to Musick to obtain all
easements and contract extensions; seconded by Councilwoman
Pendleton. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Peters, yes; Pendleton,
yes; Tuite, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #52 , SERIES OF 1990 - Twin Ridge Employee Housing
John Musick, city's water counsel, told Council two easements are
required; one from the Aspen Highlands Skiing Company, who have
conceded to grant the easement; and one from James Moore. Musick
told Council the Moores have been very cooperative with the city;
however, there is no signed easement yet. Musick recommended
Council approve this ordinance on first reading with the same
contingencies as the previous ordinances. Musick said there is no
financial consideration from the housing authority to the city.
12
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25, 1990
The housing authority had originally designed to pay some 70
percent of the outstanding tap fees for connection of the Twin
Ridge. After the adoption of the employee tap fee waiver provision
by Council, they rebudgeted and deleted the amount necessary for
tap fees.
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #52, Series of 1990;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #52
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: EXTENSION OF MUNICIPAL WATER
TRANSMISSION LINES TO THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY PROPERTY was read by the city clerk
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #52, Series of 1990, on
first reading, conditioned upon obtaining the proper easements from
Highlands and Moore and extensions for all bids to after second
reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton.
Councilman Peters said he feels it is appropriate for the city to
waive tap fees for 100 percent affordable housing projects. It
seems the city is indirectly building the health and human services
building by waiving tap fees.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Peters, yes; Pendleton, yes; Tuite,
yes. Motion carried.
WATER AGREEMENTS - Buttermilk Mountain
John Musick, city's water counsel, told Council there are two
outstanding agreements, Aspen Buttermilk Associates and Maroon
Creek Development Corporation, as well as easements from ABA and
Art and Betty Pfister. The ABA have approved the agreements and
the easements. Musick told Council the Pfisters own property which
MCDC has an option to purchase. The easements must be approved by
the Pfisters as well as MCDC and the lessee, the Skiing Company.
All parties have approved the easements in concept; they have not
been executed. Pfister is also agreeable to executing the water
service agreement, which conveys all water rights to the city in
terms of leaseback for Pfister. Musick told Council until they
exercise a stage 1 water curtailment, they may not exercise the
benefits of these water rights.
Musick said there is a raw water lease back to the Pfisters or to
MCDC requiring them to use the water for beneficial use, which
keeps their historical value up and keeps the water rights valuable
for the city. Councilman Peters said this agreement has gotten
worse as it has evolved. This may be approving a water system for
13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25, 1990
a project that is not even designed yet. Musick said the only
contingency is if the county shuts down the MCDC, they are not
willing to proceed with no development rights. This was originally
part of the comprehensive water management plan and stands on its
own merit. Council specifically rejected funding this project and
requested public works find another method that the line could be
designed, the same benefits achieved and this could be paid for by
a developer. This accomplishes that.
Councilman Peters said the issue is not answered whether the
highway department will pay for relocation of the line. Councilman
Peters said he would like an opinion on that by second reading.
Councilman Peters pointed out this agreement is allowed to stand
through litigation and could be in effect for years and years.
Musick agreed this has not been the policy of the city. The
alternative is for the city to construct the capital system as soon
as is reasonably feasible. Musick said the way Council is proceed-
ing is the best alternative without the capital to build the line.
Developing the line in an area where it connects with customers who
can pay for the cost of development is a reasonable alternative
for the city. The water rights provide significant additional
benefit for the city. Councilwoman Pendleton said she feels the
pluses outweigh the minuses.
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to read Ordinance #48, Series of 1990;
seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #48
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: APPROVAL OF WATER SERVICE AGREE-
MENT WITH THE MAROON CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION was
read by the city clerk
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of
1990, on first reading with the conditions that the easements be
acquired and the contracts be extended; seconded by Councilman
Peters. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Peters, yes; Pendleton,
yes; Councilman Tuite, yes. Motion carried.
Musick said on Aspen Buttermilk Associates all conditions have been
approved. The reason for the modification of the agreement is ABA
is willing to commit to purchase 3 taps, which was an offer to try
and make this process somewhat easier.
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #49, Series of 1990;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
14
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 25, 1990
ORDINANCE #49
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: APPROVAL OF WATER SERVICE AGREE-
MENT WITH THE ASPEN BUTTERMILK ASSOCIATES was read by
the city clerk
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #49, Series of
1990, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Councilman Tuite,
yes. Motion carried.
Musick told Council the city manager has laid out a policy regard-
ing annexation and extension of water utilities. Carol O'Dowd,
city manager, questioned putting large capital investments into
areas that are not part of the city unless they are planning to be
included in the city. Councilman Tuite said the city has done
analysis showing under the existing tax structure, if the areas are
annexed, the city loses money. It costs more to provide services
than what they are paying in property taxes. Councilman Tuite said
to force annexation on something that costs the taxpayers money
does not make good business sense. Ms. O'Dowd said the annexation
issue needs to be analyzed and from an enfranchisement standpoint,
and the issue of which entity should be providing urban services.
Councilman Tuite said the city needs a plan with the county and to
date, the county has rejected that plan.
Council adjourned at 9: 00 p.m.
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
15
_N't
4--1 ,,t
'�v� �=-� CS`}'�.Il�. 6"SST • �
pc c
pzA
0 C-
1 C� -fin-A-zs1(C�"�1 � i✓�( -` ��%y/'�1 ,,��� �J. .o �" �1��1�, .. � '�J
4 A�-!0�_ 1 D l�l ���,/�•-lA� n �� �''J/.�-���C ��i vV'�!1 1..1-;G/1�v1 i
�tl CZYN-C
ajo)
c-'e,
� L ti �L
U2
Ali
V-'s-4
Q�2�,4 C?sC,vta�cst..e _ c s.�n z.� �� /�,�c� cs���C,�t �:a%'��- ������ �
}
C ci-
I
cam `
�, �`����-'��-�..- ;mow-��"-�.� �-•..r ' ���' L c�-_� L,�
l
\ A ^
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9 , 1988
and the architectural design consensus that they will be able to
keep the room count. Sarpa told Council if the bank asked if
they have 292 rooms, they cannot say maybe. Harvey said "maximum
of" is an ambiguous intention. Anderson said the language gives
the applicant the right to build 292 rooms and the "maximum of"
language is permissive and the only person that can reduce it is
the applicant. Harvey suggested the resolution state, "the
applicant has the right to build 292 rooms" . Hughes said he
viewed the language as the applicant could be told they could
build anything from 0 to 292 rooms. Sarpa emphasized that 292
rooms is critical. The -applicants are not -cutting off any
architectural changes and feel there is sufficient leeway within
the program to make some changes. Councilwoman Fallin said she
would agree to language "the right to build up to 292 hotel
rooms" .
Councilwoman Fallin moved to amend the resolution to read "the
right to build up to 292 rooms" and delete "maximum of" on pages
1 and 4; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor , with the
exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling . Motion
carried.
Harvey said in #2 on page two, the approval was to build up to
50 hotel rooms and residential units. Taddune suggested that
"and residential units as set forth in paragraph 6 below" be
added to #2, page 2 and page 4. Harvey told Council lot 5 , which
is phase II , goes from Durant south to the top of the site.
Harvey told Council they have sep4rated__off the open _space
communi iv_i v. Harvey -_e would like to make it clear �l�`
that the FAR of 115 ,0.00 square feet is on that portion south of�
Dean s ree not on t e par s-- te. yT_a_c7dune sugested :adding
- -
"excTuc rig any FAZ-- on-the—Para sitem Harvey_ said
g __
community deems -that a-commercial building for skate rental and 4-
hn1114 e
foad--se_ry3 ce-_ s __a r6priate;- tha+--s. ��-considered-:----Hervey
told Council he has a I�tter- ac�dressn� de�aii�zsf-thi i e the U
------- -- - - -
applcants woulcfi-lie--t6-wa-r�C with st-of-f:-- arvey said -they
are not clear how this activity—center worm--
= --
Harvey told Council lot 1 and lot 5 are the two phases and are on
the PUD plat -Ta-ddu�_ _ n aqe_-V_1 ___ read "exclusive of
the F'A�hi_ might be built on the park on lot 5" . Councilwoman /
Fatlin sai�nmeon,- in the future may come back and not -under
stan the ark was to be non-commercial.
-a vey
said that is another issue; the city may wan s _ commercial
footage on this block as an accessory to the ice rink , like food
service. Harvey said in the deed restrictions, a lot of these
things can be covered. Richman said most of these items can be
covered under the PUD amendment process . Richman reminded
Council the code now allows that essential community facilities
13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9 , 1988
may be commercial. These should be decided before final
approval.
Councilman Isaac moved to add the above language in #2 pages 2
and 4 ; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor , motion
carried.
Mayor Stirling asked about the issue of deadline related to phase
II. There is an overall PUD deadline. Does this applicant have
forever to build phase II. Richman told Council when the PUD was
adopted in 1985 , it set out a specific construction schedules for
phases I and II , which has been extended through the various
extensions of the project. Richman told Council the PUD agree-
ment is the best mechanism to apply construction deadlines.
Richman told Council the problem with applying deadlines to the
GMP is that most of phase II is reconstruction credits. The new
units are occurring as part of the Ritz construction. Richman
told Council there is a code provision that a unit which is
demolished must be rebuilt within 5 years from its demolition or
the credit goes away. The staff has been tracking this limita-
tion with the applicant, and some of these deadlines have had to
be extended.
Mayor Stirling asked about the overall approved units in the
PUD, which was 447 , and the proposal is for 342 units. When the
hotel is built there will actually be 447 units . Richman
suggested this be dealt with in the agreement. Council may
specify a time period in which the applicant must pursue con-
struction of phase II or to close up portions of the Grand
Aspen. Councilman Isaac asked about the parking agreement on the
block between Dean and Durant that was for the Woodstone Lodge.
Harvey said he will have to check into this. Richman said when
Council addressed the parking requirement for the hotel , this
issue was addressed.
Harvey said #3 refers to drawings , which the applicants have
requested from the architect. Harvey said these will be iden-
tified and delivered to the planning office for reference .
Harvey said the next sentence is "Major changes include the
removal of all but the first floor from an 86-foot section of the
building on Mill street, the shortening of the elevation along
Mill street by approximately 40 feet, the transfer of approxi-
mately 30 lodge units into the Blue Spruce site and the lowering
of the height along Mill street . Harvey requested this be
changed to " to approximately 40 feet from the south property
line" . Harvey said this will indicate the distance between the
end of the building to the south property line , which is the
issue. Council agreed with this change on pages 2 and 4 .
14
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9 , 1988
These facilities will be ready for occupancy at
the same time as will phase I and will be designed
in connection with the review of the proposed
amendments to phase I.
#7 The remaining aspects of the PUD, including but not
limited to employee housing, are to be resolved during
the amendment process.
#8 That any hotel project submitted by the applicant not
expand in size or development beyond the above referred
parameters.
Taddune read the next whereas, "based on the applicant ' s repre-
sentations, commitments and agreements, and induced thereby, the
City Council desires to authorize the applicant to process
proposed amendments through the PUD process for a period not to
exceed one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this
Resolution, specifically September 9 , 1988. Taddune told Council
Hughes is suggesting adding "unless at such time as sooner
enlarged" .
In Section 1 , "The City Council does hereby authorize the
applicant to process proposed amendments, to the Aspen Mountain
Lodge PUD Subdivision Agreement through the PUD process for a
period not to exceed 120 days, on the condition that applicant
abides by its representations, etc. as announced at the afore-
mentioned Council proceedings, which proceedings are incorporated
herein and made a part hereof by this reference, including but
not limited to the following " . Taddune told Council the
applicant added the underlined language, which he agreed to.
Taddune said the next part of the resolution are recitals of the
recitals in the whereas provisions. Taddune pointed out #5 on
page 4. "The previously approved "Roberts Design" for phase I
and phase II will not be built as approved by the PUD and
Subdivision agreement and the applicant will continue to pursue
an amendment to the PUD concerning phase I and II thereof which
will not exceed any of the limitations herein. " The underlined
language was inserted by the applicant.
Taddune told Council that section 2 addresses the question of
excavation and provides that the applicant may, at its own risk ,
begin excavation. Hughes reminded Council the applicants have
bonded $650 ,000 for excavation and $1 ,300 , 000 for site and
landscaping imrpvoements. Hughes said the concept is to complete
in the time contemplated by the codes. Mayor Stirling asked if
the 120 days will guide this. Taddune said the concept is if the
approvals lapse and the applicant does not proceed to refill the
excavation site, within a certain period, the city can fix it .
Harvey said the applicants have 120 days to do the amendment
process; they have X amount of time after the excavation permit
9
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council _ May 9 , 1988
is pulled within which to go to the next step. Harvey said he
would hate to get in a position where they are through the
amendment process but they have run out of time for the next step
of the permit.
Mayor Stirling said this verifies with excavation permit the
applicants now have, they can begin breaking ground and the city
will not put a stop work order on that. Mayor Stirling asked
about the foundation permit. Taddune said the way he interprets
paragraph #5 is that the applicants will not obtain a foundation
permit until the amendment process is complete. Hughes said this
will allow the applicants to take advantage of the off season and
get some excavation done before summer. City Manager Bob
Anderson asked if for some reason this falls apart or no excava-
tion permit can be gotten, this triggers the escrow and the hole
will be filled in. Hughes said that is the spirit in which this
is going forward. Anderson said the governing thing for the
foundation permit is the building code, which states an appli-
cant has to do 10 percent every 120 days. Anderson said the 120
days for this resolution is to reach an agreement with the
Council. There are two things going on simultaneously; one is
the approval process.
Councilwoman Fallin said if the date for the excavation permit is
1 April 15th, the resolution should have some language to clarify
there are two different dates. Anderson said the applicants can
easily do enough to keep the permit alive. Anderson said if this
process with Council takes 90 of the 120 days and an agreement is
reached, the applicants have to then take this and put it into a
plan form final enough to get a foundation permit. Anderson said
the applicants could not do that within 30 days and give the city
enough time to also process the permit application. Anderson
said another extension may be needed at this point.
Anderson said the stand the city has taken for the applicants to
keep the PUD alive is obtaining a foundation permit. If it takes
a lot of the 120 days for the amended PUD, there will have to be
another interpretation of the deadline or another extension.
Hughes said the time this is talking about is not the time to
obtain a foundation permit but to submit foundation permit
drawing plans. Councilman Isaac said this could be done within
the amended PUD with a statement that the applicants have so many
days from the approval of the amended PUD to apply for a founda-
tion permit .
Taddune told Council section 4 provides that the authorization
granted by this resolution shall only take effect after this
resolution and the terms and conditions set forth herein are
acknowledged by the applicant in the space provided below .
Ta -dune said the section also states that the provisions hereof
10
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9 , 1988
shall run with and constitute a burden upon the title to the
subject property and shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the applicant and applicants representatives, succes-
sors and assigns. Taddune said there is no signature space for
the lender. Taddune said he does not know what the consequence
would be if there were a foreclosure. Taddune said if there is
any covenant running with the land, the city would request the
consent of the lenders. Hughes said they have no objection to
that. Councilwoman Fallin asked if this is a covenant that stays
with the land for any future owners. Taddune said the last
sentence in Section 4 covers that.
Richman told Council last September when Council granted the six
month extension to this project , some questions arose in the
hearing about the 700 South Galena project and- the other residen-
tial units in the hotel. Richman said at the meeting, Council
made two separate motions of extension, one for the hotel to
March 15th, later extended to April 15th, and a second motion
only dealing with the 700 South Galena project. At that point,
700 South Galena had come up to its deadline of needing to submit
plans sufficient for the issuance, not needing to obtain a
permit, but sufficient for the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant indicated to Council they wanted to pursue amend-
ment to 700 South Galena. That separate extension was granted to
March 1 , 1988 , by motion of Council. The applicant proceeded
through the amendment process for 700 South Galena , obtained
approvals from both P & Z and Council; everyone was satisfied by
the project.
Richman said communication between the applicant and staff got
crossed and both missed the fact that March 1st was the deadline.
Richman told Council the applicants submitted plans sufficient
for the issuance of the building permit for 700 South Galena on
about March 15th. Richman said staff went through all the checks
and was prepared to issue the permit, when it came to April 15th
which everyone thought was the deadline. It was then discovered
that the deadline was March 1st . It was unintentional. The
applicant had submitted a letter in February asking for an
extension if one were necessary. That is all the code requires.
Richman suggested in the resolution , if Council gives the
applicant the 30 days of March to have submitted those plans ,
they have done that . Richman told Council the applicant sub-
mitted the extension entirely according to the order of the Code,
and staff did not process it because they were not aware any
extension was necessary. Councilman Isaac asked the intent of
700 South Galena and if it will be built. Sarpa said it is four
units and will be built this summer.
John Sarpa , representing the applicant , said the process has been
an intense and emotional one. Sarpa told Council they appreciate
11
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9 , 1988
the community' s involvement. Sarpa said there is a lot this
community has to be proud in its process and the people repre-
sented. Sarpa said Resolution #11 captures a lot of what the
Council and the applicant have meant. Sarpa said the applicants
have some proposed changes to the resolution.
Perry Harvey said in the third whereas, #1, it was his under-
standing that Councilman Tuite' s motion was for 292 hotel rooms
and no more than 190 ,000 square feet of countable FAR. Harvey
asked that "maximum of" 292 rooms be deleted. The section would
read "Phase I - 292 hotel rooms . . ." Harvey requested in #2
"maximum of" be deleted and it just read 50 hotel rooms.
Mayor Stirling asked Tuite if it was his thinking that when this
went through the amendment process it could possibly be reduced
from 292 rooms. Councilman Tuite said that was not his think-
ing. Councilmembers Isaac and Fallin said they prefer to see
"maximum of" stay in the resolution. Sarpa said the focus of
this is whether the action taken May 5th and ratified at this
meeting would be specific enough to let the financiers be
comfortable to let this process go forward. Sarpa said the
applicants specifically asked if the action taken in which 292
rooms would be the number to be built and that the applicants
could rely on this. Sarpa said Council indicated if they voted
for 292 rooms that could be relied on. Sarpa told Council the
reason they are requesting "maximum of" be deleted is that 292
rooms was debated upon and the FAR was the figure to be adjusted.
Councilman Isaac said that is not exactly true for phase II
because the financing is not set for phase II. Sarpa said it was
only phase I that was agreed upon, and it was a maximum of 50
rooms in phase II.
Councilman Tuite moved to delete the words "maximum of" on pages
1 and 4
Councilman Isaac said he does not think this is necessary. Sarpa
said this is very necessary and is the whole basis of the
agreement the applicant thought was reached. Sarpa said it is
the 292 rooms that has been debated with Council. Sarpa said if
Council is saying they are not sure the applicants get 292 rooms,
the applicants will have to look at the concessions they have
made and start over. Sarpa said both the applicants and Council
agreed that phase II has question marks.
Councilman Isaac asked if during further architectural design,
the applicants finds that other parameters like height and mass
do not allow 292 units and they have to drop 2 rooms. Sarpa said
they would back off if that were the case . Sarpa said the
applicants are confident with 190 ,000 square feet and 292 rooms
12
R
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O ' Dowd, City Tanager /
THRU : Amy Maraerum, Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Ice Rink Conceptual PUD Review
DATE: June 11 , 1990
SUMMARY: As part of the Aspen Mountain PUD Phase II , Hadid Aspen
Holdings Inc. has submitted an application for the review of the
portion of Lot 5 that is planned for the Ice Rink/Park. Because
this portion of the original PUD was only reviewed on a limited
conceptual basis , as part of the full review for Phase I , the
applicant has requested, and staff agreed to a four step PUD
review process which will include subdivision, GMQS Exemption for
Essential Public Services and rezoning of this parcel .
Conceptual PUD review at Council requires a public hearing.
Although, this meeting was not advertised as a public hearing, we
would like to take this opportunity to introduce the ideas for
this parcel to the Council . A public hearing is scheduled for
the June 25 meeting.
BACKGROUND: Phase II of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development identifies the development of Lot 5
which includes more lodging on the south side of vacated Dean
Street and on the north side of Deane Street the "Ice Rink/Park" .
During the discussion that amended the PUD, Savannah and the City
agreed that the FAR for the southern portion would be 115 , 000
square feet. Any floor area on the northern portion of the lot
(the rink/park site) , not considered an essential community
facility, would be in addition to the 115 , 000 square feet.
In an effort to construct the park amenities in a timely fashion
and to comply with the PUD Agreement, the applicants have
submitted an application to subdivide the park parcel from the
rest of Lot 5 , rezone it to Park, seek a GMQS Exemption for
Essential Public Services, and deed restrict the parcel for
public use.
The First Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development;Subdivision Agreement sets out the bulk and area
requirements for all of Lot 5 . The use of the "park" parcel will
be a public amenity with the provision of an ice rink and support
services.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: At this point, the applicant is presenting
conceptual plans for the ice rink and support facilities . The
applicant and members of the P&Z believe that some level of food
service is necessary to support the ice rink/park activities .
Although food service is not planned to be incorporated for
s-venal years it has been staff ' s recommendation that all
functions planned for the site be identified . Thus, the
al_-plicant is presenting an outline for a - food service building .
The applicant will request a GMQS Exemption for Essential Public
Services for the rink/park facilities . The applicant also
intends to include the food services in this exemption . Staff is
very concerned that the level of food service remain a support
for the rink/park facilities and not become the primary function
of the site. At what commercial level this food service evolves
to has yet to be decided.
KEY ISSUES : The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this
proposal at two separate meetings . The following issues were
raised:
April 3 review -
1 . Regardinc; the Durant Street side of the Park: the Commission
had the desire to "open up. . . and make it more inviting. . . having
an entrance that is conducive to the public coming to it" ; and
create more public access to draw people to it. The Commission
commented that it was important to the community that this
facility appear open to the public.
2 . Food Service: important that there be food service; bakery
service/coffee shop type of service ; concern for the size ; could
the food service be incorporated into the other services at the
rink?
May 22 review -
1. Food Service: Perry Harvey submitted a conceptual restaurant
design.
The restaurant is approximately 1800 square feet and 18-20 feet
high.
It is still staff ' s interpretation that, unless a very strong
connection can be made between the food service and the
rink/park, the 1800 square feet required for this food service
must either come from the 115, 000 square feet that is available
for Phase II or compete for that extra square footage through the
Growth Management Quota System.
GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities is a review by the
City Council . This review usually does not occur until step 4 of
the 4 step review process, however a food service facility is a
threshold issue and should be discussed at Council ' s conceptual
review.
i
Conceptually staff believed the food service should be relocated
to within the existing profile of the south elevation (Deane
Street) . Staff also was concerned that food service seating for
70 people is too much for the site .
Unfortunately , this review is not coinciding with the
redevelopment of the Grand Aspen site . If food service is to be
included in the new development, it could be located adjacent to
vacated Deane Street and incorporated simply into the activities
of the ice rink/park. More open space would be preserved on the
rink/park, site. At a minimum this concept would reduce the space
requirements of the food service activity on Lot 6 .
The Commission did not totally agree with staff and the
suggestions above. The Commission however, did not want the food
entity to become a full service restaurant but agreed that some
sort of food and beverage service was important.
3 . The Commission requested staff to reiterate, as a condition
of approval , the applicant ' s representations as to the public
nature of the rink/park. During the rezoning process and the
development of the deed restriction for the site the public
nature of the site shall be emphasized.
4 . Again, the Commission requested that the Durant sidewalk
become internal and the vegetative buffer be located between the
street and sidewalk. This is an attempt to draw the public into
the experience of the rink/park helping to emphasize the public
nature of the site. The applicant agreed and will revise the
plan to reflect the new sidewalk.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of conceptual PUD review with the following conditions:
1. Before Council review the applicant shall submit open space
calculations for this parcel .
2 . The majority of the new trees and landscape features along
Durant Street shall be located between the street and pedestrian
walkway.
3 . The parking and housing mitigation for this park/rink
activity shall be required during the redevelopment of the Grand
Aspen site.
4 . If food service is added the facility must be connected to a
grease interceptor prior to discharge to our system.
5 . The rink and summer activity center must be connected to
either a dry well or the City stormwater system.
3
6 . The applicant shall use a cooling system for the rink which
is the least environmentally impactive system.
7 . Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, a fugitive
dust control plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health
Department for approval by the State Health Department.
8 . The "elephant ear" curb and gutter shown on page 50 at the
southwest corner of the block is not recommended because it
results in incomplete snow removal and street cleaning. If
review bodies approve this design, the engineering department
should specify the length of the extension into the street
because we have received complaints about the "elephant ears" at
Little Nell .
9 Previous representations of the applicant as to the public
nature of the rink shall be formally spelled out in the deed
restriction at the zoning phase of the approval .
4
Plant List
--srrbC4 &atanicat Name —
Ice
,A
T— n—h
Rink
Lot F:,n;. Alo.n
Rubsy Pa,L Transit Sfllion A
Al PUll
V n A N T $ T PI E E T
..........
Ic. R—k. I IADI DI r.
A
DF31GIN UIRKSTMT,NC
----------—-------------
E A N S T R E E T
- rn r .. i I I I � ., w r ..� .,�o w
Cr --- ---
Mit Carilon tiolel Phase Two (See Sheet 1-4)
S11
L3
FIRST_AMENDED FLAT _
L� s ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
f I L. t —
>. LOT 4
�>
---------------------- - ------ —
°';` GALENA STREET
I `
o c I
n5 --------
LOT 5
� . ., '.�., ., �--� ,.,.. ,.>•<-mr...� -- ., ... S O U T.H_ M 1 L t S T R E E T `a: LOT 3 Y 1
•, LOT
I �• � rY--��,__- •CSI, _.-_-__._.�
' I LOT 1 s `
D
v '
J Ln
' Ic
m l L I `I
t :I i
��' i D 1 13 ,
OPEN SPACE
I '^
EASEMENT
MONARCH STREET '
P.110. VARIATIONS -
3,,
TZ
•.. .y r-.r T. � .1e.0 _ ..•. e, -. o i � •r ..•. .., - .ter
�,t:f^... ..,�..., t n v.•�. �or.., o .. -. - .�r ...-r. •m ,.� n L �..,<,.-rn... ..<�. ,., r......
or..-rrr...,rv,•. .... �..._ ._..• ...r. ,.•.. .• L...rf r vo ', .. �.. -.-,m,.•r r>o �,. � .c..v ,« .. -. ,_�..,1 ....,r, ..-r. ..r.� .r... •�
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 22 1990
Roger Hunt called meeting to order at 4 : 30pm.
Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Richard Compton, Bruce
Kerr, and Roger Hunt. Welton arrived immediately after roll
call . Mari Peyton and Jasmine Tygre were excused. Michael
Herron had sent a letter of resignation because of having moved
out of the City of Aspen.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
MOTION
Bruce Kerr: I move to direct staff to draft a resolution and
plaque to Michael Herron thanking him for his service to this
Commission.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: Regarding bicycle trails: Would you pass on to the City
Manager a request with a comment. One is that I have been
discovering that a lot of bicycle trails are being used by
construction people and their pickup trucks to load and unload
materials and have been using the trails as construction parking
lots particularly between this and the Clarindon. Three times I
have told them it is a bicycle trail and not a construction
staging area and got a nasty remark from somebody today.
Second is the bicycle trail that goes through the Rio Grande
property. I think the City should be more conscious of not
disrupting bicycle traffic than anybody else if not just by
temporarily grading so that you don't have to take your bicycle
and put it over your shoulder and walk it through. That is right
from where the jail connects up with the trail that goes down by
the water standing ponds. They have the curb cuts there and they
could just tamp the ground down so you could still bicycle ride
over it. Right now it is every dissincentive in the world to use
your bicycle particularly through the City' s construction
project.
I would like the City Manager to--if there is not a policy for
use of bicycle trails and temporary bicycle trails--I would like
to know what we can do to make bicycling as pleasant as possible
for everyone.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
PZM5. 22 . 90
MINUTES
MAY 8 , 1990
After filling in Leslie ' s mumblings:
Bruce: I move to approve the minutes of May 8 , 1990.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOLLY GIBSON LODGE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kim Johnson of the Planning Dept made presentation as attached in
record.
After discussion--
Welton asked for public comment. There was none and he closed
the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the conditional use of the summer
outdoor food service operation serving non-lodge patrons at the
Molly Gibson Lodge on Main Street with the following conditions:
Conditions 1, 3 , 4 and 5 being the same as the Planning Office
memo dated May 22 , 1990. (attached in record)
Condition #2 modified to read "Food service shall be limited to
short order snacks and sandwiches on a self service basis and
only during the hours of 10: 00 AM to sunset from 1 week before
Memorial Day to 1 week after Labor Day.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
ERDMAN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kim Johnson, Planning Dept made presentation as attached in
record.
Welton asked the applicant if they had any questions regarding
the Planning Office condition.
They had none. .
Welton then asked if there was any public comment.
2
PZM5 . 22 . 90
There was none and he closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the Erdman acces:_.)ry dwelling unit
conditional use with the one condition being the same as Planning
Office memo dated May 22 , 1990 . (attached in record)
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
SMUGGLER MOBILE HOME PARK PUD AMENDMENT
Welton opened the public hearing.
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
Brooke Peterson, Representative for Smuggler MH Park :
Clarifications on conditions of approval : Paragraph 1, it is the
Architectural Control Committee of the Homeowner' s Association
which has to amend their rules and regulations. Paragraph 2 , the
amendments of the PUD are conditioned on final approval by the
Board of Directors of the Homeowner' s Association--not the
Homeowner' s Association itself. We just want to make sure that
t is clear not only for the members of the P&Z but for our own
iembership that what we are talking about is when we talk about
structures it is structures of any kind whether they are stick
built, whether they are modular homes or whatever and I would
like it to be reflected somehow in the minutes as being part of
the discussion.
Leslie: You mean letter C?
Brooke: Yes'#
Roger: You want that included as a condition?
Brooke: I don't think it needs to be included as a condition. I
think when we do the amendments we perhaps want to be more
expansive in the language.
Welton asked for public comment.
Tim Anderson: I have a mobile home in the park and I would just
like to recommend that you approve these amendments to make life
flow up there.
Doug Esclow: I have a trailer too up there and I second that.
Welton asked if there were any more comments from the public.
There were none and he closed the public portion of the hearing.
3
PZM5 . 22 . 90
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend approval of the amendments to the PUD
of the Smuggler area Mobile Home Park with conditions as follows:
That condition #1 as a result of amending the Smuggler precise
plan and redefining the dimensional requirements of this specific
PUD, the Homeowner' s Association shall amend their rules and
regulations and procedures for the Architectural Control
Committee
Brooke: What it should say, Roger, is The Architectural Control
Committee of the Homeowner' s Association shall amend their rules
and regulations and procedures.
Roger: OK. So corrected. That is condition #1. Condition #2 ,
the amendments to the PUD are conditioned upon the final approval
of the Board of Directors of the Smuggler Homeowner ' s
Association. And Condition #3 , the final PUD agreement shall be
amended to reflect these changes.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD
ICE RINK, CONTINUED
Welton re-opened the public hearing.
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
After presentation and discussion:
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to approve conceptual PUD
with condition #1 being as on Planning Office memo dated May 22 ,
1990. (attached in record)
With #2 being deleted. .
#3 through 6 being as on the Planning Office memo.
#77 being changed to read "The applicant shall use a cooling
system for the rink which is the least environmentally impactive
system.
#8 and #9 the same as on the Planning Office memo.
-And the new # 10 being written to read "That previous
representations of the applicant as to the public nature of the
4
PZM5 . 22 . 90
rink shall be complied with as a condition for approval and be
formally spelled out in the deed restriction at the zoning phase
of the approval .
Roger: I so move.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton closed the public hearing.
Leslie: I understand #3 was to be changed.
Welton:- #3 to be changed to new trees and landscape features to
be added.
Roger: I amend my motion
Bruce amended his second with all in favor.
BAVARIAN INN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE
There was discussion as to whether Welton should step down from
this conference because of conflict of interest. It was decided
by the majority of those concerned including the applicant that
he should not step down.
Paul Murry: I am on Board of Directors at the Aspen Villas . I
would just like to correct one statement that Welton made. In
that statement you said that both the villas are more and more
people who don't live here. I must correct you. The Aspen
Villas--there are more people that live here now than ever did
before.
Welton: I was speaking only from my impression from walking
through both complexes every day.
Bobby Carson: I have noticed that since I have lived at the
Villas Of Aspen that we went through a period where there were a
lot more absentee owners. But it seems more and more lately that
people who are going over there are year around people that work
here.
Tom Baker, Planning Dept. This is like the Ute Avenue affordable
housing project. We are going to be bringing all the affordable
housing projects to the Commission for pre-application
conference. This is not a public hearing. It is just a
mechanism to give the applicant some conceptual thoughts from the
P«Z without any reliance on future decisions.
5
PZM5 . 22 . 90
Herb Klein has put a letter in your packet making comments about
this. (attached in record) I also received a letter from the
Villas of Aspen Townhouse Association speaking against this
proposal . These 2, letters will be put in the formal record if
and when an application is brought forward as well as appearing
before this Board.
All I would like to do tonight is get some conceptual guidance
about the 2 alternatives that Parry has here.
Parry Harvey: We are going to be requesting a rezoning to the
affordable housing zone district, a conditional use for the
dormitory housing in the existing Bavarian Inn. The Affordable
Housing Zone District requires a whole bunch of special reviews.
This is 36, 000sgft of land--18 , 000 on each side of the alley. So
it is going to require a special review for the FAR up to 1 to 1
under special review.
Parking must be set by special review. Density must be set by
special review, open space and the height. And there is the
public hearing process for the rezoning.
on the north side the existing Bavarian Inn has 19 rooms in it.
And there are 5 cabins on the property that are currently 1 2-
bedroom, 1 1-bedroom and 3 studios. Then on the south side of
the alley on the west corner of that parcel is a single story 2-
bedroom house. So under the guidelines now there are 32 people
living on this property.
There is restricted access to this neighborhood. There is a lot
of on street parking. There is inadequate parking for the
existing Villas and the new Villas. So the first goal we sat was
to try and internalize parking for residents and guests on the
site. That came up with the concept of an underground parking
structure.
We have created a project with a mix of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units.
Using drawings Parry showed P&Z other schemes.
What we basically want to do is scheme "B" . Basically it allows
for a 1-bedroom which is sunken down a half level and either a 2
or 3-bedroom in a 2 story configuration above that. This program
allows for 26% of the site as open space and we feel allows for a
better experience for living. It also allows us to have on-site
management both in the Bavarian Inn and in the other unit.
The underground parking structure is about 3/4 million dollar
deal . And given that if that is going to serve X number of units
it makes sense. A smaller number of units, it doesn 't make
sense.
6
PZM5 . 22 . 90
I don't know what the use of this is going to be. It is going to
be predominantly Ritz Carlton when the hotel opens and there is
the impact of those workers. Down the road I think it will
probably be for-sale project and will be much along the lines of
the Villas in terms of owner-occupancy except for the fact that
it will be deed restricted under the guidelines.
Tom: Could you give us some conceptual feel for the FAR under
option B and the density.
Parry: Basically what we have is about . 85 to 1 FAR.
Additionally in the density calculations we have about 15 or 16%
less density than is allowed under the AH Guidelines under the
special review. The AH Zone had certain density guidelines for a
lot under 27 , OOOsgft. 27 , 000 up to an acre has to go through a
special review. This is 36, OOOsgft for the combination of the 2
parcels.
The 18 , OOOsgft that includes the Bavarian Inn is zoned LP. The
18 , 000sgft on the other side of the alley is zoned R-15 . So it
has 2 zone districts on it.
David Brown: The FAR includes the . 86 to 1 includes the FAR in
the existing Bavarian Inn as does the density factors.
Parry: So we are about 15% below the maximum under special
review for the AH Zone. The Bavarian Inn is zoned Lodge
Preservation on the north side of the alley. On the south side
is the R-15 .
Scheme A is 31 new units of 2 bedrooms so there is 62 bedrooms.
That is before the 19 bedrooms in the Bavarian Inn. Scheme B is
60 new, the 19 existing a total of 79 bedrooms . That is a total
of 34 new units. Now that doesn't--when I say 34 new units there
are the 5 cabins that are being demolished that are being
replaced and the one single family. So there are 6 units on the
site that will be torn down and replaced.
David Brown, architect: I have been doing some consulting on
this and scheme A we started with we felt that there were other
options that we should be testing. We felt that by going to
scheme B, stacking units and putting one unit being a flat and
the other unit being a 2 story unit and fixing the flat unit a
half level down would keep the structure within the height
guideline and preserve quite a bit more of the space to landscape
and open space. And at the same time take the parking and
putting it underground creates 1 more step up towards open space
and landscape.
7
PZM5 . 22 . 90
Tom: The Highway Dept won' t allow any access between the bridge
and 7th Street because of the new highway.
Parry: So we are looking at relocating and doing some planting
in there and creating that as landscaped space.
Tom: You can talk about access. Whether you prefer the acces on
Bleeker or in the alley if possible. The . 86 to 1 FAR--
36, 000sgft lot. How does that feel to you? You recall in the AH
Zone we have a 1 to 1 FAR on lots of 27 , 000sgft or less. And
then at special review from 27 , 000 up to an acre and it can vary
from . 36 to 1 to 1.
Parry: It is 1. 1 to 1 below 27 .
Tom: The Council has said they don't want to see the lodge, the
LP Zone rezoned to AH. That was in a public meeting.
Welton: The old lodge would sort of be in what capacity?
Parry: Dormitory. One person per room. Dormitory is a
permitted use in the LP Zone. The lodge itself is being
preserved simply because it is economically the best way to do
it. And it works. We are willing to put some restrictions on
occupancy standards on these units. So that a 3 bedroom doesn 't
end up with 6 people in it. We are going to keep the same 19
rooms but we are going to re-configure into--we are going to put
in a 2-bedroom and a 1-bedroom where there are now a dining room
and offices. But that is figured into the density calculations.
The number of units on the site will be under scheme B. 34 units
plus the existing Bavarian. So 34--17 ones, 8 twos and 9 3-
bedrooms.
David: And then among the 19 bedrooms in the Bavarian Inn there
will be a pair of 2-bedroom apartments. There is an existing
manager' s apartment and then there is a restaurant which will be
remodeled into a 2-bedroom apartment.
Parry: That is 19 bedrooms configured.
Bobby Carson: So in the Bavarian there will be a maximum of 19
people housed.
Parry: Yes.
Herb Klein: Real people or--you are talking dormitory and yet
you are saying you would limit to occupancy by 1 live breathing
person per hotel room?
8
PZM5 . 22 . 90
Parry: Yes.
Roger: Concerning access by either Bleeker or 7th Street--on
your scheme B it seems to me when you are trying to match up what
you have underneath there and everything that even with this
scheme if you needed to maximize parking you have this whole
section right here that would be--
Parry: We looked at swinging around. And if you come up the
ramp and swing around but you lose just about the same number of
spaces here that you pick up over here.
Roger: I am looking at the loss of what looks like 3 spaces in
that section there because nothing changes here. Maybe it is not
an easy swing. But by the same token you pick up all the
parallel spaces from there to there. You are picking up 22 spaces
in that section for the loss of 7 maximum. And underground
parking is more permanent storage for the automobile off the
street.
As far as to whether it should be West Bleeker or on 7th Street,
with the highway alignment going to the Main Street alignment I
see nothing wrong with the 7th Street alignment or the 7th Street
access in the future.
Parry: I think it is important to realize that this project will
be up and running prior to the highway.
Roger: My objections to the 7th Street would be that that is
where the highway is and let' s not complicate the highway with
another curb cut.
David: During the meetings with the neighborhood we started with
this scheme with the ramp and landscaping. We thought this made
sense because given the closing of 8th St this provided a second
emergency access into the neighborhood in addition to West
Bleeker.
We also thought it made sense to provide access for the trash
pickup. One thing to keep in mind is that the traffic is now
coming ' up Cemetery Lane will eventually migrate to this inner
section in all likelihood because this will be the light and a
light at 7th and Main St.
So to the tune of 7 cars that are stacked in a dwelling at that
light at any given time will be stacked up along this lot. So
that is one of the reasons we put the ramp where we located it.
The neighbors, however, were very adamant in some ways due to the
ratio of parking, which is also the reason why we wanted to
increase the parking to that ratio higher than the standard. We
9
PZM5 . 22 . 90
don 't want to further increase the deficiency of the parking in
the neighborhood.
But as one who parks on this street all the time I realize that
the loss of any space is dear. The other home owners suggested
we locate the ramp on the alley. That is why we looked at the
other plan showing the closing of the alley and trying to get
whatever traffic that came into this garage off of Bleeker which
would further decrease any impacts on the neighborhood at least
from a parking standpoint.
Welton: My gut reaction is having the ramp go down behind Herb ' s
house keeps building further away from his house than would
happen in
Parry: That was the other consideration. We originally had it
over next to the Bavarian. We flipped it over to here but--
Welton: It sort of more--a never-to-be developed zone as is the
alley. I cannot see the Fire Protection District going for
anything that would make this a dead end alley behind Herb ' s
house. So I think Bleeker St is a better way. Particularly
since we don't know when 7th St is going to stop being a main
thoroughfare. Bleeker St works whether Hwy 82 is on Main St or
on 7th and Hallam.
Much rattling of maps.
David: We felt it would be easier to turn on and off Bleeker
than it would be coming off this alley. Especially with 4 or 5
cars parked here.
Roger: I have no problems with a Bleeker alignment. Whatever is
convenient for the neighborhood as far as I am concerned. I
would like to see that Bleeker is used and that underground space
for usable storage for either automobile or other things.
Murry: As a resident of the Aspen Villas, they go on Bleeker to
7th--now it is impossible to get onto Bleeker. Now adding all
those people trying to get onto or off of Bleeker it is a real
problem now.
Mrs. Murry: We have 26 units at the Villas. We average 2 and
1/2 cars per unit. Then what happens if there is that accident?
That if Bleeker is the only way out of there, how can a fire
truck get in there? That is a short cul de sac for such heavy
density. We do have some concerns about safety. That is why we
were trying to keep that traffic off of Bleeker.
10
PZM5 . 22 . 90
There seems to be a lot of us kidding ourselves that these people
aren 't going to have cars. Or that they are going to put them
under the building and are never going to drive. Our cars at the
Aspen Villas have a complete turnover. We have no residents that
come there, park their car, and don't drive it. I don 't know why
this particular project is going to be any different. I don ' t
know why these 79 bedrooms are not going to have the same as the
Villas. I can 't see why they are going to have any less than 79
cars.
We have a 24 year -old Son who is in the -work force,. Every - single-
one of his friends owns a car--some of them unfortunately have 2-
-a good one and a bad one. And I think that parking and
automobile density are some real major concerns that we at the
Villas want to see addressed.
Herb Klein: When you have a bedroom or an apartment it is not
just the people that are signed up on the lease that live there.
It is their friends who come to town looking for an apartment and
they just need a place to stay till they can find their own
place. People coming at the holidays can't possibly be
accommodated just because of the number of cars in the
neighborhood.
The surface parking for the 2 Villas projects is about the same
as what they are talking about just for this project in this
underground parking space. Conceptually the surface parking for
the 2 Villas projects the number of cars going in now would be
the same for the resident parking proposed on the Bavarian
project and it is a parcel that is 1/5th the size of the acreage
of the Villas project and the Villas project is too dense
relative to its parking and circulation aspects. So you are
talking about dumping an equal number of cars onto Bleeker street
right across the street from the entrance to the parking lot for
the Aspen Villas. Those people have to turn together and they
have to get onto 7th St where the current alignment is going to
be an impossible situation and God know how long the lead time
will be before that highway is in. Even when that is in we don 't
really know what the realistic traffic counts are going to be for
7th St even after the straight shots in.
Suffice it to say that left turn parking movements out of Bleeker
are going to be very difficult even with the straight shot.
Right turn they will be subject to back ups but there is a huge
volume of cars.
The other thing the type of workers that are going to be here--
dormitory use I think has proven itself to be incompatible with a
residential neighborhood. And that is what we have got here.
Hotel workers in particular. They are trying to staff a full
11
PZM5 . 22 . 90
service 24 hour a day hotel . My bedroom is the wall right next
to this parking ramp that is shown on the map. I am not real
pleased about the idea of having the night shift, the people who
come in a 2 : 00 in the morning and the people going out at 2 : 00 in
the morning, going up and down that parking ramp within 10 or 15
feet of my bedroom. It is totally incompatible.
The zoning on the other side of Main Street where Bruce Barber' s
house is and the Fillmore house is that is all R-15 also. It
doesn 't work for the neighborhood.
Parry: There is another alternative that has been explored with
affordable housing and that is not providing any parking
whatsoever.
Graeme: Or decrease the density.
Welton: I told you when this first came out in the newspaper
that this was proposed for this property that the neighborhood
is, at certain times of the year, especially in the Winter time,
it is to the point of exploding with cars.
And the thing I would look most critically at on this was that
this development would not worsen that problem. Whereas
providing a ramp off of 7th St going down in order to get
additional parking is not a very good idea in the short term and
is probably not a good idea in the long term as far as fire
protection. A re-work of something that comes off of either West
Main or Bleeker St and perhaps uses some of the area underneath
the alley but does not restrict fire truck access through the
alley. We approved the last of the Lipkin TDRs on the Oblock
property which incorporated parking underneath the alley with the
understanding that there is going to be a nest of utility lines
that were going to have to be re-worked. That is a possibility
for you. Doing a nice rectangle underneath the entire property
is, of course, the least resistance but perhaps in getting a
little extra space underneath the alley is something that will
bring it up to a 1 to 1.
I agree with the Murrys that 1 parking space per bedroom is
unusual for employee housing at full strength. But in a
neighborhood that is already bursting at the seams it is
appropriate not to make an awful situation even worse.
Parry: We are now at . 86 to 1.
Welton: Maybe this number should be upped to 1 to 1 . The other
big question that Parry had for us at this initial meeting is is
the . 86 to 1 FAR a number that the P&Z can get behind?
12
PZM5 . 22 . 90
Tom Baker: This does not commit you. This is your feeling at
this time.
Graeme: I would have real problems thinking that I could see
that many people on this property and have it all work. There is
open space. We have got an 180 foot long facade here.
David: The facade is 160. There are setbacks on each end.
Graeme: If you drive up and down Main Street you are not going
to find too many buildings like that. I think it is incompatible
in that sense. And I think that the problem of introducing a
different type of person into a residential area is going to be a
problem too. Where there are going to be guys getting off work
at 11: 00 at night and they are going -to go -out and they are not
necessarily going to be quiet coming in at 1: 00 in the morning
when people are trying to sleep.
I myself am within hearing distance of the project so I am a
neighbor. But I think that could be a real problem. I think the
density is a threshold issue. It is either a make or break
situation. Do the parking garage and solve that problem and live
with all this density or else change the scale of the project
quite a bit.
Bruce: I haven't figured out how we kind of get reversed in our
rolls but conceptually I must say that I am somewhat in favor of
this plan as a conceptual plan. Some of the same arguments that
we talked about when we were considering caretaker units and
carriage houses are now being reversed. If I had an accessory
dwelling unit at my house and it is a small unit then the kind of
person that is likely to be there is going to be the kind of
person that we are talking about that is going to be coming in
late a night and he is going to be disturbing the neighbors.
Again, it all boils down to this thing of where are we going to
put employee housing and I think this is one of the sites that
has been identified. I may still have some concerns about
density, access into the parking and all of that. But
conceptually I think we are headed in the right direction.
Roger: I basically agree with Bruce. One thing I would like to
add as far as the underground parking. Of course everyone would
like less density. We are always squeezing and being pushed out.
But the practicality is if you have less density here, where do
you put that density that you need elsewhere in a community as a
whole and I think every neighborhood should do its part but I
don 't think we should overly impinge any one given neighborhood.
13
PZM5 . 22 . 90
I really like the underground parking idea. I like maximizing
the underground and storage idea. And along that concept
particularly in this neighborhood where parking is a problem on
the surface that if you have more than sufficient parking for
your project the problem is leasing out spaces to people in the
neighborhood.
Richard Compton: I do have a concern about the density in this
neighborhood stacking things up like this. But I can 't put any
hard numbers or anything like that on it. And having this 160ft
facade on Hwy 82 at the entrance to town is a concern to me both
for the people entering town and the people living in the
building that physically facing right out onto the highway with
no buffer for air or noise seems to me to be extreme.
Welton: My first reaction looking at the site plan was that it
is virtually no open space left after parking. There are just
little fringes of grass around the perimeters of these units and
there is very little--the Villas may not have enough parking--the
Aspen Villas--the Villas of Aspen. Are you changing your name to
the what?
Mrs. Murry: The Bleeker Place West.
Roger: Hurray! Good for you.
Welton: Let me tell you something. The old Villas are changing
their name to West Bleeker Place.
There may not be enough parking because it was built before the
parking requirements were stylish but there is a lot of space
between buildings and a lot of breathing area. Agreeing with
Graeme--this is an awfully long facade. Maybe it needs to be
broken up. Maybe it needs scaled into 2 or 3 smaller chunks
scaled similar to what is further down Main Street. However the
block of Villa of Aspen townhouses here is 100ft long. Units 32
through 36 is 5 20ft units in a row which never needed to be
addressed because there was never a question of anybody seeing it
from a highway.
So open space--it seems like there is not real outdoor breathing
space. This facade is too long.
Concerning Herb' s problem about cars coming down behind his
bedroom at 2 : 00 in the morning. I was in Denver last weekend and
there are gates on the underground parking garages for most of
the large buildings in Capital Hill that restrict entry. You
could have a timed entry situation where the people who live
there absolutely know that they can only get their car out
between 9 : 00 in the morning and 6 : 00 in the evening. They can't
14
PZM5 . 22 . 90
get it out at night and they have to use public transportation.
Maybe RFTA needs to run an hour later at night so the people can
get back in. But that would restrict ingress and egress from the
parking to times that were more manageable for the neighborhood.
I do agree that if you don't in fact use the 1 to 1 parking
spaces that are being acquired maybe leasing--
Parry: Is this being required or being suggested or is that a
goal to shoot for?
Welton: This is advisory pre-application kind of first reaction
stuff. I told you 6 months ago that I thought at least 1 to 1
for bedrooms was going to be a minimum. And I remember at that
time there was a figure that in the newspaper of 90 units. And I
think you explained to me that wasn 't 90 units--that was 90
bedrooms. And I think we are looking at what 91 bedrooms right
now? '
Parry: No. We are looking at 79 bedrooms with the underground
parking scheme as it is laid out here. It is 79 including the
Bavarian. That is total on the site. I just did a quick
calculation based on FAR and density and said this much square
footage will handle this many bedrooms. That was before we got
into site planning.
Welton: In general the . 86 to 1 seems to be fine
philosophically. But looking at it on the site plan it looks
like it is too much building and not enough air around it.
Parry: We haven't delineated open spaces and areas the way we
should. We will do that as we go through it.
Welton: It just looks like it is way too much building on this
and with the 3 stories all around here it seems like it is more
like 1 and 1/2 to 1 just looking at the- site plan.
Parry: In terms of that facade what we tried to do and it
doesn't show it in the elevation but it shows it in the site plan
was set back the 2 ends of the building so that that length of
the facade that you see on page 2 in the center is less than 90
feet.
Graeme: But you stand across the street from the building and
you don 't see the 6ft setback.
Welton: But even driving you view this happening for longer than
any other building on Main Street. There is no continuous wall
whether it is offset or not.
Parry: The Floradora building is the closest thing we have got.
15
PZM5 . 22 . 90
Welton: You are not that set back. You could add a lot more
interest too. This is interesting. The diamond windows are
really interesting. This is set back and it is really set back
from these gable ends but it is still a fairly repetitive
barrier.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7 : 10pm.
Janice M. Carney City Deputy Clerk
16
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Ice Rink
DATE: May 22 , 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, at their April 3 , 1990 meeting, tabled
the Public Hearing for conceptual review of this application so
the applicant could provide more information.
The applicant seeks Conceptual PUD review for the Park/Ice Rink
portion of Lot 5. I have attached the April 3 memo for your
review of the proposal.
OUTSTANDING ISSUES: During the April 3 review, several issues
were raised by the Commission those being:
1. Regarding the Durant Street side of the Park: the Commission
had the desire to "open up. . .and make it more inviting. . .having
an entrance that is conducive to the public coming to it" ; create
more public access to draw people to it. Planning and Zoning
commented that it was important to the community that this
facility appear open to the public.
2 . Food Service: important. that there be food service; bakery
service/coffee shop type of service; concern for the size; could
the food service be incorporated into the other services at the
rink?
NEW INFORMATION: Perry has submitted new plans with a conceptual
restaurant design. Please see attached plans.
The restaurant is approximately 1800 square feet and 18-20 feet
high. Please see attached letter from Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
for an explanation of the food service aspect of this project.
It is still staff's interpretation that, unless a very strong
connection can be made between the food service and the
rink/park, the 1800 square feet required for this food service
must either come from the 115, 000 square feet that is available
for Phase II or compete for that extra square footage.
GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities is a review by the
City Council. This review usually does not occur until step 4 of
the 4 step review process, however a food service facility is a
threshold issue and should be discussed at Council ' s conceptual
review.
In terms of addressing the Commission' s concerns about existing
trees, the applicant has relocated the access ramp to avoid the
two large Cottonwoods, the significant Aspen tree on Galena has
not been identified for removal, and the sidewalk at the corner
of Durant and Mill has been reconfigured to avoid the two large
Spruce trees.
INFORMATION NEEDED: In order to continue review, the applicant
should submit information regarding open space. The park/rink
has been calculated as part of the open space for the entire PUD.
The applicant shall submit calculations that determine the amount
of open space that is being eliminated with the addition of food
service and other services. Those calculations will be used to
determine the proposal ' s compliance with the PUD agreement.
SUMMARY: Conceptually staff believes the food service should be
relocated to within the existing profile of the south elevation
(Deane Street) . Staff also finds that food service seating for
70 people is too much for the site.
Unfortunately, this review is not coinciding with the
redevelopment of the Grand Aspen site. If food service is to be
included in the new development, it could be located adjacent to
vacated Deane Street and incorporated simply into the activities
of the ice rink/park. More open space would be preserved on the
rink/park site. At a minimum this concept would reduce the space
requirements of the food service activity on Lot 6.
Staff will elaborate on these points during our presentation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of conceptual PUD
review with the following conditions:
Before Council review the applicant shall submit open space
calculations for this parcel.
Th food ervicq ac °vity shall,�tbe incorporated into the
1 can reef profile; ` \
The ma orit of the new trees '�al j y ong DurantStreet shall be
�3 -
1"Ocated between the street and pedestrian walkway.
4 . The parking and housing mitigation for this park/rink
activity shall be required during the redevelopment of the Grand
Aspen site.
5. If food service is added the facility must be connected to a
grease interceptor prior to discharge to our system.
6. The rink and summer activity center must be connected to
either a dry well or the City stormwater system.
7. The applicant shall use a coolant system for the rink which
I�
i
l�
does not use an ozone-depleting halogenated hydrocarbon compound.
-8 . Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, a fugitive
dust control plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health
Department for approval by the State Health Department.
9. The "elephant ear" curb and gutter shown on page 50 at the
southwest corner of the block is not recommended because it
results in incomplete snow removal and street cleaning. If
review bodies approve this design, the engineering department
should specify the length of the extension into the street
because we have received complaints about the "elephant ears" at
Little Nell.
1,
1
j
l'
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision Phase II: Conceptual PUD
Review and Conceptual Rezoning for Park/Ice Rink
Portion of Lot 5
DATE: April 3 , 1990
SUMMARY: The purpose of this review is Conceptual PUD review for
the Park/Ice Rink portion of Lot 5 which is Phase II of the Aspen
Mountain Subdivision/PUD. This PUD has been approved and
reconfirmed in the past pursuant to the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision/PUD signed October of 1988. Although the Aspen
Mountain PUD was reviewed and approved, the development of Phase
II (Lot 5) has not been thoroughly reviewed by the public and
other review entities. Therefore review of this application will
be considered conceptual and final PUD review.
This April 3 meeting was scheduled as a public hearing. The
original intention was to consolidate the four step PUD review
process into 2 steps. Thus subdivision and rezoning would also
be reviewed concurrently with PUD review. Recently, the
applicant requested that the process be broadened to a four step
process so a conceptual discussion can occur regarding the
program and operation of the Park/Rink.
With the four step process a public hearing is not necessary at
this first step. Renoticing of the public hearing will occur for
future public hearings associated with the four step process, but
the applicant does welcome public input at this time.
The applicant requested (please see attached letter A) to
bifurcate the review of Phase II of the Aspen Mountain PUD. In
order to complete the Ice Rink in time for the opening of the
Ritz-Carlton Hotel (as required by the PUD Agreement) , review of
the Park/Rink must begin at this time.
The 1988 PUD agreement also requires the applicants to subdivide
the Ice Rink parcel from the Lot 5 parcel .
Review of the Ice Rink requires a four step PUD review,
subdivision , rezoning from Commercial Lodge (CL) and
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) to Park, and a GMQS Exemption
for essential public services.
The Commission, will review conceptually the PUD and staff
requests a conceptual review of the rezoning. Council will
review the GMQS Exemption.
Staff recommends approval, with conditions, of the conceptual
PUD.
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership c/o Hadid Development
Companies, represented by Perry Harvey
LOCATION: Parcels A through I, Block 91 which is the block
between Durant and Deane Streets and Galena and South Mill
Streets.
ZONING: CL and L/TR
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant request conceptual PUD review
for the development of an park/ice rink with accessory uses.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, B.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A Project description
The applicant proposes to develop an Ice Rink and Park on the
27, 080 square foot parcel (Parcels A through I, Block 91) that
will be subdivided from Lot 5. The subdivision and development
of Lot 5 and the subdivided Ice Rink parcel constitute Phase II
of the Aspen Mountain PUD.
The Aspen Mountain PUD agreement requires the subdivision of Lot
5 into two parcels. One to be developed into the ice rink and
park and the other for the replacement project for the Grand
Aspen site. The future review of the Grand Aspen site will be a
four step PUD review process.
The park/rink is intended to serve as an activity center to be
developed and maintained by Savanah Ltd. The development of the
park will be in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and will
be ready for use at the same .time as the Hotel.
The development plan for the Park is to provide an ice rink for
public winter skating; in the summer, the rink and landscaped
area will be used for a multitude of purposes, including but not
limited to ballet rehearsals, community dances, plays, private
parties, art exhibits, musical performances and fund raising
events. The applicant is still working on the programmatic
details of the park.
During the winter, it is proposed that the rink be available for
public skating with skate rental and public changing areas.
Because the applicant is requesting essential public service
status (GMQS Exemption for essential public services) , they are
seeking several variations the Commission should comment upon:
2
1. Permission to extend the curbline along the north and east
side of the Park approximately 10 feet into the existing street
right of way, along Durant Street, in order to maintain the
largest possible rink size and still provide a reasonable buffer
from traffic. This would also eliminate the parking on this side
of the street.
2 . Exemption from Park dedication and tap fee payments (Council
approval required) .
3 . Waiver of off-street parking requirements.
The applicant is dedicated to creating a multi-use facility that
' will be both a great asset for the community and an economically
self-sustaining facility.
B. Conceptual PUD Review
Many of the PUD review criteria are not applicable to this
proposal. This memo will only review those criteria that would
apply for this proposal.
Pursuant to Section 7-903 B. the review standards for a PUD are
as follows:
1. General Requirements
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE : The Plan designates this area as
Recreational/Accommodation the propose of which is "to allow for
the recreation and accommodation needs of the visitor to Aspen in
an area that is especially suited for this because of its unity
with and identity to, the proposed transportation system, the ski
area and the central area. . . "
The recreational element in the heart of the tourist district is
consistent with the Land Use designation and is well located to
serve the needs of visitors because of its central location to
other tourist services.
b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: The park/rink compliment Wagner Park and Rubey Park.
Again the rink is designed as a tourist amenity but with strong
community emphasis. A community pass program is planned for the
rink.
3
The programming of this activity center is very important.
Adjacent condominium owners have expressed strong concern
regarding noise and late night activities.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the
future development of the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: The development of this activity center will enhance
the surrounding area.
d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to
the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the
applicant.
RESPONSE: The applicant is seeking a GMQS Exemption, Essential
Public Services, for the development of the ice rink and the
necessary accessory uses e.g. the changing rooms, Zamboni
storage, ticket counter.
The applicant also proposes the eventual addition of a restaurant
on the site to enhance the services of the site. Unless the
applicant demonstrates that the restaurant is also an essential
public service or essential support of the park/rink, development
allotments will be necessary for the construction of a restaurant w
on the site.
2 . Land Uses: the land uses permitted shall be those of the
underlying Zone District.
RESPONSE: The applicant seeks to rezone the parcel from CL and
L/TR to Park. An open recreational facility and accessory
building and uses are permitted uses in the Park (P) Zone
District.
3 . Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements shall
be those of the underlying Zone District.
RESPONSE: Pursuant to Section 5-220 , the dimensional
requirements in the P zone shall be set by the adoption of a
Conceptual and Final Development Plan. The applicant shall
present, at the Commission meeting, the dimensions of the
facilities that will occupy the park.
The applicant requests an increase, on the Durant side of the
parcel, of approximately 10 feet into the Durant Street right-of-
way. This would facilitate a wider rink but would necessitate
removal of the parallel parking on that side of the street. The
Engineering Department, does not support extending the curbline
10 feet into Durant Street. Please see attached referral
comments B.
4 . Off-street Parking: The number of off-street parking spaces
4
may be varied from that required in the underlying Zone District.
RESPONSE: The P zone enables parking to be set by special review
for uses other than residential or lodge.
This facility is located directly across the street from the
Rubey Park Transit Center. The applicant intends the park to be
a strong draw for tourists staying in close proximity to the
park/rink. There will be six angle parking spaces on the west
end of the park/rink. The redevelopment of the Grand Aspen site
will incorporate a parking garage that was determined, during
review of the Aspen Mountain PUD, to be adequate to accommodate
the whole parking needs of Phase II development, the first of
which is the park/rink.
5. Open Space: This 27,080 parcel will be virtually all open
space pursuant to -the definition of open space. If a restaurant
is added in the future (as the applicant has proposed) it will
reduce the amount of open space but is expected to be negligible
relative to the open space of the whole park.
6. Landscape Plan: There shall be approved as part of the Final
Development Plan a landscape plan which exhibits a well designed
treatment of exterior spaces.
RESPONSE: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan of the
site. Overall the applicant intends to provide extensive
(according to the site plan approximately 80 additional trees)
landscape treatment on the entire site.
Development of the site, unfortunately identifies the elimination
of several distinctive Cottonwoods and Blue Spruce which is not
supported by staff. During a site visit, staff and the applicant
discussed the possibility of preserving the large trees on the
periphery of the site. Specifically the two large Cottonwoods on
the corner of Durant and Galena, the two Blue Spruce at the west
end of the parcel, and the large 14" Spruce near the southwestern
corner. Staff believes that it is possible to adjust the
sidewalk improvements around these trees. The access ramp at the .
corner of Galena and Durant should also be adjusted to
accommodate the two Cottonwoods. The Engineering Department
believes that at least one Cottonwood is in the City right of way
and would be reluctant to grant a tree removal permit. An
attempt should be made to relocate the other significant Spruce
that are located within the site. Please see the referral
comments from the Engineering and Parks Departments B.
For presentation purposes, staff has a site plan outlining the
recommended changes to the landscape plan.
7 . Architectural Site Plan: The applicant will present
elevations of the accessory improvements and will go over in
5
detail the site plan of the whole parcel. Please see attached
site plan C.
8 . Lighting: at the time of this writing, the applicant was
still exploring a lighting plan.
9. Public Facilities: The applicant intends to rezone and deed
restrict the parcel as a Park. It is unclear at this time
whether the applicant should deed the parcel to the City. The
applicant has also agreed to construct and operate the facility,
but continued maintenance and operation of the facility must be
further defined.
There are adequate public facilities available for the proposal.
10. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: This proposal poses
little impediments to pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The
parcel is primarily pedestrian oriented. Vacated Deane Street
(which is part of Lot 5) is adequate for delivery purposes. If a
restaurant is added in the future a service ramp may be installed
at the Deane/Galena corner. Deane street may also serve as a
dropping off point thus limiting the potential for congestion on
the Durant side of the park/rink.
Staff is concerned that the parcel does not provide enough direct
pedestrian access off of Durant Street versus the openness of the
entrance opposite the Grand Aspen site. It is very important
that there well defined public access and that the public are
drawn into the rink area. There is one direct access at the
Durant/Galena corner and in the summer rock paths are planned for
the west end of the parcel. Staff understands the potential
security problems posed by numerous access points, however direct
access from the public side of the park/rink should be
emphasized.
C. Rezoning
Although rezoning will not be formally addressed until step 3 , it
is important to determine whether the Commission finds rezoning
of the parcel appropriate in concept before further review of
this application.
The applicant proposes to rezone the parcel from Commercial Lodge
(CL) and Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) to Park (P) . The
permitted uses in a P Zone are open-use recreational facility,
park, playfield, playground, golf course, riding stable, nursery,
botanical garden; and accessory building and uses.
Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards for rezoning considers
among others, compatibility with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, effects on traffic and road safety, consistency and
6
compatibility with the community character, changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood, and
conflict with the public interest.
The surrounding land uses are Wagner Park, Rubey Transit Center,
North of Nell condominiums, the Mountain Chalet and the proposed
Ritz-Carlton Hotel and redevelopment of the Grand Aspen site.
The parcel will be primarily open space and will create a pocket
of openness in a very intensively developed portion of the City.
The programming of the year round activities must be carefully
identified as some residents have expressed strong concern to
late night activities and potential noise problems.
D. Summary of Staff Concerns
Staff supports the concept of a park/rink at this location.
There are however several outstanding issues:
1. Public access from the Durant street side should be more
inviting and accessible.
2. The two large Cottonwoods and three large Spruce trees on the
periphery of the site shall be preserved in their existing
location. The applicant should design the site improvements
around these significant trees.
3. The details of the year round programming must be identified
very carefully and with sensitivity to surrounding property
owners.
4. The engineering department does not support extending the
curbline along the north and east side 10 feet into the street
right of way. This would seriously reduce the parking available
in the area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of conceptual PUD
review with the following conditions:
1. The two large Cottonwoods and three large Spruce trees on the
periphery of the site shall be preserved in their existing
location pursuant to the revised site plan as recommended by the
Park and Planning Departments.
2. If a restaurant is added it must be connected to a grease
interceptor prior to discharge to our system.
3 . The rink and summer activity center must be connected to
either a dry well or the City stormwater system.
7
4 . The applicant shall use a coolant system for the rink which
does not use an ozone-depleting halogenated hydrocarbon compound.
5. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, a fugitive
dust control plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health
Department for approval by the State Health Department.
6. The "elephant ear" curb and gutter shown on page 50 at the
southwest corner of the block is not recommended because it
results in incomplete snow removal and street cleaning. If
review bodies approve this design, the engineering department
should specify the length of the extension into the street
because we have received complaints about the "elephant ears" at
Little Nell.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Savanah Limited Letter
B. Referral comments
C. Site Plan
ice.rink.pz
8
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
LOT 6, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that:
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia limited
partnership ("Savanah"), the owner of Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned
Unit Development according to the First Amended Plat of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision
recorded in Plat Book 21 at Pages 35, et se=c ., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property
records ("Lot 6"), hereby publishes and declares that in consideration of the approvals to it
granted in and by the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision
Agreement - Aspen Mountain Subdivision, recorded in Book 574 at Pages 792, et se=c ., of the
Pitkin County, Colorado real property records ("PUD Agreement"), and pursuant thereto, the
following shall run with Lot 6, shall be a burden thereupon, as well as upon Savanah, its
successors, grantees and assigns, and any other party acquiring any manner of record interest
in Lot 6, and shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforceable by the City of Aspen
("City") by any and all appropriate means, including mandatory injunctive relief, to wit:
Until otherwise specifically consented to by the City, the use of
Lot 6 shall be limited to a community activity center and public ice
skating rink meeting such dimensional and design constraints and
incorporating such accessory uses as may be approved by the City,
from time to time, during site specific review by the City of land
use approvals for Lot 6, all pursuant to and as is provided for in
the PUD Agreement.
Unless sooner released by the City by an instrument in writing placed of.record in the Pitkin
County Colorado real property records, this covenant shall remain in full force and effect for
the period of the life of the longest living member of the presently constituted Aspen City
Council and his or her now living heirs plus twenty-one years, or for a period of fifty years,
whichever period is greater.
IN WITN , S WHEREOF, this Covenant has been published and declared as
of the �day of _, 1990.
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
District of Columbia limited partnership
By: 1001, Inc., District of Columbia
corporation, i General Partner
By:
Moha ed A. Hadid, President
(Notarial Clause on Page 2, following)
STATE OF,41?-JL/aND )
) ss.
COUNTY OF,4 Mbr j)
�-
:1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o?DIrday of
U fV'� , 1990, by SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia
limited partnership, by 1001, Inc., a District of Columbia corporation, its General Partner, by
Mohamed A. Hadid, as President.
WITNESS my hand and official eal.
My commission expires: S 11 °l
(SEAL)
C '
Notary Public
does\eovenant.6
n
Aspen (Ponsolidated Sanitation (District 0-.
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. 1303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537
ti
8-31-90
A.J. Zabbia
Leonard Rice Engineers
2401 15th Street Suite 300
Denver Co. 80202
RE: Sewer Service for Ute City Place
Dear A.J.,
Pursuant to ow-conversation yesterday,8-30-90,the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District has not commented in detail concerning the requirements neededto
adequately provide sewer service to the proposed Ute City Place developement.As of
this date we have not received any plans in our office to determine our normal tap fees
or the applicable impact fees. At your earliest convenience, we should schedule some
time to go over this project as well as the other proposed developements that have an
impact on the downstream sewer line constraints.
Sincerely.
'Thomas R. Bracewell �
Collection System Superintendent
cc AspenlPitkin Manning Office
Aspen/Pitkin Pla ning Office
130 southxg'ale street
�3 ,
a s p e n , Rco 1 ovary j '81611
July 25, 1990
Mr. Perry Harvey
600 E. Cooper
Hadid Aspen Holdings
Aspen Colorado
Dear Perry,
Per our conversation in mid July, this letter is intended to
identify those items that should be included in the final
application for the park/ice rink.
I have reviewed and enclosed the minutes from Council 's
conceptual review of the park/ice rink. Although some of the
topics of discussion were not clearly resolved, I do believe
Council gave direction as to what they would expect in a future
application.
As you can tell from the minutes, the Council was divided
regarding a food service facility. Staff recommends GMP
competition or using the available Phase II floor area for the
provision of food service, the Council was not in a majority as
to how the food service should be implemented.
If food service is provided on site, the hours of operation, the
cost, public vs. private use and the level of service should be
included in the final submission. If a GMQS Exemption is
requested for the food service component a strong analysis
establishing the connection between the rink and food service
must be included in the application.
The use of the rink as a public amenity must be tied down. The
daily operations, use (especially public vs. private) must be
delineated in order to ensure the public nature and the
community's benefit of this parcel. The review bodies need a
higher level of comfort when considering the community aspects of
this proposal . If.
The proposal to eliminate parking along Durant Street and
encroach into the right of way was not favorably received by the
Council or the Commission. Perhaps more of an encroachment into
Deane Street would enable the size of the rink to remain the
same.
The final submission should include a clear proposal guaranteeing
the public's use of the rink, a thorough description of the
auxiliary facilities including square footage and employees
generated, a complete narrative of the food service element, a
draft deed restriction that addresses, among other items, the
public's use of the parcel, and any revisions to the site plan
including alternatives to the Durant Street encroachment. I have
discussed this proposal with several neighbors. They have
serious concerns about the operations and noise impacts. Your
submission should attempt to address the neighbors concerns as
thoroughly as possible.
Thank you for responding to our initial concerns related to the
site plan and especially public access and tree preservation. I
realize this letter may not encompass all of the outstanding
issues involved with this project. Please feel free to set up a
meeting as the final submission develops.
As soon as we have a complete application, final review will be
scheduled with the Commission.
Sincerely,
Leslie Lamont
City Planner
M
cc: Amy Margerum
Tom Baker
enc.
Moldings,
MC.June 25, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
City of Aspen
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Leslie:
As you requested, Joe Wells and I have re-examined the amount of
open space provided on Lot 5 (Phase II and the ice rink sites. )
All calculations are based on the open space definitions in effect
prior to May 25, 1988. At that time open space had to be no more
than four feet above nor more than ten feet below the existing
grade of the street abutting the open space. Currently open space
must not be more than four feet above or two feet below existing
grade.
We have projected curb elevations based on Rea Cassens May 1 , 1989
survey across the site. With these measurements, all the site of
the future Lot 6 qualifies as open space with the exception of the
restaurant building which is presently shown with a footprint of
935 square feet (27,080 - 935 square feet. ) Thus the 27,080 square
feet to be known as Lot 6 shall have a minimum of 25,000 square
feet of open space.
Please let me know if you need further information.
Sincerely,
OV/
Perry Harvey, Director
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
PAH: ld
600 East Coo0er StreA 'quite 200 A lwn Colorado 81611 (303)925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387
11AIA [)
June 1, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Leslie:
In response to our conversation yesterday it is my understanding
that the conceptual review of the proposed Lot 6 before Council has
been scheduled for June 25, 1990 . We were scheduled for June 11,
1990 but publication of the notice of public hearing did not make
it in the May 31, 1990 Aspen Times.
I agree with your suggestion that since we are on the agenda for
Council for the 11th we should make an informational presentation
at that time. Hopefully this will enable Council to act on the
conceptual approval on the 25th.
Please lek.-,Se know the form of the mailing to the neighbors so we
can complete our part and send out in time for the 25th meeting.
Sincerely,
G /eyl Perry Har Director
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
PAH: ld
600 Fast Cooiw" ';tt-'(j ti nfc :20f) A jwn Coiol-Ao 81611 1303) 9254272 FAX:(303) 925-4387
a
Aspen/Pitk,i
.4�.yning Office
130 s* tteet
aspe 81611
arias�' �
May 17 , 1990
Mr. Perry Harvey
Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
600 East Cooper Street
Suite 200
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Perry,
Thank you for the information and new plans regarding the food
service element on the ice rink/park.
It is still staff's interpretation, that unless a very strong
link can be made between the restaurant and the rink/park, the
square footage of the restaurant is not exempt from GMQS for
Essential Public Facilities.
I understand that the building is conceptual but could you please
furnish me with the square footage and height of the restaurant.
In addition, what percentage of open space is eliminated by the
footprint of the restaurant and any other structures that are not
to be considered open space.
I will expect the requested information before the Council ' s
review of the conceptual plan.
Sincerely,
As -�u
Leslie Lamont
cc: Amy Margerum
Jed Caswell
AI A I ) MAY � 6t9`�
May 15, 1990
�;lxr
Ms. Leslie Lamont
rill .
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Leslie,
In anticipation of our continued conceptual review
of the ice rink before the Planning & Zoning
Commission I want to formally amend our
application to include a food service capability
on the site. I have included plans which show a
walk through, primarily self-service restaurant
with indoor seating for approximately seventy
people.
During the April 3rd meeting the consensus at
Planning & Zoning was that food service needs to
be incorporated into the plan but not as a full
service restaurant. We agree with this and are
proposing a design which allows for skaters to
enter the restaurant, go through a self-service
line and have a warm place to sit and eat. There
will be a small wait staff to service non-skaters
and to clean the restaurant area. The restaurant
area will also be used for private parties and
fund raising events. Outside tables will be
primarily for summer use as a replacement for the
interior seating. The seating area is sized to
correspond to the rink capacity. We anticipate up
to 150 people skating during busy- periods.
The food service is envisioned as soups, salads
and sandwiches with deserts and snacks. It is not
intended that the food service provide a full
menu. Nonetheless the kitchen and storage will be
adequate for private or public events which
require different menues.
600 East (;Doper Street `,ite 200 Asjwn Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387
Page 2
Leslie Lamont
5-15-90
We envision this block as a community activity
center rather than as passive open space. To
provide for the widest range of community uses and
to attract as many people as possible, this level
of food service is imperative in our evaluation.
I look forward to reviewing these plans with the - - -
commission on May 22nd.
sincerely,
Perry Har ey
Director
Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
PH/ks
11AN-1)
.
April 16 , 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
You have asked me to respond to the need for more definition in the
development schedule for the First Amended Aspen Mountain PUD. You
said at Council that you did not want this project to be undefined
ten years from now and I agree. Council , at the April 9th meeting
also requested more specific time tables.
The PUD regulations of the Code require "A statement outlining a
development schedule specifying the date construction is proposed
to be initiated and completed. " This is condition number 5 of the
Contents for the Final Development Plan submittal. Thus the Code
requires schedules with final plan submission, such schedules to
be "proposed. " Approval has been finalized for Lots 1 , 2, and 4
and firm schedules are in place for those elements of the PUD.
Lots 3 and 5 have not been submitted in final plan and thus the
code does not require schedules at this time.
Nonetheless, I believe the PUD and the code already impose adequate
time lines for your purposes. Lot 6 , the proposed park and rink
is to be available as a condition of the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy on The Ritz-Carlton. Lot 5 is the Grand Aspen Hotel.
We have submitted Lots 5 and 6 to your office as of November 1989.
The schedule for demolition of the Grand is delineated in Article
H3 of the PUD, calling for demolition within three years of the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of The Ritz .
The PUD specifies the right to build a total of 47 residential
units between Lots 3 and 5 of the PUD. The majority of these are
reconstruction credits for units which have previously been
demolished or will be in conjunction with the park and rink.
Section L of the PUD states that the previously demolished units
have a two year period for reconstruction from the date of the
demolition permit for the Grand Aspen.
FAX
A ti
Ms. Amy Margerum
April 16, 1990
Page Two
Planning and the Building Department have always interpreted
"reconstruction" as being met by issuance of a building permit for
the work. From that point on we are controlled by the U.B.C.
requirements. The units to be demolished for the rink have, under
the code, a five year reconstruction deadline from the date of
demolition. Thus the Top of Mill must have been issued a building
permit for the units within five years of the date of demolition
of the units being reconstructed. Since all the Top of Mill units
will be reconstruction units these requirements control the Top of
Mill schedule.
A hypothetical schedule, unless varied by Council would be;
- Demolition permit for Lot 6 7-1-90
- C of O on The Ritz-Carlton 10-1-91
- Demolition permit for Grand Aspen 10-1-94
- Two years for issuance of permit to reconstruct the
previously demolished units (Section L of PUD) 10-1-96
- 5 years for permit to reconstruct other units
demolished on Lot 6 7-1-95
- U.B.C. requires a twenty month period before
C. of O. on reconstructed units Spring 1997
Thus the PUD Agreement and the code have built in deadlines for our
buildout. I would suggest that these are adequate at this time.
As we finalize approvals on the remaining parcels in the PUD we can
further define schedules per Council's desires.
Please review this and call me with your thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
Perry HarX Director
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
f 1 1)11 )
;per,
April 9, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
I want to follow up on our conversation after the Planning and
Zoning meeting regarding the conceptual approval for the Ice Rink
and Park.
In reviewing the code the language that strikes me is the general
nature of the conceptual submission and review. At the conceptual
review level the commission should consider the general
requirements for the review of a PUD as outlined in your memo of
April 3 , 1990. Further they should review the conceptual site plan
focusing on the "general configuration of proposed land uses,
access ways and existing and proposed utilities" and the general
landscaping plan and "general site design features. "
The meeting Tuesday night produced the following;
1) It seemed that the use of the property for a Park and
Ice Rink is conceptually acceptable with some concern
about the practical problems of a skating rink in that
location.
2) Concerns were expressed about the existing trees,
openness to Durant and encroachment of eleven feet into
Durant. Eight to nine feet seemed more acceptable. Also
there was consensus that food and beverage facilities
were necessary for the rink but not a full service
restaurant.
600 East Cooper Street Smite 200 Aspen Coiorzido 81611 (303)925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387
Ms. Leslie Lamont
April 9, 1990
Page Two
My hope for May 1st is that we can develop a resolution from
Planning and Zoning to Council recommending conceptual approval for
the Rink and Park with subdivision, rezoning and exemption for the
accessory uses as essential community services with a list of
concerns to be addressed at final review. We will need to discuss
the timing for noticing the public hearing at Council . Our goal
still is to begin construction this summer which means we need to
complete the conceptual review during May to allow for final review
during June and early July.
Please call me this week to discuss this format and timetable for
review.
Sincerely yours,
Perry Ha vey, Directo
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
PH/ld
\�uen
March 29, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
City of Aspen
Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Leslie:
Per our conversation today I am writing to request that we process
the ice rink and park as a four step PUD process with the rezoning
at the final review before Planning and Zoning commission. I need
conceptual review of the facilities and program for the rink by P
and Z and Council before I proceed to detailed planning. The rink
was approved as an idea in 1988 by Council but there were no
specifics explored. Having conceptual review from both bodies will
help substantially in the final planning phases.
I look forward to beginning the process of conceptual review with
the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 3rd.
Sincerely yours,
y
Perry Harvey, Director
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
PAH/ld
600 Easl Cooper `'trret S,ac 200 1s3cn Cniorado 81611 (303)925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387
11:` N1 )
c)kling�.,
March 28, 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum
City of Aspen Planning Director
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
Thank you for your letter of March 22, 1990 outlining your
understanding of the PUD Agreement as ratified by the voters on
February 13 , 1990.
Based on your confirmation we do want to proceed with bifurcation
of the Lot 5 "Phase II" submission to facilitate the review of the
Park and Ice Rink subdivision and rezoning as expeditiously as
possible.
we are operating on the agreement outlined in Resolution 11 between
ourselves and City Council which states in part that we may
construct " . . . 115,000 square feet of countable floor area ratio,
exclusive of the floor area that might be built on the Park on Lot
5. " The improvements envisioned for the Park include locker rooms,
skate rental , sharpening and sales, mechanical equipment, storage
and a restaurant as a future addition. The May 9, 1988 Council
minutes quote Alan Richman as saying that the code now allows that
essential community facilities may be commercial .
I look forward to beginning the review and approval process of this
portion of the PUD.
Sincerely yours,
Perry
ny, Director
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
PAH/ld
600 East Coope, Street Spite 200 Aap.,n Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303)925-4387
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9 , 1988
and the architectural design consensus that they will be able to
keep the room count. Sarpa told Council if the bank asked if
they have 292 rooms, they cannot say maybe. Harvey said "maximum
of" is an ambiguous intention. Anderson said the language gives
the applicant the right to build 292 rooms and the "maximum of"
language is permissive and the only person that can reduce it is
the applicant. Harvey suggested the resolution state, " the
applicant has the right to build 292 rooms" . Hughes said he
viewed the language as the applicant could be told they could
build anything from 0 to 292 rooms. Sarpa emphasized that 292
rooms is critical . The applicants are not cutting off any
architectural changes and feel there is sufficient leeway within
the program to make some changes. Councilwoman Fallin said she
would agree to language "the right to build up to 292 hotel
rooms" .
Councilwoman Fallin moved to amend the resolution to read "the
right to build up to 292 rooms" and delete "maximum of" on pages
1 and 4; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor , with the
exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling . Motion
carried.
Harvey said in #2 on page two, the approval was to build up to
f.: 50 hotel rooms and residential units. Taddune suggested that
"and residential units as set forth in paragraph 6 below" be
added to #2 , page 2 and page 4. Harvey told Council lot 5 , which
is phase II , goes from Durant south to the top of the site.
Harvey told Council they have separated off the open space
community activity. Harvey said he would like to make it clear
that the FAR of 115 ,000 square feet is on that portion south of
Dean street , not on the park site . Taddune suggested adding
"excluding any FAR on the park site" . Harvey said if the
community deems that a commercial building for skate rental and
food service is appropriate, that should be considered. Harvey
told Council he has a letter addressing details of this site the
applicants would like to work out with staff. Harvey said they
are not clear how this activity center will work.
Harvey told Council lot 1 and lot 5 are the two phases and are on
the PUD plat. Taddune said the language will read "exclusive of
the FAR which might be built on the park on lot 5" . Councilwoman
Fallin said someone in the future may come back and not under-
stand that the FAR in the park was to be non-commercial. Harvey
said that is another issue; the city may want some commercial
footage on this block as an accessory to the ice rink , like food
service. Harvey said in the deed restrictions, a lot of these
things can be covered. Richman said most of these items can be
covered under the PUD amendment process . Richman reminded
Council the code now allows that essential community facilities
:i
13
'•i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9 , 1988
may be commercial. These should be decided before final
approval.
Councilman Isaac moved to add the above language in #2 pages 2
and 4 ; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor , motion
carried.
Mayor Stirling asked about the issue of deadline related to phase
II. There is an overall PUD deadline. Does this applicant have
forever to build phase II. Richman told Council when the PUD was
adopted in 1985, it set out a specific construction schedules for
phases I and II , which has been extended through the various
extensions of the project. Richman told Council the PUD agree-
ment is the best mechanism to apply construction deadlines.
Richman told Council the problem with applying deadlines to the
GMP is that most of phase II is reconstruction credits. The new
units are occurring as part of the Ritz construction. Richman
told Council there is a code provision that a unit which is
demolished must be rebuilt within 5 years from its demolition or
the credit goes away. The staff has been tracking this limita-
tion with the applicant, and some of these deadlines have had to
, y be extended.
�:. Mayor Stirling asked about the overall approved units in the
PUD, which was 447 , and the proposal is for 342 units. When the
hotel is built there will actually be 447 units . Richman
suggested this be dealt with in the agreement. Council may
specify a time period in which the applicant must pursue con-
struction of phase II or to close up portions of the Grand
Aspen. Councilman Isaac asked about the parking agreement on the
block between Dean and Durant that was for the Woodstone Lodge.
Harvey said he will have to check into this. Richman said when
Council addressed the parking requirement for the hotel , this
issue was addressed.
Harvey said #3 refers to drawings , which the applicants have
requested from the architect. Harvey said these will be iden-
tified and delivered to the planning office for reference .
Harvey said the next sentence is "Major changes include the
removal of all but the first floor from an 86-foot section of the
building on Mill street, the shortening of the elevation along
Mill street by approximately 40 feet, the transfer of approxi-
mately 30 lodge units into the Blue Spruce site and the lowering
of the height along Mill street . Harvey requested this be
changed to "to approximately 40 feet from the south property
line" . Harvey said this will indicate the distance between the
end of the building to the south property line, which is the
issue. Council agreed with this change on pages 2 and 4 .
14
F
Aspen/Pitkiri � 'lnning Office
130 s6I th �g ' 'a treet ;
aspen'`; *'c o� t� b 81611
F
March 22, 1990
Perry A. Harvey, Director
Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
600 East Cooper Street, Suite 200
Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Perry:
I am writing in response to your letter dated March 14, 1990 with
regard to the Lot 5 "Phase II" submission of the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development and your follow up
letter of March 16 regarding the Floor Area Ratio on Lot 5.
It is my understanding that you are requesting that your
application for Phase II, which originally included both the Ice
Rink and Park component (Lot 6) and the Hotel Phase II (Lot 5) ,
be bifurcated and that we only process the Ice Rink and Park
subdivision and rezoning at this time. This will be a
consolidated two step review with the Planning Commission and the
City Council. The remainder of the application will be processed
subsequent to the Ice Rink and Park and scheduled appropriately
before the Planning Commission and the City Council as a four
step process taking to consideration other applications and staff
workload.
As you summarized in your letter, the FAR limits for Lot 5 have
already been set and agreed upon in the PUD agreement which was
ratified by the voters last month. In addition, the open space
on the northerly portion of Lot 5 (new Lot 6) will support the
development activity on the southerly portion of Lot 5, as
outlined in the PUD agreement. The bottom line is that the PUD
agreement provides you with 115, 000 square feet of FAR on Lot 5.
The PUD agreement, supported by the City Clerk's minutes of the
May 9, 1988 City Council meeting, does support your claim that
the FAR on Lot 5 for Phase II of the hotel is over and above any
park or public use, i.e. essential community services (including
accessory structures to service an ice rink) on Lot 6.
,roc March 16, 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum film
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
Regarding the sentence in my letter about the FAR on the rink (Lot
6) being in addition to the FAR of 115,000 square feet on Lot 5 I
offer the following clarification.
The PUD treats Lot 5 and limits the FAR to 115,000 square feet.
Then the PUD deals with Lot 6 separately and discusses our needing
to apply for approval for the ice rink, associated facilities and
conditional use for a restaurant. Thus the FAR on Lot 5 is 115,000
square feet and the PUD calls for separate processing of Lot 6
review.
I am also enclosing the verbatim minutes from the City Council
meeting of May 9, 1988 when the issue of FAR on Lot 5 was discussed
and separated from that for Lot 6. I have also included
Resolution 11 (Series of 1988) which was the document which
outlines the terms of the agreement between the City and Savanah.
I am confident that the enclosed documents will give you the full
understanding of the FAR issue on Lots 5 and 6.
Please call if I can be of further help.
Sincerely yours,
Perry Ha ey, Director
HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC.
PAH: ld
Enclosures
600 E;:--;l Cnoper Street `uttr 2W! : :;per. ('o,orado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (:303) 925-4387
RESOLUTION NO. 1�
(Series of 1988)
P
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD PROJECT TO
PROCEED THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCESSING
AMENDMENTS THERETO ON THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH HEREIN.
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on April 11,
1988, and adjourned and continued sessions thereof held on April
18, April 20, April 27, and May 5, 1988, the City Council did
consider issues pertaining to amendments of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge Project as described in and governed by that Planned Unit
Development Subdivision Agreement between the City of Aspen and
John H. Roberts, dated December 5, 1985, applied for by the .
apparent successor in interest to said John H. Roberts, Savanah
Limited Partnership (hereinafter the "applicant") ; and
WHEREAS, in the course of considering the proposed
amendments and related events, certain disputes have arisen
between the City and the applicant; and
WHEREAS, at the aforementioned meetings the applicant and
its representatives, in an effort to induce the City Council to
authorize the applicant to process proposed amendments to the
Aspen Mountain Lodge Project, communicated with the City Council
and made specific representations, commitments and agreements
concerning parameters for the project including, but not limited
to, the following:
1. Phase I - the right to build up to 292 hotel rooms, 0
residential rooms, no more than 190, 000 square feet of
countable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .
2 . Phase II - maximum of 50 hotel rooms, residential units
(r as set forth in item 116" below, no more than 115, 000 square
feet of countable floor area ratio, exclusive of the floor
area that might be built on the park on Lot 5.
3 . Heights and building configuration to be generally as
represented in drawings submitted during the hearing
process which are to be submitted to the Planning office for
reference purposes. Major changes include the removal of
all but the first floor from an 86-foot section of the
building on Mill Street, the shortening of the elevation
along Mill Street to be approximately 40 feet from the south
property line, the transfer of approximately 30 lodge units
into the Blue Spruce site and the lowering of the height
Calong Mill Street.
4 . Block bounded by Durant, Mill, Dean and Galena Streets
to be permanently deed restricted to open space and an
accessory structure (or structures) to service an ice rink
and other outdoor facilities to be operated and maintained
at the expense of the applicant.
5. The previously approved "Roberts design" for Phase I
and Phase II will not be built as approved by the
aforementioned PUD/Subdivision Agreement dated December 5,
1985, and the applicant will continue to process amendments
to Phases I and II which will not exceed any of the
limitations herein.
f
-2-
i
6. Regarding Residential Units:
a. There will be no more than 47 residential units
developed on Top of Mill (i.e. Lot 3) and Phase II
(i.e. Lot 5) sites.
b. The applicant will not request GMP allotments to
ever increase the size of either project in the
future.
C. The applicant will build the facilities on the
"park" in front of Phase II and will operate same.
These facilities will be ready for use at the same time
as will Phase I, and details concerning the design,
construction and operation of these facilities will be
approved during the review of the proposed amendments
C' to Phase I.
7. The remaining aspects of the PUD, including but not
limited to employee housing as applicable to Phase I and
Phase II, are to be resolved during the amendment process.
8 . Any hotel project submitted by the applicant regarding
the Aspen Mountain PUD shall not expand in size or
development beyond the above referred parameters, and
WHEREAS, based on applicant's representations, commitments
and agreements, and induced thereby, the City Council desires to
authorize the applicant to process proposed amendments through
the PUD process for a period not to exceed one hundred and 1
twenty-two (122) days from the date of this Resolution,
-3-
p
c
k
r,
specifically- September 12, 1988, to obtain final approval for the
r proposed amendments by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section
The City Council does hereby authorize the applicant to
process the proposed amendments to the Aspen Mountain Lodge
project; through the PUD process for a period not to exceed one
hundred twenty-two (122) days, specifically September 12, 1988,
on the condition that applicant abides by its representations,
commitments and agreements as announced at the aforementioned
City Council proceedings, which proceedings are incorporated
herein and made a part hereof by this reference, including but
not limited to the following:
C.
1. Phase I - the right to build up to 292 hotel rooms, 0
residential rooms, no more than 190, 000 square feet of
countable floor area.
2 . , Phase II - . maximum of 50 hotel rooms and residential
units as set forth in item 11611 below, no more than 115, 000
square feet of countable floor area ratio, exclusive of the
floor area that might be built on the park on Lot 5.
3 . Heights and building configuration to be generally as
represented in . drawings submitted during the hearing
process which are to be submitted to the Planning Office for
reference purposes. Major changes include the removal of
all but 'the first floor from an 86-foot section of the
-4-
building on Mill Street, the shortening of the elevation
along Mill Street to be approximately 40 feet from the south
property line, the transfer of approximately 30 lodge units
into the Blue Spruce site, and the lowering of the height
along Mill Street.
4. Block bounded by Durant, Mill, Dean and Galena Streets
to be permanently deed restricted to open space and an
' accessory structure (or structures) to service an ice rink
and other outdoor facilities to be operated and maintained
at the expense of the applicant.
5. The previously approved "Roberts Design" for Phase I
and Phase II . will not be built as approved by the
aforementioned PUD/Subdivision Agreement dated December 5,
1985, and the applicant will continue to pursue amendments
C" to Phase I and
Phase II which will not exceed any of the
limitations herein. Further, applicant will not proceed to
obtain or expect from the City additional permits for Phase
I or Phase II until such time as the City Council has
granted final approval of amendments meeting the limitations
set forth in this Resolution.
6. Regarding Residential Units:
a. There will be no more than 47 residential units
developed on Top of Mill (i.e. Lot . 3) and Phase II
(i.e. Lot 5) sites.
b. The applicant will not request GMP allotments to
ever increase the size of either project in the future.
-5-
J
C. The applicant will build the facilities on the
"park" in front of Phase II and will operate same.
C•
These facilities will be ready for use at the same
time as will Phase I, and details concerning the
design, construction and operation of these facilities
will be approved during the review of the proposed
amendments to Phase I.
7. The remaining aspects of the PUD, including but not
limited to employee housing, are to be resolved during the
amendment process.
8. Any hotel project submitted by the applicant regarding
the Aspen Mountain PUD shall not expand in size or
development beyond the above parameters.
Section 2
C •
The applicant may, at its own risk and - subject to the
foregoing, excavate in accordance with the excavation permit
issued by the City. of Aspen Building Inspector on April 15, 1988,
provided that the applicant comply with all financial assurances
with regard to excavation as set forth in those escrow
instructions dated as of April 14, 1988, between the applicant
and the Finance Department of the City of Aspen, which
instructions are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3
Based on the aforementioned representations, commitments,
and agreements made on behalf of applicant, the applicant is
hereby authorized to process amendments and submit plans
sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the 700
South Galena . Street portion of the project, for a period not to
exceed thirty (30) days from March 1, 1988, specifically, March
31, 1988.
Section 4
The authorization granted by this Resolution shall only take _
effect after this Resolution and the terms and conditions set
forth herein are acknowledged by the applicant in the space
~ provided below, and after all lienholders on the subject parcel
have likewise acknowledged and agreed to the terms of this
Resolution. Further, the provisions hereof shall run with and
constitute a burden upon the title to the subject property and
C.
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the applicant
and applicant's, representatives, successors and assigns.
Dated: :. •-z /'i , 1988 .
William L. Stirling, Mayo
The foregoin is acknowledged and
agree to b Savanah Limited Partnership.1(244-'
S nah Limi Partnership ,
1001, Inc. , District of Columbia
corporation, by Mohamed Hadid, President
NOTARY ON FOLLOWING PAGE
-7-
COUNTY OF F•AtR:P1&x
C STATE OF VIRgIWIA ss.
The foregoing instrument was a nowledged before me in
�a County, State of a c�, this.
day of May, 1988 by A r, , �► , ."SA arlah, ''
Limi ed Partnership. ;
My commission expires: -k S LICLI ►'' ''; �� •s
Witness my hand and seal.
Notary Public
-8-
CI, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy' of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held 1988.
Kathryn S.V Koch, C ty Clerk
CONSENT OF MORTGAGEE
Mar ' ac Investment. Inc. , a Delaware corporation, the
beneficiary of a deed of trust recorded in Book 549 of Pages 371,
et seg of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records
C• encumbering inter alia, Lots 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5 of the Aspen
Mountain Subdivision according to the plat thereof recorded in
Plat Book 17 at Pages 99, et seg of the aforesaid records, hereby
consents to the terms of the within and foregoing resolution.
Mar ac Investments, Inc. ,
a Delaware Corporation
♦
By: CI
NOTARY ON FOLLOWING PAGE
-9-
1 '
COUNTY OF
ss. '
STATE OF V1Pgjj A-
—The foregoing instrument was ac owledged before me in
County, State of VN4Gl._ this
23 day of May, 1988 , by Dr. M VA43urk M A ,
of Marjac Investments, Inc. , a Delaware corporation. ,,..••. ��:��;,,�,,
Witness my hand and seal.
My commission expires:
f
Notary Public
-10-
i'
r'.
,
Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 38
1 STIRLING That change then, do I hear a motion to make that
2 change, Perry?
3 HARVEY There's one other in there and that is I 'd like it made
4 clear, lot 5 which is phase two goes from Durant all
5 the way up. And we have separated off the area from
6 Durant and Dean and Mill and Galena as this open space
7 community activity so I 'd like to make it clear that
8 the FAR of 115, 000 in the hotel and the residents is on
9 that portion of lot 5 south of Dean street.
10 HUGHES It's not on the park site.
11 HARVEY So that it just splits that out
12 FALLIN From Dean to
13 HARVEY There's nothing up there, the Alpenblick or whatever,
14 as far as the property goes, so if we can say on that
15 portion of the property south of Dean street.
16 TADDUNE We can put a comma and say "excluding any FAR on the
17 park site"
18 HARVEY No. Well because if the community deems that a commer-
19 cial building which has skate rental and food service
20 in it is appropriate there as we go through the
21 planning and zoning commission,
22 STIRLING It might have to compete
23 HARVEY it would, well, I have a letter addressing some of
24 these issues that I want to make you aware of on that
25 site that we want to work out with staff. It, you
26 know, I mean if it were, I 'm not clear on how that
Jv
Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 39
1 skating rink, community activity center is going to
2 work right now.
3 RICHMAN We're just trying to exclude it from that 115
4 HUGHES I think that probably works
5 STIRLING So after the parenthesis FAR, Alan, what would you say,
6 excluding
7 TADDUNE Exclusive of
8 STIRLING Exclusive of proposed park site or
9 ISAAC Parcel 5?
10 HARVEY Lot 5
11 STIRLING Exclusive of lot 5
12 HARVEY We have, Paul, I don't know whether you want to go
13 through this and change where we have phase one and
14 phase two to lot 1 and lot 5 so it corresponds to the
15 plat of the PUD. I mean there's language in the PUD
16 agreement talking about phase one and phase two, but
17 those correspond to lot 1 and lot 5 of the recorded
18 PUD, so as I went through here I kept saying do I want
19 to do lot 1 and 5 or do, am I comfortable with phase
20 one and phase two.
21 TADDUNE Well it's described as phase one and phase two
22 HARVEY On lot 1 and lot 5
23 WELLS Well, there's some confusing language on the plat
24 documents, Paul. I think you'd be better off using
25 lots rather than
26 HARVEY Perhaps Council could authorize you to
Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 40
1 HUGHES That would probably address Pat's concern better too,
2 that's more the legal description of the property
3 which you want these covenants to run against, so we
4 might want to call it lots 1
5 HARVEY Phase one and phase two were building considerations,
6 not legal
7 ANDERSON I would suggest that the Council should leave that to
8 the city attorney to work out.
9 TADDUNE Well, I think we' ll decide right now and say exclusive
10 of FAR on lot 5
11 STIRLING Okay
12 ??? The park's on lot 5
13 RICHMAN Lot 5 is the whole lot.
14 STIRLING Let's be sure we got the language there. It will read
15 now "maximum of 50 hotel rooms and residential units as
16 set forth in paragraph 6 below and no more than" or
17 what did we decide on there, what are you all most
18 comfortable with?
19 RICHMAN No more than
20 STIRLING "No ' more than 115,000 square feet 'of' countable- floor'",
21 area ratio exclusive of the park on lot 511.
22 RICHMAN Exclusive of the FAR which might built on the park on
23 lot 5
24 STIRLING Exclusive of the FAR that might be built on the parkT
25 on lot 5.`'
26 FALLIN Wait a minute. I just think in 10 years somebody could
Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 41
1 come back and not understand that that FAR to be built
2 on the park was for non-commercial and . . . that it
3 was for an accessory to a park.
4 HARVEY That's another issue, too, is non-commercial because it
5 may, as we go through this the city may say we want a
6 restaurant there and we want to be able to charge $2 to
7 skate the way you do at the Ice Garden, so non-commer-
8 cial, I think that by the deed restriction that we
9 give to the city on this, we can cover all of that in
10 that deed restriction.
11 STIRLING Alan?
12 RICHMAN I think it would be our hope that the issues which
13 Perry is going to raise and which we talked about a
14 little bit would be ironed out during the course of the
15 completion of this amendment process.
16 HARVEY Yes
17 RICHMAN They're going to be committed to building a park as
18 part of the work on the Ritz, as part of building the
19 Ritz, and so we're going to want to tie down all the
20 commitments. Your growth management plan now allows
21 for essential community facilities to be commercial.
22 We thought that that might apply to trains, it might
23 apply equally here. You might make the decision that
24 it doesn't. Those kinds of details, I don't think we
25 can decide tonight but should be decided before you
26 give any approvals.
Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 42
1 HARVEY We have a list
2 RICHMAN So we've got the mechanism to do that, I think, and we
3 would expect to resolve it in that time frame.
4 HARVEY Because it says in here that the park process of phase
5 one
6 RICHMAN It was intended to be
7 STIRLING Do I hear a motion to add that additional language in
8 number 2 page 2 and number 2 page 5,
9 ISAAC So moved
10 STIRLING Sorry, number 2 page 4 . Is there a second to that?
11 TUITE Second
12 STIRLING Further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye
13 Tuite, Isaac, Gassman, Fallin and Stirling say aye.
14 STIRLING Opposed? Alan, a question as regards to phase two and
15 maybe this question should come on number 6, but it's
16 related to both. What about the issue of deadlines
17 related to phase two? There's an overall PUD deadline,
18 which is what we dealt with on April 11th, which we've
19 had 6 or 7 of those in the process of this last 3
20 years. What is, how does the code speak to a deadline
21 in terms, are they opened ended so they that have
22 forever to build something on phase two? I mean, what
23 does the growth management plan, what meaning does the
24 growth management plan in terms of trying to stage
25 growth, trying to re-evaluate with the deadlines and
26 dealing with extensions if you don't address it
l l A N I ) MAR 1 51990
IA11
Ff oldings,
hx March 14, 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
I am writing regarding the submission for Lot 5 of the Aspen
Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development that we made in
November 1989. That submission, as you know, entails two
interrelated components, viz . , the so-called "Phase II" for
construction on that portion of Lot 5 lying to the south of
vacated Dean Street, and the so-called "ice rink and park"
proposed for that portion of Lot 5 lying to the north of vacated
Dean Street.
As you know, after exhaustive public negotiations between Savanah
and the City, the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit
Development/Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision was carefully worked out and confirms the development
area and bulk parameters for Lot 5 of the PUD. The area to the
north of vacated Dean Street, which is where the ice rink and
park will be constructed, carries with it under current zoning an
FAR of 42 ,000 square feet. The area on Lot 5 to the south of
vacated Dean Street, under current zoning, carries an FAR of
86,685 square feet. Hence, Lot 5, under current zoning, carries
a total FAR of 128,685 square feet. During the give and take
process that culminated in the Amended PUD Agreement, Savanah and
the City agreed that, notwithstanding the much larger FAR
permitted under current zoning, the portion of Lot 5 to the south
of vacated Dean Street would be limited to 115,000 square feet.
The FAR on the northern portion will be in addition to this
115,000 square feet.
Because the park and ice rink will be a community amenity, we and
the City are anxious to process that component of the submission
in the soonest possible time to allow for construction of the
park and ice rink this building season so that, it can be made
available for the Aspen community as soon asp
possible.
600 East Cooper Street S,lite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387
Ms. Amy Margerum
March 14 , 1990
Page Two
However, in order to get the park and ice rink underway, it is
going to be necessary to subdivide and to rezone that portion of
Lot 5 lying to the north of vacated Dean Street from CL and LT/R
to the Park Zone.
Needless to say, inasmuch as the FAR limits for Lot 5 have
already been set in the PUD Agreement, the subsequent change in
the underlying zoning of the northerly portion of Lot 5 would not
affect (up or down) the agreed upon limits for the development
activity on the southerly portion of Lot 5. Similarly, because
all of this is a part of an integrated PUD, the open space that
will result from the park activity on the northerly portion of
Lot 5 will support the development activity on the southerly
portion of the lot. And, any employee generation or parking
requirement for the ice rink and park will be analyzed as part of
the entire Lot 5 proposal .
While we know you understand and appreciate these features of PUD
review, it will be helpful if these review criteria are formally
incorporated into the staff memoranda that your office will be
generating for the Planning and Zoning Commission and then,
later, for City Council. That should conduce a much better
understanding of the process.
Finally, I would appreciate your formally advising me in writing
of your intended approach to the review so that I can assure the
owners of the wisdom of bifurcating the pending application so
that we can begin review of the ice rink and park (including
rezoning) immediately.
Assuming that you agree with this approach to the process and are
willing to give us the requested assurances please consider this
letter an addition to the submitted application making formal
request for subdivision of that portion of Lot 5 lying north of
the vacated Dean Street to create a new Lot 6 of the PUD, said
Lot 6 to be rezoned Park and be deed restricted, the deed
restriction to be formalized during the review process to limit
use of Lot 6 for a community activity center and public ice
skating rink.
Ms. Amy Margerum
March 14, 1990
Page Three
Regarding processing we understand that the proposed Lot 6 shall
be reviewed under a consolidated two step PUD process. The
balance of Lot 5 will be processed under a four step process with
a limited conceptual review by P&Z and Council and then final
review before both bodies. As indicated above, since development
and FAR parameters for this portion of Lot 5 have already been
established and agreed to in the PUD Agreement these will not be
reviewed anew and our assent to the biforcation of our pending
application is so conditioned.
Thank you for your consideration and I await confirmation from
you.
sincerely,
nA.%v�eey, Dire for
PAH/ght
lotsplt.pah
51990
II:1I )II �
�5pen
Iuc.
March 2 , 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
It is important to read the entire submission package to fully
understand the relationship between the northern and southern
portions of Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The applicant and the
City have agreed to expedite review of the park and ice rink
portion of the amendment.
Thus, particular attention should be paid to the following sections
of the application;
1. Pages 7-11
2. The GMP Evaluation Criteria should be considered as they relate
to the entire project. Emphasis is given to the fact that parking
is under the southern portion of Lot 5 and employee generation,
considering the removal of the Grand Aspen, is negative for the
entire project.
3 . Plans as shown on page 47, 50 - 53
4. Green space pages 60-61
5. The park, pages 79-80
6. Rezoning to park 81-85
7. Exemption from GMQ's procedures pages 86-88
600 East ('roper Street 5 :ite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 1303) 925-4272 FAX: (303)925-4387
Amy Margerum
March 2, 1990
Page Two
While the rink is being exempted from GMQS competition it will be
rescored as part of the entire Lot 5 Amendment.
I look forward to working with you and Leslie to achieve a smooth
processing of Lot 5 in two portions. I foresee that we will spend
April 3rd at P and Z reviewing the park in context with the entire
PUD Amendment for Lot 5. Please tell me if you want to notice the
rezoning for that meeting or for another. I feel if the park can
go forward from P and Z the northern portion of lot can be reviewed
by P and Z through subsequent meetings in April .
Please review this and let me know if we are on the same track in
the proper process.
Sincerely,
Perry Harvey, Director
Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
I IA I I)
:Nspen
Holdings,
I„c. December 27 , 1989
Honorable Mayor William Stirling
City Council Members
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mayor Stirling and City Council :
I am making a formal request of City Council to sponsor an
amendment to the official zone district map for the property known
as the Bavarian Inn and consisting of lots D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L,
M, N, O and P of Block 12 , City of Aspen. The request is being
made by Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. on behalf of Savanah Limited
which has a contractual interest in the property.
Currently the property has two zoning designations. Lots D, E, F,
G, H and I are zoned L-3 and lots K, L, M, N, O, and P are zoned
R-15. It is requested that the entire 36 ,000 square feet be
rezoned to the Affordable Housing zone with a PUD overlay to allow
for construction of affordable housing under the Aspen Housing
Authority guidelines for deed restricted housing.
We are making this request according to Section 7-1103 of the Aspen
Land Use Code. We are requesting that the City Council sponsor
this rezoning to expedite the process. Otherwise we would have to
wait until February 15, 1990 to submit the rezoning.
We feel that this rezoning is consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, will not overburden public services, is
consistent with the community character, that the parcel is
appropriate because of adjoining multi-family uses and that it
supports the public interest because of the community need for
affordable housing. f
Once Council agrees to sponsor this rezoning a site specific
development plan will be submitted to the Planning Office with a
request for processing of an abbreviated two step PUD process to
ensure that a rezoning occurs in the context of a specific plan
review.
.;L1 1'. i�i!.; ��.-,..., j.l,l . JI11 �5.=ii•I7 ( i.� r,l(Iu tili�]I ,3�1.; :125-1272 I'AX
Honorable Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council
December 28, 1989
Page Two
We request that this item be placed on the consent agenda for the
January 8th, 1990 City Council meeting with the conditions that the
rezoning be with site specific plan review under the two step PUD
process according to Section 7-903(3 ) .
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Perry Harvey, Director
Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
PH/ld
cc: Ms. Amy Margerum
Mr. Tom Baker
11A1)l1)
Aspen
Hol(ings,
Irlc. December 29, 1989
Ms. Amy Margerum
Director, City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
I copied you on my letter to the Council regarding
the rezoning of the Bavarian Inn to affordable
housing. In the letter I requested a two step
PUD process for the review. My intention at the
time was to give Council a comfort level on the
depth of the review process.
In discussion with Leslie I realized two things;
1) any variation I may want is covered in the
t affordable housing zoning for height, FAR, open
space and parking, and, 2) the rezoning process
requires a two step public hearing process. Thus
the PUD process will not create any greater public
scrutiny but would potentially allow for greater
variations in issues such as open space and
height.
Thus, if you concur, I would like planning to
recommend that Council sponsor the rezoning
conditional upon a specific development review in
conjunction with the two step public hearing
process of rezoning.
Call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
f/W f.
Perry Harvey, Director
Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
PH: ld
korth
Of elf' �
555 E. Durant - Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-1510 April 13, 1990
The Aspen Planning & Zonning Board
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Members:
I am employed by the North of Nell Condominium Association as their manager
and wish to express some concerns the North of Nell has in relation to the
proposed Ice Rink for the lots directly west of our building. I have read
the proposal and response provided by the planning staff, and have also attended
the initial meeting held on April 3rd where the proposal was presented and
discussed.
The initial reaction of most of our owners to the concept of an Ice Rink at
this site is positive. While they view it as having the potential to benefit
the neighborhood and Aspen, they also have some significant concerns about
noise, especially from Summer activities, particularly at night.
North of Nell has had a long history as the recipient of unwanted noise from
the Tippler and the former Little Nell establishments that has made us aware
that the noise abatement ordinance is woefully inadequate in both. substance
and the timely availability of enforcement to control noise pollution. Like
most buildings in Aspen, the North of Nell is not air-conditioned, and in order
to sleep in the Summer, one must crack the sliding glass doors to obtain air.
This allows sound to enter the building. We also have a problem in the Winter
in that the noise penetrates the building' s exterior walls and glazing to such
an extent that the new Little Nell Hotel (according to General Manager Eric
Calderon) is significantly bothered by noise from the Tippler. The primary
weakness in the existing noise abatement ordinance is that it does not address
the ability of the bass notes to penetrate buildingsat decibel levels of 55
or lower. In case you are wondering what all this has to do with an Ice Rink,
please bear with me.
-2-
In reading and listening to the Hadid proposal, it is apparent that the
potential for noise pollution to the neighborhood is significant. With
the proper controls and limitations on usage, however, we feel this is a
manageable problem. Specifically we would ask that the following types of
controls and limitations be made a part of the approval for the use and
re-zoning to "Park".
Limitations:
Rock Concerts and other types of Concerts using amplified music (prohibited).
Outside speakers or public address systems restricted to levels acceptable to
immediate neighbors.
Hours of operation (as a. Park-type facility) 10:00 a.m, to 9:00 p.m.
Controls:
Special Events should be subject to approval via a permit review process much
as current events in Wagner Park. Use and control of the park should be in the
hands of the City of Aspen.
The North of Nell would like to see sound level monitoring/measuring equipment
permanently installed on the North of Nell building which would objectively
record noise levels for use by the Aspen Police or others.
In summary, we like the concept of an Ice Rink, but would ask that sufficient
controls and limitations be agreed on now to limit conflict later. We fully
realize that we are in a mixed use neighborhood, but that does not give one
use the right to significantly deprive another use of its rights. Incidentally,
the possible argument/rationalization that the replacement for the Grand Aspen
Hotel will be as close to the Rink as the North of Nell (from a sound standpoint)
is not relevant inasmuch as it will (or can be) built with air-conditioning and
superior sound insulation permitted by new construction. The North of Nell has
not sat on their hands in dealing with the sound problem inasmuch as they have
installed over 45 additional sliding glass door units (at considerable expense)
specifically to fight the neighborhood noise. It certainly would appear that
this is the time to restrict the potential for future conflict and we would ask
that you do your very best to accomplish that. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
C \ ti
_ t
Donald B. Helmich
Manager
cc: Board of Managers
Aspen City Council, Planning Staff
Maria Middelberg
69 Harney RD.
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Scarsdale
Att . Mr . Welton Anderson , Chairman New York 10583
1 3 0 S . Galena Telephone (914) 472-4730
ASPEN, Col . 81611
3-26-90 HM/m
Re . Savannah Application represented by Hadid Aspen Holdings ,
Inc .
Public Hearing 4-3-90 :
Dear Chairman Anderson .
I will not be able to attend the Public Hearing, notice of which
was mailed to me by Hadid Aspen Holdings , Inc .
However, I had the opportunity to review the development plans
and like to express my full support for this application in
particular and the entire development proposed by the Hadid
Organisation around Durant- S . Galena- and S . Mill-Streets in
general as filed with the zoning commission and the building
department .
I grately appreciate your expediting all necessary procedures the
developer has to go through to build and finish as soon as
possible all the projects :
The Ritz Carlton and the Grand Aspen Hotels , the Ice Rink
and the other residential projects at the end of S . Mill Street .
Fellow owners of the Alpenblick Townhouse Condominium and myself
are exited about the development around cur homes in Aspen and
are locking forward to see the projects finished as soon as
possible .
Very Truly Yours ,
t
1
Maria B . Middelberg
Owner of Alpenblick #2
South Mill Street
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Electric Department
Environmental Health Department
Parks Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Housing Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Ice Rink and Park
DATE: March 2, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Hadid Aspen Holdings for Phase Two of the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision/PUD.
At this time only the Ice Rink and Park are going to be reviewed.
Please review this material and return your comments on the Ice
Rink and Park to me no later than March 19, 1990. Please keep
this application on file in order to review the rest of the Phase
II project in the future. Thank you.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION/PUD REZONING, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 5
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, June 25, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 pm before
the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena
Street, Aspen to consider an application submitted by Savanah
Limited Partnership represented by Hadid Aspen Holding, Inc.
requesting rezoning, PUD review and subdivision consistent with
Aspen mountain Subdivision Planned Unit Development, First
Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision Acfreement, Aspen Mountain
Subdivision. The applicant requests approval to subdivide Lot 5
to create a new Lot 6 on which a park will be created containing
an ice rink with skate rental, locker rooms and pro-shop and food
service. In order to accomplish this the applicant requests PUD
Review and Rezoning from Commercial Lodge "CL" and Lodge/Tourist
Residential "L/TR" to Park "P" for that portion of Lot 5 to be
subdivided (Lots A-I, Block 91, Township of Aspen) and GMQS
Exemption for Construction of an Essential Public Facility. The
property to be rezoned to Park is located between Dean Street and
Durant Avenue with Galena Street on the east and contains
approximately 27, 000 square feet.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, 920-5090.
s/William L. Stirling, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in The Aspen Times on June 7, 1990.
City of Aspen Account.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION/PUD REZONING, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 5.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 3 , 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted
by Savanah Limited Partnership represented by Hadid Aspen
Holdings, Inc. requesting rezoning, PUD review and subdivision
consistent with Aspen Mountain Subdivision Planned Unit
Development, First Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision
Agreement, Aspen Mountain Subdivision. The applicant requests
approval to subdivide Lot 5 to create a new Lot 6 on which a park
will be created containing an ice rink with skate rental and
locker rooms. In order to accomplish this the applicant requests
Consolidated PUD Review and Rezoning from Commercial Lodge "CL"
and Lodge/Tourist Residential "L/TR" to Park "P" for that portion
of Lot 5 to be subdivided (Lots A-I, Block 91, Township of Aspen)
and GMQS Exemption for Construction of an Essential Public
Facility. The property to be rezoning to Park is located between
Dean Street and Durant Avenue with Galena Street on the east and
contains approximately 27, 000 square feet.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, 920-5090.
s/C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
w
Published in The Aspen Times on March 15, 1990
City of Aspen Account.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
March 14, 1990
Joe Wells
130 Midland Avenue, F2
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Ice Rink and Park
Dear Joe,
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on April 3,
1990 at a meeting to begin at 4: 30 pm. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to your application is available at the Planning
Office.
Enclosed is a copy of the public notice to be sent to property
owners within 300' of the subject property.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont or Tom
Baker.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
June 21, 1989
Joe Wells
130 Midland Park Place F-2
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision GMQS Amendment & PUD
Submission for Lot 5
Dear Joe,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application is not complete and we are
unable to schedule it for review at this time.
Following is a list of the items we require to complete the
application:
1. 21 copies of the application package;
2 . 9 copies of the plans;
3 . Referral fees:
Housing $125. 00
Engineering 200. 00
$325. 00
If you have any questions please call, Alan Richman. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
ds
A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Bill Drueding, City Zoning Enforcemen ce
DATE: February 8, 1990
RE: Meeting with Anna Goodrich/
Hadid's Ute City Place Project
At 10: 00 am, February 7, 1990, I met with Anna Goodrich. We
discussed this project and I advised her I still needed the
following:
1) FAR calculations
2) A graphic of their open space
3) A solution to the stairway setback encroachment on the West
side of the building
4) An encroachment solution to the steps on Cooper Street on
city property
5) A solution to the building exceeding the 28 foot height
requirement
6) Proof of an application for a driveway cut on Highway 82 to
the Department of Highways
7) Signed survey and topo
She presented to me: .
1) Copies (4 pages) (Recorded Book 17 Page 95-98) Ute city
Place Final Plat
2) A copy of "Dedication of Real Property to Employee Housing
Restrictions and Guidelines" (Ute City Place) Book 574 Page
861
We discussed what subdivision or rules we were going by. She
said she would get back to me with clarifications.
Coe, �h
X
DOMMUs&weLLs
an association of land planners
August 21, 1989
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
My letter is to follow up on the June 29 meeting at the Planning
Office which was attended by Leslie Lamont, Tom Baker, Perry
Harvey, yourself and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the GMQS and PUD Amendment Submission for Lot 5 filed on
June 3, 1989 . We were seeking clarification regarding some
aspects of our submission ; you suggested that we request a
written response on some of these issues.
Under the Initial PUD Agreement and Plat (as discussed on pages 1
and 2 of the First Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision
Agreement) , approval was granted to the "Initial Project" of five
lots. Specific development approvals were granted for Lot 5 as
set forth in that Agreement and on the Plat drawings.
The First Amended Plat focused for the most part on three of the
projects within the Aspen Mountain PUD for which amendments had
been approved; these projects are on Lots 1, 2 and 4. The prior
approvals for Lot 5 were nonetheless further limited under the
First Amended PUD Agreement to reflect concessions made by the
Applicant during the review of the Ritz project. The exact
number of units, square footage, uses, employee housing, parking
and other improvements were to be established in the amended
review process for Lot 5.
The first issue that we felt needed to be clarified is what
constitutes the project for Lot 5 which is the subject of the
amendment. You will recall that you instructed the applicant to
no longer show the project originally approved for Lot 5 on the
drawings to be recorded as the First Amended and Restated Plat.
608 east hyman avenue o aspen,colorado 81611 o telephone:303 925-6866
Mr. Alan Richman
August 21, 1989
Page Two
Your reasoning was not illogical ; the applicant had already
conceded to the City that the project to be built on Lot 5 would
be a predominantly residential project, contain less FAR square
footage and be configured differently to accommodate a larger ice
rink. To re-record drawings of the previously approved project
would have been inconsistent with those concessions.
Since it is apparent from the First Amended PUD Agreement,
however, that the City intended that the development proposal for
Lot 5 should be reviewed as an amendment, then it seems clear
that the project must still be treated as an amendment of the
Phase II hotel as described in the Initial PUD Agreement and
Plat.
The second confirmation we were seeking in our meeting had to do
with which City regulations are to be applied to the review of
the amendment for Lot 5. As you know, througout the review
process for the PUD there has been a stronger inter-relationship
between the proposals for Lots 1 and 5 than for the other lots;
most recently, the applicant' s concessions with regard to how Lot
5 would be developed were instrumental in achieving the approvals
for the Lot 1 amendments.
Given these inter-relationships, we believe the intent of the
parties was clearly spelled out in the First Amended and Restated
PUD Agreement, Section 0, General Provisions :
3. Applicable Law
if . inasmuch as review of the planned unit development
amendment contemplated herein was initiated prior to May 25,
1988 , the effective date of substantial revisions to Chapter
24 of the Municipal Code, all reference herein to the Muni-
cipal Code or to particular sections thereof shall be deemed
to refer to the Code or, as the case may be, to sections
thereof in effect on May 24, 1988 , except to the extent that
subsequent changes to the Municipal Code or sections thereof
have herein been made expressly applicable to the First
Amended PUD . . .
7. Survival
"Each of the obligations, commitments and representations
made herein by the Owner and the City, including as to the
processing and completion of further review for the
L__ 11
Mr. Alan Richman
August 21, 1989
Page Three
components of the Project that have yet to receive final
approval, and the parameters of development activity
contemplated herein for such Project components, shall
survive the execution hereof and the enactment of subsequent
legislation initated by the City in any manner inconsistent
with such obligations, commitments and representations. "
The following code changes which have been adopted subsequent to
May 24, 1988 come to mind as being inconsistent with the intent
of the terms established in the PUD Agreement for the Aspen
Mountain PUD/Subdivision. I' m sure there are others but these
are some of the more obvious:
1. Under the Code adopted May 24, 1988 the standards by which
PUD, Subdivision and GMQS amendment proposals are reviewed
were changed. These changed requirements narrow dramatical-
ly the City' s flexibility to review such proposals.
2 . Application of changes in the open space definition would
cause much of the area which was previously counted as open
space to not be eligible. For instance, the ice rink area
has been lowered to improve the design ; much of this area
would not count in open space calculations under the new
definition, however.
3. Under the provisions of Ordinance 47/88 , when multi-family
units are demolished, applicants are now required to
restrict 50% of the total number of units (but no more than
the existing number) and 25% of the bedrooms as affordable
housing.
As you know, the affordable housing to be provided for the
existing units within the Aspen Mountain PUD was established
in the Initial PUD Agreement and reaffirmed in the First
Amended and Restated PUD Agreement. The applicant is on
record as having requested a clarification on this matter
prior to the adoption of Ordinance 47.
The multi-family units on the northern part of Lot 5 must be
demolished in order to build the Ice Rink, which the
applicant committed to complete prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton. This
commitment was made assuming that no subsequent code
amendment would affect the viability of such commitment.
Iwo
Mr. Alan Richman
August 21, 1989
Page Four
Finally, you agreed that the applicant' s ability to tranfer to
Lot 5 the 8 Residential GMQS units originally awarded for Lot 1
is not really an issue. Although the total residential unit
count for the PUD as described in the First Amended and Restated
Agreement suggests that the 8 units are still available, I was
concerned that there was no specific language verifying that fact
in the Agreement.
Please let me -know if you need additional -information in order -to- - - -
respond to these issues. We would like to revise our submission
as necessary so that we can provide the additional information
requested in your June 21, 1989 letter and proceed in the review
process.
Sincerely,
;eph Wells, AICP
JW/b
cc: Tom Baker
Leslie Lamont
John Sarpa
Perry Harvey
Robert Hughes, Esq.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director F �
RE: Not Initiating Rezoning of Aspen Mountain PUD
DATE: March 27, 1989
Attached is a letter from Perry Harvey, on behalf of Hadid Aspen
Holdings. Perry reminds us that the adopted first amended PUD
Agreement for the Aspen Mountain PUD provides the City with the
right to initiate rezoning to Park of the lot proposed for the
ice rink if an application is not submitted for this development
by April 1.
Perry informs us that the application for the ice rink and Hotel
Phase II is in preparation and should be submitted by April 20.
I recommend that we give the applicant until May 1 to submit this
application. If an application is not received by this date,
consideration should again be given to initiating the rezoning by
the City.
f I1� 1)f I)
lilt-,
March 22 , 1989
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Director
City Of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan:
This letter will confirm our phone conversation
regarding the April 1st date for submission of the
plan for the ice rink and Phase II development.
The PUD states that if we do not submit by April
1st, the City may proceed with rezoning of the ice
rink to Park on our behalf .
I am currently assembling the submission for Phase
II and the ice rink and expect to submit around
the 20th of April . I would hope, given your
currently busy schedule, that the City Council
would wait for the submission. As part of the
submission we intend to request a rezoning of this
parcel to Park as outlined in the First Amended
PUD Agreement.
Please contact me if you need further information.
Sincerely,
/7 7 I-IV47
Perry Harvey, Director
Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
i
PAH/ld
j
i
i
�iuu l;aa ( n,�srr tiUcet tiuit, 200 A,pen ('ul()1':ul,, 'iIfiI I (:3U:3, 925 1272 FAX :30:: ) 925-1:3 7