The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain Lodge Commercial.025A-84 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen CASE NO. D ZSA-8y STAFF: PROJECT NAME: ((�/,D oc ��—A—° ` L APPLICANT: GC. a �d1j Ge: a-7/-3aG 2 siz) �0 21 Yb Z-b 8/! /�-"� S i 2 f�Z2-0 200 REPRESENTATIVE: Q Lei 09�,� 9^�i�1A-rte Phone TYPE OF APPLICATION: (FEE) I. GMP SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) / 1. Conceptual Submission ($2,730.00) ✓ 2. Preliminary Plat ($1,640.00) 3. Final Plat ($ 820.00) II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00) 2. Preliminary Plat ($1,220.00) 3. Final Plat ($ 820.00) III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) ($1,490.00) IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680.00) 1. Special Review 2. Use Determination 3. Conditional Use 4. Other: P&Z MEETING DATE:C1y.-\`� CC MEETING DATE: _ DATE REFERRED: REFERRALS: / N/--City N Attorney v Aspen Consol. S.D. School District \ City Engineer Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas 7 7Housing Director Parks Dept. State- Hwy Dept. (Glenwood) Aspen Water Dept. Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn. City Electric Fire Marshall Building Dept. Environmental Hlth. Fire Chief Other: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ✓ City Attorney City Engineer Building Dept. Other: Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ai DISPOSITION: CITY P&Z REVIEW: 1'�� . !� T d,-I.� +'.'� —( ( J/� ! 4 A-1 "A o 4, CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: � c Ordinanee- No. CITY P&Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. CITY P&Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: • Ordinance No. 1. The Applicants ' entering into an agreement for the acquisition from the City of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 , 11, -� 12, 14 and 15, 'Capitol Hill Addition, containing approximately 20 ,860 square feet of land, in exchange for (a) approximately 21 ,084 square feet of the "Koch Lumber" property comprised of the entire Colorado Midland Railroad Right-of-Way located thereon and e \J partial Lots 13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1 , and (b) the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civic Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allega- tions set forth therein. / i im` , �j 5 IV ITr 19. The Applicants con su�n�ation1of their offer to donate to the City the remaining 40 ,931 square feet of land in the Koch Lumber property ( ie. that portion not involved in the land exchange described in Condition No. 1 above) , in the form of a Special Warranty Deed to be delivered to the City in recordable form imme- diately following the execution by the Applicants and the City of a Final Subdivision and P.U.D. Agreement for the hotel phase of the Aspen Mountain Subdivi- sion. r �Vo ASPEN LODGE, TOP OF MILL, 700 S. GALENA AND SUMMIT PLACE PARKING STUDY Prepared for: Doremus & Company March 30, 1984 Prepared by: Tai 316 Second Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 INTRODUCTION This report provides an analysis of the parking demand projected for the proposed Aspen Lodge and compares that demand to the supply required under Section 24-4.5 of the Aspen Municipal Code versus the PUD provisions in Section 24-8.17. The proposed parking demand is based on surveys of actual demand in Aspen and other ski areas as identified in recent surveys, interviews and on-site counts. PROJECT SETTING The proposed project is located in central Aspen, within one block of the downtown Mall and Aspen Mountain. The Aspen Lodge would be located on a site bounded by Durant on the north, Galena on the east, Monarch on the west and Juaniata on the south (see Site Plan). It is located astride Mill Street, which serves as a major pedestrian corridor between the Mall and 1,ift 1A and Little Nell . The 33-unit Top of Mill condominiums would be located at the southern end of Mill Street, just south of Summit Street. Summit Place, a 3- unit condominium, would be located between Snark and the Lodge. Another 12 condominium units would be located at 700 S. Galena Street. Because most of the retail , commercial and restaurant/bar establishments in Aspen are within walking distance of each other and Ajax Mountain, there is little need for a car to get around. Consequently, transit service plays an important role in providing access to central Aspen from outlying areas. Rubey Park, which is the transfer point for all city and county transit routes (they are in the process of being consolidated) , is directly across the street from the proposed Lodge site. Approximately two-thirds of all transit riders board or alight at the Rubey Park bus stop. Figure 1 shows the six transit routes that stop at Rubey Park. Approximately half as many visitors arrive by automobile during the ski season than during the rest of the year. The higher auto usage from late spring to fall reflects the fact that a higher percentage of visitors come to Aspen from out of state during the ski season versus a higher percentage of in-state visitors during the remainder of the year. In addition, snow, ice and unpredictable road conditions make traveling to Aspen by airplane or bus 1 I, p' { SPEN I. +..►i ASPEN MOUNTyAIN 1..n•. . � .1'. .• '� Y ..i'� fo A{heroll I � . `^\— �I,• �, �� M {i r� k, a b�.� "rug ASPEN 1 HIGHLANDS ;d 1AIX/W MOUNI AIN I MUS SCHOOL ........... r..... Vt11.y , ' w�� ♦�I'❑ v..a N udene. i �. �i'�.. ..�` ..n r..r r.wrr 'x:wiy.�.• ,—I+.rrrwr t �� C,I,k(:,.& MTN. { �o , ❑e 4.. .�to a VALLEY -� -� „ I��+i1au��Ei I� Il�u ItTml t�mt .� l= 10,; �t11 u Li Emn SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN r r.»cw"rr. u.cr 14 r1M. »I.M-1 M1111Ir1 • \ �"�� t, n"/rrll 41.r lr.. Irr.l..I r� MUSIC FESTIVAL SIVERKING """ n yrr NUIom Lek* tEKrr '."..'.�.r"I•nMrN ASPEN INSTITUTE SNOW13UNNY MTN. VALLEY----- Figure 1. - Tramit Routes SILVERKING ............•• HIGHLANDS 000000009 SNOWBUNNY MUSIC FESTIVAL"**" COUNTY ROUTES 161(111111 SKIERS SHUTTLE .'"". Sevrce: Aspen/Pitkin County Transit Dovelopment frpa are; D A more attractive during ski season. The commercial airline and bus schedules between Denver and Aspen reflect this pattern (see Table 1). Table 1 . AIR AND BUS SCHEDULES TO ASPEN Rocky Mtn Aspen Continental Airways Airways Trailways Winter Schedule 7 flights midweek 11 flights midweek M-TH 1 bus daily (Mid December daily daily Fri. 2 buses end-•of--April ) 11 flights on Sat. Every 1/2 hr from Sat. 4 buses 9 flights on Sun. 7 a.m. - 8 p.m. on .5/day* to Glenwood Sat. & Sun. .Springs'w/connections to.Aspen . Summer Schedules 5 flights daily 7 flights daily 1 bus/day (June-Labor Day) 5/day to Glenwood Springs w/connections to Aspen Spring and Fall 3 flights daily 3-4 flights daily 1 bus/day Schedules 5/day to Glenwood Springs w/connections to Aspen SOURCE: TDA Inc. Table 2 shows the mode of arrival for winter visitors (both in- and out- of-state) staying at lodges and compares it with similar figures for Steamboat and Vail . As the figures indicate, the percentage by automobile is considerably smaller for Aspen (47 percent) than for Steamboat (7 0 percent) or Vail (79 percent). Table 2. WINTER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO SKI AREA Aspen Vail Steamboat Private Car 33% 57% 56% Rental Car 14% 22 14% Scheduled Bus 4% 6% 5% Chartered Bus 10% 8% 10% Commercial Air 35% 2% 13% Private Air 3% -- 5% Express Bus from Stapleton -- 3% 11% Other 1% 2% 1% 3 SOURCE: .Reference 1 PROJECT DEFINITION The PUD plan has four projects: the Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill Condominiums, Summit Place Condominiums and 700 S. Galena Condominiums. Table 3, below, shows the specific development program for these projects. This development program will replace approximately an existing 277 lodge and 40 residential units. Table 3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Aspen Lodge 447 1BR Lodge Units 6 PR Residential Units Food & Beverage Retail Conference Health Club Subtotal 453 units Top of Mill Condominiums 33 units @ 4 Bedrooms each 700 S. Galena Condominiums 3 units @ 1 Bedroom each 6 units @ 2 Bedrooms each 3 units @ 3 Bedrooms each Summit Place 3 units @ 2 Bedrooms each Subtotal 48 units TOTAL 501 units SOURCE: Doremus & Company MARKET PROJECTIONS Table 4 shows the preliminary projections of peak monthly occupancies for the Lodge and Condominiums. A letter by Laventhol & Horwath (see page in Appendix ), shows Aspen Lodge peak month occupancies in the fifth year. Peak Condominium use is based on a survey made by TDA (November 1983) of condominium managers in Aspen. 4 Table 4. PEAK MONTH AVERAGE OCCUPANCIES Lodge Condominiums Winter: 88% 100% Summer: 90% 80% As a result of the conference facility, Aspen Lodge will attract large groups that presently cannot be accommodated in Aspen. Because the majority of conference attendees can be expected to use group packages that include hotel and travel arrangements, most of them will arrive in Aspen by airplane or bus. The relatively high summer occupancies are based on attraction of national groups of 60-65 percent of the Lodge's market. For winter, the market would be 40-45 percent group business with the marketing emphasis placed-on larger, more affluent groups than can be served currently. The marketing plan will focus on groups that will also use the Lodge facilities. However, an infrequent local event may use the facilities that attract day visitors or in-state residents. Often, in-state residents are more aware of the accommodations available in Aspen and thus shop around for a lodge or condominium that is cheaper or most responsive to their needs. Approximately 40-50 percent of the condominiums would be offered for short-term rentals by their owners for about 140 days per year (primarily in season). At least ten of the Top of Mill condominiums will probably be used solely as a residence for the owners and their guests. PARKING REQUIREMENTS The Aspen Municipal code (Section 24-4.5) requires one parking space per bedroom in zones L-I and L-2. A portion of the property fronting on Durant is in a C-L zone, for which there is no parking requirement. The retail , and food and beverage activities would be treated as accessory and not require additional parking. 5 The PUD provision (Section 24-8.17) of the Aspen Municipal Code states that in the presence of the following factors, the number of off-street parking spaces required can be modified upon review: a) The probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses c) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. d) Available public transit and other transportation facilities to be supplied by the applicant; and e) The proximity of the PUD to the commercial core or recreational facilities of the city. These provisions allow the proposed pro,i the code_ requirements pertaining to off-street parking. The demand estimates are based on the peak days of the winter and summer seasons when lodge occupany is assumed at 88 percent in winter and 90 percent in summer. Because these peak occupancy days will occur infrequently (less than 20 percent of the year), much of the parking supplied to meet the projected peak demand will remain unused most of the year. Therefore, the proposed supply does not provide, nor does it need, a "cushion" above projected peak demand. In fact, during most of the peak seasons, supply will provide a 10 to 20 percent cushion above average demand. To accommodate the peak demand with a supply closer to the average demand, specific temporary measures such as valet parking and shuttles to an additional parking supply would be implemented during peak periods. For winter, parking demand rate was determined to be .55 spaces/bedroom for lodge accommodations. The proposed project would have a maximum of 447 bedrooms demanding 216 parking spaces at peak occupany (88%). This was based on the following considerations: • A 1984 survey conducted by TDA, Inc. (on 5 separate days) of guest parking demand and parking utilization counts at 10 Lodges in Aspen (560 bedrooms) showed a parking demand rate of .5 spaces/bedroom. 6 This data was collected during one of the busiest weeks of the ski season (2/20-2/27) when participating lodges were at 959E occupany. (Reference 2) • A detailed peak season survey of parking demand in Steamboat_Springs was conducted in 1980 by TDA, Inc. This survey showed Lodge parking demand ranged from .58 to 1.2 spaces/bedroom. When this mean (.89) is adjusted to reflect Steamboat's higher dependence on the automobile, the demand rate is .6 spaces/lodge bedroom. (Reference 3) • The Vail parking requirement calls for .85 spaces/450 sf lodge room and .67 spaces/1BR lodge suite. When these requirements are adjusted to reflect the higher non-auto arrival mode in Aspen, the mean is .59 spaces/lodge bedroom. (Reference 4) Aspen is a premier destination resort. Table 2 indicates that relative to other major Colorado destination ski areas, !aspen has the lowest percentage of automobile access. (Reference 5) An industry "rule of thumb" of 0.6 spaces per bedroom for lodges. • A projected 40-45 percent group bookings for Aspen Lodge (Reference 6) • Aspen Mountain and the Mall are just one block away from the proposed site and the transfer center for 6 transit routes is directly across the street. Consequently the site is in the optimum location for minimizing the need for an automboile while staying at the lodge. Summer demand was estimated at 0.66 spaces per bedroom during peak occupancy of 90%. This was based on the following considerations: 60-65 percent group bookings for the summer season, oriented toward the Lodge's capacity for large conferences unique to Aspen. • For the group business, travel behavior is assumed to be similar to winter visitors. . For non-group business, use of automobiles by 95 percent of visitors. ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR PARKING Table 5 compares the code requirements with projected peak demand. 7 Demand estimates are generally less than code requirements. Table 5. PROJECTED PARKING DEMAND COMPARED TO CODE REQUIRLMENTS SPACES Code Projected Peak Demand Proposed Requ"t7c'em-ent infe—r -Summer Aspen Lodge Guest Rooms 447 216 265 280 Restaurants 0 15 15 15 Conference Facility 0 20 20 20 Retail , Health Club 0 0 Employee (on-site) 0 10 10 10 Residential 24 12 12 12 Truck loading berths 0 5 5 5 Guest loading berths 0 0 0 11 Subtotal 471 278 327 353 700 S. Galena 24 15 13 40 Top of Mill 132 66 53 80 Summit Place 6 3 3 6 Subtotal 162 84 69 126 TOTAL 633 362 396 479 *None required in CL zone. Figure shown is for L-1, L-2 zones. SOURCE: Aspen Municipal Code, TDA Inc. Aspen Lodge. Demand estimates recognize the nature of Aspen Lodge, its expected market and its unique location. The Aspen Lodge is in the commercial core of Aspen, adjacent to the Rubey Park transit stop, at the base of Ajax Mountain, and within walking distance of Lifts 1A and Little Nell. Food and Beverage. The 15 space estimate was based on joint use considerations- including: 8 . Between 50-100 percent of restaurant customers are also Lodge residents (based on Reference 7) • An average of 32 square feet per seat. (Reference 8) • Because of the location, only 30 percent of off-site customers would drive. • A small number of spaces (about 10) would be made available by Lodge guests driving elsewhere. Conference Facility. The 20 space estimate was based on consideration of: . 80-100 percent of those attending conferences would be housed on-site. (Reference 9) . Of those not housed on-site, about half would be housed within walking distance; most of the remainder would arrive by car. . One conference attendee per 40 square feet of conference space. (Reference 10) • 35 percent of the attendees staying at other lodges or condominiums will arrive by auto. The marketing plan for the Aspen Lodge will emphasize conferences where attendees will stay in Aspen. Should there be a locally oriented event with primarily in-state day visitors, there would be additional demand for parking. The additional demand would be satisfied with shuttles to off-site parking and valet service providng approximately another 40-80 spaces by stacking in the garage. Retail . The retail space was assumed to be oriented entirely to Lodge residents or those within walking distance. Health Club. This facility will be used exclusively by Lodge residents. Employees. A maximum of 10 parking spaces will be provided on-site for employees who would be under an unusual hardship if they had to park in remote spaces. Employee parking supply is based on the following: • The Aspen Lodge will have a policy stating that unless so authorized no employees can bring their cars to work during identified peak 9 periods. Enforcement will include employer- reprimand, ticketing Or towing for any employee vehicle that violates the policy. • The Aspen Lodge will provide shuttle service for employees coming from Down Valley locations. • All Aspen Lodge-sponsored employee housing will either be located within walking distance of the Lodge or be provided with shuttle service to the Lodge. • Employees will be able to park on-site during at least 80 percent of the year. • During the peak periods when only 10 employee spaces will be provided, the Aspen Lodge will reserve available parking in a remote lot for their employees and shuttle them to work. Residential . Parking demend for the six residential lodge. units was est.ir1ated at 2 spaces/unit for the same reasons as those identified for condominiums. As a result 12 spaces will be supplied for these units. Loading Zones. The Aspen Municipal Code does not require any loading or service vehicle parking, but the Master Plan submission requirements state that this demand must be addressed. At build-out, the Aspen Lodge will require a total of 5 truck loading berths. In addition, the hotel main entrance provides loading space for 6 vehicles and the conference entrance provides loading space for 5 vehicles. Condominiums. Parking demand estimates are based on a conservative projection of 100 percent occupancy in the peak winter months and 8G percent occupancy during the peak summer months. Supply is expected to provide a 33 percent cushion during the peak season. Parking demand was estimated to be 1.0 spaces/one or two bedroom dwelling unit and 2.0 spaces/3 or 4 bedroom dwelling unit. The 84 space estimate of demand was based on the following considerations: • A 1984' TDA Inc. survey of parking at 10 condominium (on five separate days during a peak winter week) developments in the vicinity of the 10 proposed Aspen Lodge site, showed that condominiums generate demand for only .68 spaces/condominium unit in the winter. (Reference 11) • A 1979 survey of 753 condominium units (1,326 bedrooms) in Snowmass West Village showed a parking demand rate of 1 space/uni.t or .52 spaces/bedroom. (Reference 12) A 1980 parking study in Keystone conducted by Summit County, showed the condominium demand for parking as 1.2 spaces/unit if the condominium was located within a mile of the moutain and an average of 2 spaces/unit if located over a mile from the mountain. (Reference 13) • A 1977-78 Copper Mountain survey (during Christmas-New Years week) of actual parking demand showed that at the rate of 2 spaces/condominium unit, 1 space/lodge unit and .5 spaces/employee unit, only 61 percent; of uncovered spaces were occupies: and 79 percent; of the covered spaces were occupied. This overstatement of demand resulted in a 25-30 percent over supply of parking. based on this study, condominium units are now required to supply parking at the rate of 1 .5 spaces/unit. (Reference 14) • . Table 6 summarizes a comparison of residential parking requirements at Colorao ski communities. The proposed 126 spaces for the three condominium complexes would exceed all but the Aspen code requirements. The Summit Place and 700 S. Galena condominiums would satisfy or surpass Aspen's parking requirements. It is only the Top of Mill units that are estimated to generate considerably less parking demand than the City provides for. in its zoning code. All 33 Top of Mill units will have four bedrooms. These units generally would not attract four separate vehicles because they would not be lockoffs.. • A TDA (November 1983) survey of condominium managers in Aspen identified a demand for 1.25 spaces/unit in the winter and 1.5 spaces/unit in the summer (Reference 15). Parking Summar Peak season parking demands can be met with 327 Lodge spaces and 84 11 Table 6. COMPARISON OF COLORADO SKI COMMUNITIES PARKING REQUIREMENTS SNOWMASS VA IL BRECKENRIDGE COPPER MTN KEYSTONE STEAMBOAT ASPEN Parking Requirements 1-Br - .75/du 0.5/du plus 2/Single 1 .5/du 1 .25/du ' 2/du rental 1/Bedroom 2-Br - 1/du .1 space per 1 .5/duplex 2/du with 1 mile .5/du. owner 3-Br - 1 .25/du each 100 sf 1 .5+.5 lock- 2 lockoff from Mtn occupied 4-Br - 1 .50/du up to 2/du off on multi- 2/du 1 family mile from Mtn N condominium spaces; however 479 parking spaces are included in the total supply for the proposed project. These are based on the conservative application of experience elsewhere to the special characteristics of -Aspen and of this project. The results show that, under a PUD designation, a 154 space reduction from zoning code requirements can be justified. MEASURES TO REDUCE PARKING DEMAND The Aspen Lodge and three cndominium projects will make the following provisions to minimize auto travel and parking demand. These are a combination of disincentives for using an automobile and incentives to use transit or walk. 1. Provide a total of four courtesy vans for connection to the airport, evening trips for off-site restaurants and transportation to. other ski areas. 2. Valet parking will be employed at the Aspen Lodge all hours during the peak winter and summer months. This will provide more efficient use of the parking areas and a psychological disincentive to moving a car once it is parked. Whenever Parking demand exceeds suppjy, the valet pa rkin will stack cars in the garage, thereby adding another 40-80 spaces. 3. During peak periods, parking reservations will be made at the same time as lodging reservations. This will help provide planning for peak periods. 4. Aspen Lodge and all three Condominium brochures and reservations packets will provide information on availability of courtesy vans for airport connections and other trips, as well as information about Aspen's free bus service 5. Because a relatively large conference facility is not currently available in Aspen, Lodge marketing will emphasize large groups package tours, particularly in the summer. Special fare arrangements for large groups will discourage arrival in Aspen U.1, car. 6. The Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 S. Galena 13 Condominiums will take a lead io moving the Lodge district- improvement program forward and encourage the early formation of the financing district. The Aspen Lodge will develop its facilities (lighting, sidewalks, crosswalks, street furniture) in conjunction with that improvement program. 7. The previously described pedestrian facilities will encourage walking and transit travel. 8. The proposed project will agree not to protest an assessment for improvements to Rubey Park and construction of a Transit Center assuming costs are distributed euqitably among beneficiaries. 9. Whenever valet service is not being implemented, guests' vehicles will be tagged and the garage monitored to control unauthorized parkers from competing with guests for the parking supplY. 10. A policy will be enforced stati;jtg thLA employees cannot bring vehicles to work during periods identified as having peak parking demand. Violation of this policy by unauthorized employees will result in an employee reprimand, ticketing and/or towing. 11. Employees will be able to park on-site during the non-peak periods if experience shows that spaces are available. Transit passes will be purchased for any employees who want to encourage their use of transit for commuting to work. 12. All Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 S. Galena sponsored employee housing will be located within walking distance of the hotel or provided with shuttle service to get employees to work. If experience determines that peak parking demand exceeds on-site supply, the Aspen Lodge and Top of Mill Condominiums will agree to the following additional measures: 1. During the peak periods, the Aspen Lodge will provide remote parking if experience shows it to be necessary. This remote parking will be serviced by valet service. 2. Contribute up to $25,000 for concept plans for the design of Rubey Park. 14 REFERENCE 1. Out of State Skier, University of Colorado, Dr. Goeldner, 1977-78. 2. TDA parking data collected in Aspen in February, 1984. 3. TDA parking data collected in Steamboat Springs in 1980. 4. Vail Parking Code. 5. Comparative Analysis of Aspen Visitor Studies, University of Colorado. 6. Laventhol & Horvath, 1983. 7. TDA Surveys in Sun Valley at Sun Valley Lodge and Elkhorn. 8. ITE Trip Generation. . 9. TDA Surveys in Sun Valley at Sun Valley Lodge and Elkhorn. 10. TDA Survey of banquet and restaurant space/person. 11. TDA parking data collected in Aspen in February 1984. 12. Snowmass Parking Study, Design Workshop Inc. , March 1979. 13. Summit County Planning Dept. 1980. 14. Copper Mountain Parking Study, 1977-78. , 15. TDA telephone survey of Aspen Condominium Managers, November 16, 1983. 16. City of Aspen Engineering Department. 15 r RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD REVISED EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROPOSAL AND'GRANTING CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND EXEMPTION FROM THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSAL'S UTE CITY PLACE COMPONENT Resolution No. (Series of 1984) WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Associa- tion, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants" ) have made the following employee housing commitment, pursuant to Sections 24-11 . 4 (b) ( 4 ) , 24-11 . 6 (b) ( 4 ) , 20-22 (d ) and 20-23 (A) ( 2) of the Municipal Code , in consideration of the review and approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD: 1 . To provide nine (9) , two-bedroom units housing twenty ( 20) employees in conjunction with the 700 South Galena residential condominium project ; 2. To provide housing for sixty perce the additional employees, currently estimated a one ndred forty-five ( 145 ) employees , generated by the Aspen Mountain Lodge project ; and 3 . To provide housing for an estimated thirty (30) additional employees displaced as a result of the demolition of existing employee housing units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site. and WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised their original proposal for fulfilling their employee housing commitment so as to withdraw their requests for rezoning to R-6 (RBO) , conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, and exemption from the City' s growth management allotment procedures for the fifty ( 50) unit, multi-family employee housing project to be constructed on the Benedict/Larkin property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants ' revised proposal for fulfilling their employee housing commitment for the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of the following components : 1 . The acquisition and deed-restr ' ct� thirty-two (32) of the existing sixty-four (64) fr - rket Airport Business Center apartment units ; 2. The acquisition and conversion of the existing forty-three ( 43) unit Alpina Haus and fourteen (14) ' unit Copper Horse lodges to deed-restricted employee housing; and 3. The cons y,Ac n of a new twenty-two (22) unit, one hundr dC�DO�j percent(4 eed-restricted, multi-family residenti 1 -( project nown as Ute City Place. Doremus & Wells, an association 608 east hyman avenue - aspen,colorado 81611 (303)925-6866 July 9, 1984 Se - 6 , Mr. Sunny Vann Director Aspen Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sunny: On behalf of the applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD, my letter is to formally withdraw our request for consideration by the City at this time of our rezoning request from Public to L-2 for the lots located on the Top of Mill Site. These lots are currently owned by the City and included in our trade proposal which has been previously outlined. inceely, F,...Joe" Wells _.--Project Planner JW/b * A RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1984) A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants" ) have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub- division approval for the Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and' zoning regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to: a) a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned , Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and b) an exemption from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty (40) existing and previously demolished residential units located on the Aspen Mountain PUD site; and WHEREAS , in light of the unfavorable recommendations of the' Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission , the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code , forty ( 40) existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City' s growth management allotment procedures; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section 24-11 .4 (8) of the Municipal Code , a development allotment of twelve (12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 (Series of 1984) ; and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations with respect to the Applicants ' request for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill , Summit 1, an agreement for the acquisition from the City of Lots 7 , 8, 9, 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 and 15, Capitol Hill Addition, containing approximately 20 , 860 square feet of land, in exchange for (a) approximately 21 ,084 square feet of the "Koch Lumber" property comprised of the entire Colorado Midlan Railroa R' h of-Way located thereon and part Lots 1316' bfames Addition Block 1 , and (b) the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civic Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allega- tions set forth therein. 40 ,931 square feet of land in the Koch Lumber property ( ip. that portion not involved in the land exchange described in feondition � * —�-fie in the form of apecial Warranty Deed to be delivered to the City in recordable form imme- diately following the i by the Applicants and the City of a Final a �� ,H.-D. ,v(greement for the - _ the Aspen Mountain �'v�• J Resolution No. 84 Page 4 d• The reconstruction of existing residential units being v limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section 24-11 .2 (a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within five ( 5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site . �I• All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications, as revised, not specifically amended or referred to above being made a condition of this approval . 2 . The expiration of Council ' s conceptual PUD/subdivision a 2 / approval , pursuant to Section 24-8 .8 of the Municipal Code , in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-8 .11 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution. DATED: William L. Stirling, Mayor I , Kathryn 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 1984 . Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO, (Series of 1984) A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants") have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub- division approval for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to : a) a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and b) an exemption from the City' s growth management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty ( 40) existing and previously demolished residential units located on the Aspen Mountain PUD site; and WHEREAS, in light of the unfavorable recommendations of the Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code, forty ( 40) existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City' s growth management allotment procedures; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section 24-11 .4 (g) of the Municipal Code, a development allotment of twelve (12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 (Series of 1984) ; and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations with respect to the Applicants' request for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill, Summit L Resolution No. 84- Page 2 4 Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD at regular meetings held on May 14th, May 29th, June 11th, June 25th, July 9th, and July 23 , 1984 ; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, including a significant reduction in the overall height of both projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby grant conceptual PUD/subdivi- Iq sion approval , pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8.7 of the Municipal Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium ' components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to the following conditions : 4p 1 . In accordance with the Applicants' proposal, their consummation ry of an agreement for the acquisition from the City of Lots 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 and 15 , Capitol Hill Addition, .containing approximately 20 , 860 square feet of land, in ? : exchange for (a) approximately 21 ,084 square feet of the "Koch Lumber " property comprised of the entire Colorado _ Midland Railroad Right-of-Way located thereon and part of Lots 13 through 16 of the Eames Addition Block 1 , and (b) the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civil Action No 8 CV44 an all claims and alleg tions set forth herein. �i �r-�-��-/ � °✓ 2. Thefffegotiation of a mutually satisfactory agreement be the Applicants and the Aspen Ski Club whereby the Applicants agree to construct, at their sole expense on any site selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least equal size and of better quality and functionality than the building which the Club currently occupies. In exchange, the Ski Club will terminate its existing leasehold agreement with the City with respect to Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol Hill Addition. 3 . The Applicants ' mitigation, to the extent appropriate, of any geological problems associated with the development of the Top of Mill site which are identified as a result of any evaluation of geological hazards in the immediate site area, the details of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. The City Council expressly reserves the right to make such disclosures with respect to geological hazards as it deems to be in the public interest. 4 . The Applicants' resolution of the Engineering Department' s concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes. 5 . The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the retention of all circulation and utility rights, the provision of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere Resolution No. 8'4- Page 3 with each utility' s current or future needs. 6 . The Applicants' submission of an acceptable detailed storm drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required to construct the proposed retention ponds. 7 . The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor elevation to the midpoint of the roof . 8 . The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact of the project as viewed from Mill Street, Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain. 9 . The Applicants' granting of an adequate easement, acceptable to the Engineering Department, so as to the allow the extension of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro- priate by the Cit J ��`'�G�� r'j��/� , e Q 10 . The Applicants ' provision of a landscaped did w alk across the Top of Mill site and within the Summit Street easement so as to facilitate pedestrian and emergency vehicle access between Monarch and Mill Streets. 11. The Applicants ' granting of an acceptable trail easement across the Top of Mill site and the construction of an eight ( 8) foot trail at such time as the City provi es / a rop iate cone 9e ipns to the overall t/r�ail systems / �'��,,�,Co•,,;��` (GG7t""-"�✓f`"� �,,,.�L /9��`i��sN"'' / 12. The Appl�.'cants ' provision of ninety ( 90) on-sit�'e parkin spaces for the residents of the Top of Mill project, as opposed to the eighty ( 80) spaces proposed in the original application. 13 . The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include an evaluation of slope stability both during and following construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the 700 South Galena project is expressly conditioned upon the Applicants' mitigation of any soils, slope stability or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. 14 . The Applicants ' identification of all easements required in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. 15. The Applicants ' agreement to a completion schedule for the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the provision of an appropriate performance bond prior to final PUD/subdivision approval so as to prevent and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners - in the form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for a longer period of time than is reasonably necessary. 16 . The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being reduced so as to comply with the twenty-eight ( 28) foot height limitation of the underlying zone district. 17 . The Applicants ' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity of, the 700 South Galena project, to the extent feasible, so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the immediate site area e t Resolution No. 84- Page 4 /A */ 18. Xhe above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub- division approvals-4,-4, 1 7 «nt--e€--co n d trorr-rr�tmk�er--a h e /Ci a resses its intent to acceptfr as proposed, Ap nts' donation of the remaining .,40 ,931 square feet of land in the Koch Lurgber property ( i. e* t t portion not involved in the land, exchange described in o dition number one) in the form of,' a special Warranty Dee o be delivered to the City in recordable form ,immediately following the execution by the Applicants and the City of a Final PUD/sub- _-di.vision agreement for the Aspen 'Mountain PUD,/ ?1 290: The reconstruction of existing residential units being limited to the forty ( 40) units verified pursuant to Section 24- 11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within five (5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site. All material representations of the Applicants' conceptual PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications, as revised, not specifically amended or referred to above being made a condition of this approval. 2 The expiration of Council ' s conceptual PUD/subdivision f approval, pursuant to Section 24-8 .8 of the Municipal Code, in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-8 .111 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution. DATED: William L. Stirling, Mayor I, Kathryn 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 , 1984 . Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Arthur C. Daily, Attorney for the Applicants RE: Deadline for Submittal of DATE: September 24 , 1984 Preliminary Plan for Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision A simple clarification is needed in the language of Condition 19 of Council Resolution No. 84-11 dated April 2 , 1984 ( lodge conceptual approval ) , which provides that the approval contained therein expires six (6 ) months from the date of the Resolution. As you know, the final conceptual approval for the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision is embodied in Council Resolution No. 84-23 ( residential conceptual approval ) , which is presently awaiting the Mayor ' s signature . Throughout the lengthy conceptual process on this Project, Council has taken the position that no conceptual approval res- olution would become fully binding and effective until the entire Project received such approval . Sections 20-11 and 24-8 . 8 of the Municipal Code support the Council ' s position by providing that conceptual approval lapses unless a preliminary plan is submitted within six ( 6 ) months of final conceptual approval . In sum, Condition 19 unintentionally contradicts both the Municipal Code and Council ' s expressed position on the matter . In the interests of eliminating from the record any potential confusion with respect to this complex development, I would suggest that Council instruct the City Attorney to prepare a brief resolution which amends Condition 19 of Council Resolu- tion No. 84-11 in its entirety to read substantially as fol- lows : 1119. The expiration of Council ' s concep- tual PUD/Subdivision approval , pursuant to Sec- tion 24-8 . 8 of the Municipal Code, in the event a preliminary PUD/Subdivision application is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-8. 11 within six (6 ) months of the date of Council ' s final conceptual approval in connec- tion with the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision. " Doi"Zmua) &0""! x 608 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 81611 telephone: (303) 925-6866 April 5, 1984 William Sterling, Mayor City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gary Plumley, Chairman Commercial Cbre & Lodging Cbmmission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 As you are aware, the owners of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project made a nunber of commitments to public improvements in the conceptual application including a commitment to participate in the Lodge Improvement District. The District has been the subject of much discussion but for one reason or another, the impetus to get the project under way has never come along. We believe the Aspen Mountain Lodge can provide that impetus so that the improvement project can be undertaken this year. For our part, the timing of the formation of the District is critical, as a nunber of the off-site improvements we anticipate logically fall within the District program. If the formation of the District does not begin immediately, however, we will have to undertake a number of our proposed improvements around the site at our ow-i expense and still be obligated to contribute toward the District improvements on other sites throughout the Lodge area. We realize that, as with any other City project, funding is an issue that must be resolved prior to beginning further design work for the District. For this reason, the owners of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project have agreed to front-end the costs of the design work for the District as outlined in the attached letter. We look forward to discussing this approach further with the City and hope that we can be of assistance in getting this much-needed project underway in the caning we i Sincer ly, Jot8 e We _ s ssociate Project Planner JW/b ASPEN LODGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Lodge owners, merchants, property owners, and residents have recognized the need to take positive action in order to improve various physical aspects of the streetscape within the vicinity of the proposed Aspen Lodge District. Specifically, improvements are needed such as new sidewalks and trails, improved access to the lifts, street lighting, signage, intersection improvements, improved drainage, burying of utility lines, solutions to parking problems, and other similar improvements. The Aspen Mountain Lodge, recognizing the opportunity to coordinate the design and construction of these improvements with the construction of the hotel, believe that now is the appropriate time to proceed past the conceptual stage of the Improvement District and begin to formulate a final design plan, prepare a budget, create the District, adopt a funding mechanism, and implement the improvements so that they correspond to the construction of the improvements associated with the Lodge. J: Since the Lodge site comprises approximately 40% of the District, and in order to facilitate coordination in the design and timing of, both the District improvements and the Hotel-associated improvements, it seems logical to have the team of consultants currently coordinating and developing the design of the Lodge site improvements to be participating in corresponding roles in the design, planning, and implementation of the district. That team consists of the following: Project Planning and Coordination: Doremus and Company in association with Joseph Wells, Planner 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Landscape Architecture: Berridge Associates, Inc. 1000 So. Frontage Rd. West Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 • �.,,.....oyn...._rr.w,..r�.....rr+ 'w.M — �Y0.WI�NR1� �•:��a�kY� - __ Page 2 i Engineering: Rea, Cassens & Assoc. Inc. 201 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Surveying: Alpine Surveys P.O. Box 1730 ; Aspen, Colorado 81611 Parking, Traffic and Circulation: TDA, Inc. Transportation Planning 316 Second Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 i The tear would serve to coordinate the creation of the District in close conjunction with the CCLC and the City and would perform the following tasks: I. Review,.,evaluate, and update existing conceptual plans. II. Finalize improvement plan, design, and budget. s P III. Assist CCLC and the city in evaluating funding alternatives and selecting appropriate funding mechanism. IV. Prepare construction documents for improvements and assist in contractor selection. V. Provide supervision during construction of improvements. It is our intention that the process would be one of continual and frequent coordination and review with 'the CCLC throughout the project. We anticipate that the City would designate a staff member whose primary responsibility in the coming months would be to coordinate the formation of the District and oversee the work of the Team. We also assume that the City would retain legal assistance immediately at its expense to assist in the documentation required for district formation. i Page 3 this approach in order to t is interested in pursuing z, if the city would be for the next step et for quickly get the project underway, pro ram and budget a more detailed work p g the team to Prepare The CCLC is perhaps aware reveiw by the CCLC and the city•improvements and implementing ping the imp f that the cost of designing the District are costs which F , the District, and administering ` i reimbursed upon the formation of the District as a part will be { Of the overall assessment. s discuss this proposal to While we have not had an opportunity ? : en Mountain Lodge in any detail, the applicants for the Asp a � propose t� initially bear the costs for heirh assessmenteobligation which would then rthetformation of the District. as determined through a i kr Aspen/PitWW'T1a' nn ing Office 130 s* the'0l na `street dJ" ,T4 aspen co �o7ad;0`+ ~ 81611 October 2, 1984 Dor emus & Company 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Mountain PUD - Additional Billings Dear John: As you know, the City ' s land use application fee regulations provide for ADDITIONAL BILLINGS to cover the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of a land use application by the Planning Office takes more time than is covered in the base fee structure. Similarly, the payment of any outstanding ADDITIONAL BILLINGS with respect to a given phase of an application is a prerequisite to the review of any subsequent phases. Pursuant to these provisions, attached is an itemized accounting of the additional hours incurred in the processing of the GMP/Conceptual PUD/Subdivision phase of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Based on the hours expended and the applicable billing rates, the ADDITIONAL BILLINGS for this phase of your project total $15 ,057 . 50 as of September 30, 1984 . Given the forthcoming submission of your Preliminary PUD/Subdivision application, your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, - ASP ANNING OFFICE unny P Direc SV:jlr Attachment ADDITIONAL BILLINGS Aspen Mountain POD Hours Additional Base Hours Spent Billings Application Fee Allocated (1983/1984) (1983/1984) 1. LODGE A. GMP/Conceptual PUD/Subdivision $ 1,840 20 B. Rezoning 1,010 11 Subtotal $ 2,850 31 50 .5/111.5 19.5/111 .5 2. TOP OF MILL A. Conceptual PUD/ Subdivision $ 1,290 14 B. Rezoning 1,010 11 C. Special Review 465 5 Subtotal $ 2,765 30 --/ 82 .5 --/ 52.5 3 . 700 SOUTH GALENA A. GMP/Conceptual PUD/Subdivision $ 1,840 20 --/ 12 .5 --/ (7 .5) Total $ 7,455 81 50 .5/206 .5 19.5/156 .5 Based on the City' s additional billing rates for 1983 and 1984 of $90/hr . and $85/hr . , respectively, total additional billings are as follows : - 19.5 hrs. x $90/hr. = $ 1,755.00 156 .5 hrs. x $85/hr. = $ 13 ,302 .50 $ 15,057 .50 "1 CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM NANCY CRELLi 4w i� uo Ail IqW r � pP j t//e7 !j, l J� j �� RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves roam•s c.r.H rcr, n.R.n i.c i. --- ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 198 AN ORDINANCE PE-ESTABLISHING TIIE LAND USE APPLICA`T'ION FEES CIiARGED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN- PLANNING OFFICE -AND -REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 82 (SERIES OF 1981) AND ORDINANCE NO. 67 (SERIES OF 1982) TO TIIE EXTENT SAID ORDINANCES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH TIIE FEES AND PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED HEREIN WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has adopted a policy of annually reviewing the Planning Office ' s land use application fee structure to bring it more into line with the increasing costs of service provision; and WHEREAS , the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office has determined that the current fee structure for the processing of land use applica- tions , which is contained in Ordinance No. 67 , Series of 1982 , does not accurately reflect the current costs of providing the necessary level of services associated with the City' s Code Administration function; and WHEREAS ,, the Aspen City Council wishes to revise the current land use application fee structure consistent with the policy out- lined in Ordinance No. 82 , Series of 1981, so as to offset 100 percent of the total cost of the Code Administration function; and WHEREAS, the various ]_and use applications which may be sub- mitted to the Planning Office, based on various provisions of the City' s subdivision and zoning regulations, can be categorized into the following review processes : I. GMP/Subdivisi_on/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 2 . Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat II . Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 2. Preliminary Plat 3 . Final Plat III . Exception/Exemption/Rezoni.ng IV. Special Review and w ) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO?r!. C.F.Ian FCNFL 0.P. t.l 1. -- ------ WHEREAS , the Planning Office has determined the total cost of the City' s Code Aministration function, which includes the cost of processing land use applications , responding to routine public inquiry, and initiating minor code amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a BASE FEE should be established for each type of review process which, when considered in relation to the number of applications expected during the forth- coming year, will have the effect of offsetting 100 percent of the total cost of the Code Administration function; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 67 , Series of 1982 , City Council provided for ADDITIONAL BILLINGS to cover the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of a land use applica- tion by the Planning Office takes more time than is covered in the base fee structure and desires to re-establish said billings as set forth below and to repeal the provisions of Ordinance No . 82 (Series of 1981) and Ordinance No . 67 (Series of 1982) to the extent the procedures thereof are inconsistent with this Ordinance . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the categories of review processes, base fees and Planning Office average time requirements for the processing of land use applications are established as follows : Planning Office Category Hours Base Fee I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2 , 730. 00 2 . Preliminary Plat 12 $1, 640 . 00 3 . Final Plat 6 $ 820 . 00 II . Subdivision/PUD 1 . Conceptual Submission 14 $1, 900 . 00 2 . Preliminary Plat 9 $1, 220 . 00 3 . Final. Plat 6 $ 820 . 00 2 _ ■ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM U C.F.HOFCKFL III . Exception/Exemption/Rezoning 11 $1, 490 . 00 IV. Special Review 5 $ 680 . 00 Section 2 That the Planning Office staff be required to keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of each land use application and that ADDITIONAL BILLINGS will occur commensurate with the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application takes more time than is covered by the BASE FEE. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for in Section 1, the Planning Office shall refund the unused portion of the Base Fee. Section 3 That the following guidelines for the administration of the fee structure hereinabove are established: (1) Fees charged for the processing of applications which fall into more than one category will be cumulative, while the fees charged for the processing of applications within the same category will not be cumulative; and (2) ADDITIONAL BILLINGS will be based solely on processing time spent by members of the Planning Office in the processing of an application; and (3) ADDITIONAL BILLINGS will be computed at the rate of $ 85 . 00 per hour of additional Planning Office staff time required; and (4) The Planning Office shall establish appropriate guidelines for the collection of ADDITIONAL BILLINGS as required; and (5) This fee structure shall be reviewed annually in December of each year and adjusted appropriately, ' such adjustments to take effect on January 1 . Section 4 This ordinance and the re-established fees set forth herein- above shall_ take effect on January 1 , 1.984 . 3 _ I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM•0 C.f.HOI CKfI H.1. 1.0,). �-_ ------- --- - Section 5 It is the intent of this Ordinance that the fees and procedures set forth herein shall supercede the provisions of Ordinance No. 82 (Series of 1981) and Ordinance No. 67 (Series of 1982) . Therefore , Ordinance No. 82 (Series of 1981) and Ordinance No. 67 (Series of 1982) are hereby repealed to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate , distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof . Section 7 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of ' „'' -'-% , 1983 , at 5 : 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Ball , Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by lacy by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ��_.. day of December, 1983 . Bill Stirling, Mayor_ ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Finally adopted, passed and approved on this day of December, 1983. Bill Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Eoch, City Clerk 4 - HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT I-AW DENVER.COLORADO OFFICE WASHINGTON,D.C.OFFICE S55 SEVENTEENTH STREET 600 EAST MAIN STREET 1875 EVE STREET,N.W. SUITE 2900 SUITE 1200 DENVER,COLORADO 80202 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 WASHINGTON,D.0.20006 TELEPHONE (303) 575-8000 TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 TELEPHONE(202)466-7340 TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261 TELECOPIER(202) 466-7354 BILLINGS.MONTANA OFFICE LARAMIE,WYOMING OFFICE SUITE 1400 HOLLAND 6 HART 6 KITE 175 NORTH 27TH STREET March 1 , 1984 .w.o....-nrucai• BILLINGS,MONTANA 59101 618 GRANO AVENUE TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166 LARAMIE,WYOMING 82070 TELECOPIER(406)252-1669 TELEPHONE(307)742-8203 TELECOPIER(307)792-7618 ARTHUR C. DAILY (303) 925-3476 Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Land Trade Dear Paul: The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project ' s P.U.D. Plan includes in 1'_,s proposed development area eight ( 8) Capitol Hill Addition Lots which are presently owned by the City of Aspen (the "City Lots" ) , it being mutually understood between the Applicant and the City that the Applicant must submit a proposal for the acquisition of the City Lots , which is deemed acceptable to the City, before the P.U.D. Plan as currently structured can receive final approval . For the past several years there has been informal discussion of a possible land trade involving a conveyance to the City of a portion of the "Koch Lumber" property, situated at the corner of Cooper Avenue and Garmisch Street, in exchange for the City Lots. The Applicant believes that a trade along these lines can be developed which will be both fair and beneficial to both parties, and desires to submit the following proposal for the City's consideration. The pertinent facts concerning_ these two ( 2) properties are set forth below. 1. City Lots (a) Lots 7 and 8 were acquired by the City by Trea- surer ' s Deed on March 1, 1948 for the sum of $14.18. They are zoned "Conservation" , and to the best of our knowledge they have not been put to any use by the City, whether public or otherwise. (b) Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 were acquired by the City by Quitclaim Deed on January 10 , 1941 for an apparently nominal con- sideration. Lot 9 is zoned Conservation, while Lots 10 , 11 and 12 ' HOLLAND &HART Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney March 1, 1984 j Page 2 are divided by the zoning district line so as to be zoned partially Conservation and partially "Public" . Here again, we are not aware of any use of these Lots by the City. (c) Lots 14 and 15 were acquired by the City by Trea- surer ' s Deeds on March 1, 1948 for the sums of $21 .39 and $16. 39 , respectively. They lie entirely within the Public zoning district, and have been leased to the Aspen Ski Club for a period of fifty ( 50) years commencing August 10 , 1981 at a rental of Ten Dollars ( $10 .00 ) per year . The Ski Club has constructed a building on the property which it uses as a skier training center and for office, storage and other related purposes. (d ) A Survey Engineers survey map of the area establishes the following square footages for the City Lots: Lot 7 1,211 sq. ft. Lot 8 1,856 sq. ft. Lot 9 3,142 sq. ft . Lot 10 1,913 sq. ft. Lot 11 1,887 sq. ft. Lot 12 2,121 sq. ft. Subtotal: 12 ,130 sq. ft. Lot 14 5,093 sq. ft. Lot 15 3,637 sq. ft. Subtotal: 8,730 sq. ft. Total City Lots: 20 ,860 sq. ft. 2. Koch Lumber Property This property was acquired by Hans Cantrup on April 23 , 1979 , for the sum of $300 ,000 . 00 , and is presently zoned R-15. It is comprised of all of Block 62 (Lots A-I only) of the CJ.ty an_. Townsite of Aspen, all of Block 1 (Lot 10 and partial Lots 11-16 only) of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, the platted. alley in said Block 1 , Eames Addition, a small unplatted triangular parcel, and the entire portion of the Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way which adjoins said Block 1, Eames Addition on the Southwest. TheKoch62uOberse property isocurrently unimproved, and contains a tota l of ' HOLLAND &HART Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney March 1, 1984 Page 3 Proposed Exchange . It is not an easy matter to assess the respective fair market values of these properties. All of the City Lots lie within highly restrictive zoning districts , 42 percent of the land is encumbered by a long-term lease whiceabatonhave capitalized legalvalue accessoto the theCity, and the City does not app e remaining 58 percent er its isenotoyetesubdivided for develop- Lots) . The Koch Lumber property _ ment purposes, and its questionabyeHansSCantrup ina Civil cAction1NO. the subject of litigation filed by Applicant believes that 82CV44 . Under these circumstances,bthe closely comparable in value. comparable square footage may well Accordin he Applicant hereby proposes to convey to the ')City roughl 21,084esquare feet of the Railroadmbighptrofeway� located prised of th thereon and part 13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1, in exchange for t 20 ,860 square feet contained in the City Lots. I am enclosing f use a survey map of the Koch Lumber property which delineates the parcel which the Applicant proposes topdeliver to the City, and the parcel which will be retained by following cant. In addition, the Applicant hereby agrees conditions to the consummation of the land trade: (1) The negotiation and signing between the Aspen Ski Club Y and the Applicant of a satisfactory unders - -e the Applicant agrees to construct for tae new building of at least selecte equal size and of better qua 115 ofdthenCapitol Hill Addition, at occupied by it on Lots 1 4 and exchan e In , the Ski Club must Applicant' s sole cost and expense. Lots. terminate its exisfitheseacommitmentsnwillnhave to be worye out The exact timing o with the Ski Club. Clearly, however , the Ski Club will have the continued use of its present building for at least the 1984-85 win- ter season. bv ( 2) The dismissal wi A 'and claims and allegations All rights pertaining to is sui wi a assigned to Applicant upon the closing of its purchase transaction with the Cantrup Bank- ruptcy Estate. i HOLLAND &HART Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney March 1 , 1984 Page 4 reciate your bringing this proposal to the atten- We would app tion of the appropriate City departments and officials as promptly as possible. We will be avahoubdebeonoted discuss thatthe anymatter understanding- with them at any time. It s Applicant will neces that may be reached between the City and the APP b Applicant of sarily have to be contingent upon (i) the y closing the Cantrup Bank- its acquisition of the Koch Lumber property by the City of ruptcy Estate, and (ii ) the eventual final approval Applicant ' s P.U.D. Plan. professional cooperation and assis- Thanks for your continuing tance in this complex matter . Very truly yours, Arthur C. Daily for HOLLAND & HART Applicants Attorneys for the App ACD/j 1 f cc: Mr . Sunny Vann Doremus & Company Mr . John Roberts Mr. Robert Callaway Mr. Alan Novak c y rr RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1984) A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL POD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN POD WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants" ) have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub- division approval for the Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to : a) a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and b) an exemption from the City' s growth management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty (40) existing and previously demolished residential units located on the Aspen Mountain PUD site; and WHEREAS, in light of the unfavorable recommendations of the Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission , the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code , forty ( 40) existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section 24-1.1 .4 (g) of the Municipal Code , a development allotment of twelve (12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 (Series of 1984) ; and WHEREAS , the City Council did consider the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations with respect to the Applicants request for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill , Summit Resolution No. Page 2 Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD at regular meetings held on May 14th, May 29th, June 11th, June 25th, and July 9 , 1984 ; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office; the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council , including a significant reduction in the overall height of both projects . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby grant conceptual PUD/subdivi- sion approval , pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8 .7 of the Municipal Code, to the Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The Applicants ' entering into an agreement for the acquisition of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned by the City , the terms of said agreement to include the City' s acquisition of the entire Koch Lumber property and the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civil Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth therein. 2 . The negotiation of a mutually satisfactory agreement between the Applicants and the Aspen Ski Club whereby the Applicants agree to construct, at their sole expense on any site selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least equal size and of better quality and functionality than the building which the Club currently occupies. In exchange, the Ski Club will terminate its existing leasehold agreement with the City with respect to Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol Hill Addition. 3. The Applicants ' mitigation , to the extent appropriate , t � ` of any geological problems associated with the development of the Top of Mill site which are identified as a result • , of the Colorado Geological Survey' s forthcoming evaluation of geological hazards in the immediate site area , the details t h - �[ of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants ' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission.4t' 4 . The Applicants ' resolution of the Engineering Department ' s s ' ` concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal t=` areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes . 5 . The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the retention of all circulation and utility rights , the provision of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each utility' s current or future needs . 6 . The Applicants ' submission of an acceptable detailed storm drainage plan for the Top of Mill site , including information with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required to construct the proposed retention ponds. Resolution No. 84- Page 3 7 . The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor elevation to the midpoint of the roof . 8 . The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact of the project as viewed from Mill Street , Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain. 9 . The Applicants ' granting of an adequate easement , acceptable to the Engineering Department, so as to the allow the extension of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro- priate by the City. 10 . The Applicants ' provision of a , landscaped sidewalk across the Top of Mill site and within the Summit Street easement so as to facilitate pedestrian and emergency vehicle access between Monarch and Mill Streets . 11 . The Applicants ' granting of an acceptable trail easement across the Top of Mill site and the construction of an eight ( 8) foot trail at such time as the City provides appropriate connections to the overall trail system. 12 . The Applicants ' provision of ninety ( 90) on-site parking spaces for the residents of the Top of Mill project , as opposed to the eighty ( 80) spaces prposed in the original application. 13 . The Applicants ' submission of a preliminary soils and water table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include an evaluation of slope stability both during and following construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the 700 South Galena project is expressly conditioned upon the Applicants' mitigation of any soils , slope stability or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. 14 . The Applicants ' identification of all easements required in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the acquisition of said easements , to the extent required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. 15 . The Applicants ' agreement to a completion schedule for the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the provision of an appropriate performance bond*so as to prevent and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the n form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for a longer period of time than is reasonably necessary. 16 . The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being reduced so as to comply with the twenty-eight ( 28) foot height limitation of the underlying zone district . 17 . The Applicants ' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity of the 700 South Galena project , to the extent feasible , so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the immediate site area. 18. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub- division approval . Resolution No. 84- '� Page 4 19. The reconstruction of existing residential units being limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section 24-11 .2 (a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within five ( 5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site . 20 . All material representations of the Applicants ' conceptual PG /subdivision and residential GRIP applications, as revised, not specifically amended or referred to above being made a condition of this approval . 21 . The expiration of Council ' s conceptual PUD/subdivision approval , pursuant to Section 24-8 .8 of the Municipal Code , in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-8 .11 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution. DATED: William L. Stirling, Mayor I , Kathryn 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 , 1984 • Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 14EMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Employee Housing Proposal DATE: July 23 , 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM: The purpose of tonight ' s meeting is to review the Planning Office' s draft resolution granting conceptual PUD/subdivision approval to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD and to initiate discussion of the Applicants' employee housing proposal. The Planning Office' s comments and P&Z ' s recommendations with respect to employee housing for the PUD ' can be found in our June 25 , 1984 memorandum to Council and in P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series of 1984 . Please bring these materials to your Monday, July 23rd meeting. The Applicants and the Planning Office are prepared to discuss the revised employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD following your review of the attached draft Resolution. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance prior to your Monday meeting, please feel free to contact me at the Plann ' g Office. r A T Fyn I N D E X 1 . Referral Comments. 2. Joe Wells ' February 16 , 1984 Letter Requesting Tabling of the Top of Mill Conceptual PUD/Rezoning. 3. Planning Office February 21 , 1984 Memo to P&Z Tabling Top of Mill to March 20, 1984 . 4 . Art Daley ' s March 1 , 1984 Letter Re: Top of Mill/Koch Lumber Land Trade. 5. Paul Taddune ' s March 9 , 1984 Memo to City Council Re- Proposed Koch Lumber Land Trade. 6 . Al Bloomquist ' s March 12 , 1984 memo Re: Proposed Land Trade. 7. Planning Office March 20, 1984 Memo to P&Z Re: Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Reviews. 8 . Public Notice/Certificate of Mailing Re: Top of Mill Rezoning. 9. Planning Office March 27 , 1984 memo to P&Z. 10 . Art Daley' s April 6 , 1984 letter withdrawing R-15 (PUD) (L) rezoning request. 11 . Planning Office ' s April 10 , 1984 memo to P&Z. 12 . Planning Office ' s April 10 , 1984 FAR analysis of Aspen Mountain PUD. 13 . Planning Office' s April 10 , 1984 buildout analysis/Top of Mill. 14 . Planning Office ' s April 17 , 1984 draft resolution. 15 . Planning Office ' s April 24 , 1984 memo to P&Z and revised draft resolution. 16. J . D. Muller ' s April 24 , 1984 letter to P&Z Re: 700 S . Galena conceptual PUD/subdivision review. 17. Jay Hammond ' s April 27 , 1984 memo to Planning Office Re: 700 S. Galena Conceptupal PUD/Subdivision review. 18. Cantrup 700 S. Galena Subdivision Agreement. 19. Planning Office ' s May 8, 1984 memo to P&Z Re: Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena conceptual PUD/subdivision review and revised draft resolution. 20 . P&Z 'w May 8, 1984 adopted resolution. 21 . Planning Office ' s May 14 , 1984 memo to Council Re: Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena conceptual PUD/subdivision review. 22 . Aspen Ski Club ' s May 17 , 1984 letter to Bill Stirling Re: Ski Club Facilities. 23 . Jerry Blann ' s May 18 , 1984 letter to Bill Stirling Re: Top of Mill . 24 . Art Daley' s June 8 , 1984 letter to Council Re: Street Vacations. 25 . Planning Office ' s June 11 , 1984 memo to Council Re: Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena conceptual PUD/subdivision review. 0 �V MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Employee Housing Proposal APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATE: July 23 , 1984 The purpose of tonight ' s meeting is to review the Planning Office' s draft resolution granting conceptual PUD/subdivision approval to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD and to initiate discussion of the Applicants' employee housing proposal. The Planning Office' s comments and P&Z ' s recommendations with respect to employee housing for the PUD can be found in our June 25 , 1984 memorandum to Council and in P&Z Resolution No. 6, Series of 1984 . Please bring these materials to your Monday, July 23rd meeting. The Applicants and the Planning Office are prepared to discuss the revised employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD following your review of the attached draft Resolution. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance prior to your Monday meeting, please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office. RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1984) A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants" ) have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub- division approval for the Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews and approvals pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to : a) a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and b) an exemption from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of forty (40) existing and previously demolished residential units located on the Aspen Mountain PUD site; and WHEREAS , in light of the unfavorable recommendations of the Planning Office and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission , the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and P.-15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code , forty ( 40) existing and previously demolished residential units' on the Aspen Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate , pursuant to Section 24-11 .4 (g) of the Municipal Code , a development allotment of twelve (12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 (Series of 1984) ; and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations with respect to the Applicants ' request for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill , Summit Resolution No. 84- Page 2 Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD at regular meetings held on May 14th, May 29th, June 11th, June 25th, and July 9 , 1984 ; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have revised the Top of Mill and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD in response to various concerns identified by the Planning Office, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council , including a significant reduction in the overall height of both projects . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby grant conceptual PUD/subdivi- sion approval , pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8 .7 of the Municipal Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as revised, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The Applicants ' entering into an agreement for the acquisition of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned by the City , the terms of said agreement to include the City' s acquisition of the entire Koch Lumber property and the dismissal with prejudice by the Applicants of Civil Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth therein. 2 . The negotiation of a mutually satisfactory agreement between the Applicants and the Aspen Ski Club whereby the Applicants agree to construct, at their sole expense on any site selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least equal size and of better quality and functionality, than the building which the Club currently occupies. In exchange, the Ski Club will terminate its existing leasehold agreement with the City with respect to Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol Hill Addition. 3 . The Applicants ' mitigation , to th'e extent appropriate , of any geological problems associated with the development of the Top of Mill site which are identified as a result of the Colorado Geological Survey' s forthcoming evaluation of geological hazards in the immediate site area , the details of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. 4 . The Applicants ' resolution of the Engineering Department ' s concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes . 5 . The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the retention of all circulation and utility rights , the provision of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each utility' s current or future needs . G . The Applicants ' submission of an acceptable detailed storm drainage plan for the Top of Mill site , including information with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required to construct the proposed retention ponds. I Resolu':ion No. 84- Page 3 7 . The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding thirty-three (33) feet as measured from the lowest floor elevation to the midpoint of the roof. 8 . The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact of the project as viewed from Mill Street , Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain. 9 . The Applicants' granting of an adequate easement , acceptable to the Engineering Department, so as to the allow the extension of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro- priate by the City. 10 . The Applicants ' provision of a ten (10) foot , landscaped sidewalk across the Top of Mill site and within the Summit Street easement so as to facilitate pedestrian and emergency vehicle access between Monarch and Mill Streets . 1' . The Applicants ' granting of an acceptable trail easement across the Top of Mill site and the construction of an eight ( 8) foot trail at such time as the City provides appropriate connections to the overall trail system. 12 . The Applicants ' provision of ninety ( 90) on-site parking spaces for the residents of the Top of Mill project,, as opposed to the eighty ( 80) spaces prposed in the original application. 13 . The Applicants ' submission of a preliminary soils and water table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include an evaluation of slope stability both during and following construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the 700 South Galena project is expressly conditioned upon the Applicants' mitigation of any soils , slope stability or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants ' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. 14 . The Applicants ' identification of all easements required in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the acquisition of said easements , to the extent required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit . 15 . The Applicants ' agreement to a completion schedule for the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the provision of an appropriate performance bond so as to prevent and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for a longer period of time than is reasonably necessary. 16 . The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units being reduced so as to comply with the twenty-eight ( 28) foot height limitation of the underlying zone district. 17 . The Applicants ' realigning Galena Street in the vicinity of the 700 South Galena project , to the extent feasible , so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the immediate site area. 18. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub- division approval . Resolution No. 84- Page 4 19. The reconstruction of existing residential units being limited to the forty (40) units verified pursuant to Section 24-11 .2 (a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within five ( 5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site . 20 . All material representations of the Applicants ' conceptual PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications , as revised, not specifically amended or referred to above being made a condition of this approval . 21 . The expiration of Council ' s conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, pursuant to Section 24-8 .8 of the Municipal Code , in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-8 .11 within six (6) months of the date of this Resolution. DATED: William L. Stirling, Mayor I , Kathryn 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 , 1984 . Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3- 4- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Employee Housing Proposal DATE: July 9 , 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM: The purpose of tonight ' s meeting is to conclude your discussion of the various conceptual PUD concerns associated with the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD and to initiate discussion of the Applicants ' employee housing proposal. The Planning Office ' s comments and P&Z ' s recommenda- tions with respect to these topics can be found in our May 14th, June 11th and June 5th memoranda to Council and in P&Z Resolutions Nos. 5 and 6, Series of 1984 . Please bring these materials to your Monday, July 9th meeting. To refresh your memory, there are three remaining issues with respect to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena projects which Council must resolve : 1) the question of compensation for street vacations, 2) the proposed rezoning of the City-owned parcels at the Top of Mill to L-2; and 3) the Koch Lumber land trade. To the best of my knowledge, all other issues with respect to the residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD have been addressed by Council at prior meetings. However , should Council raise any additional issues, we will address them at this time. The Applicants and the Planning Office are prepared to discuss the revised employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD following your resolution of the above issues. For a detailed discussion of the Applicants' employee housing proposal, please refer to the Planning Office ' s June 25 , 1984 memorandum. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance prior to your Monday meeting, as always, please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Employee Housing / DATE: June 25 , 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM The purpose of tonight ' s meeting is to continue your discussion of the various conceptual PUD issues associated with the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Planning Office ' s comments and P&Z ' s recommendations with respect to these issues can be found in our May 14 , 1984 memorandum to Council and the P&Z ' s resolution . Please bring these materials as well as the Planning Office' s June 11 , 1984 memorandum and discussion outline to Monday's meeting. EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Planning and Zoning Commission has completed its review of the Applicants ' employee housing proposal for the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Applicants ' original proposal has been revised to reflect the reduction in the size of the proposed hotel and the abandonment of the proposed Ute Avenue employee housing complex. The Commission ' s recommendations and actions with respect to the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal are contained in their attached resolution. A more detailed discussion of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal is provided below. The attached letters from Jim Curtis, dated April 23rd and April 30, 1984 , outline the Applicants ' revised employee housing generation figures and employee housing proposal . Both the generation figures and the employee housing proposal have been reviewed and endorsed by the Housing Authority and Planning and Zoning Commission . It should be pointed out, however, that further revisions to the generation figures and revised proposal may be forthcoming as further refinement of the lodge portion of the PUD continues. It should also be pointed out that the Applicants ' revised employee housing proposal is consistent, in terms of the percentage of employees housed, with their original lodge GMP representation. The major change to the Applicants' original proposal involves the substitution of two ( 2) additional employee housing projects for the proposed fifty (50) unit project to be built on the Benedict/Larkin property on Ute Avenue. As Jim ' s attached letters indicate , the revised proposal would house one hundred and ninety-five (195 ) employees in four ( 4) separate projects . To refresh your memory, the Commission, in its resolution recommending conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD, found that the conversion of the forty- three (43) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed-restricted employee housing would result in negligible growth impacts on the Community and that said change-in-use was exempt from complying with the growth management allotment procedures of the Municipal Code . No further review of this component of the Applicants ' employee housing proposal is required at this time . A condition of the Commission ' s approval , however , was that the Applicants submit additional information with respect to the mitigation of potential parking problems at the Alpina Haus as part of their lodge preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. In addition to the Alpina Haus Lodge, the Applicants also propose to convert and deed-restrict the fourteen ( 14 ) unit Copper Horse Lodge to employee housing. The change-in-use of an individually designated historic structure is exempt by definition from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures . As a result , no specific Page 2 review is required by the P&Z or Council to accomplish the proposed change-in-use. The Commission , however , also identified a concern with respect to parking problems at the Copper Horse and propose to further review this issue in conjunction with the Applicants ' lodge preliminary PUD/subdivision submission . The appropriateness of both the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus for employee housing purposes is subject to P&Z and Council review in the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD. Together , the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse will house eighty-nine ( 89) employees , or approximately forty-five percent (45% ) of the Applicants ' employee housing commmitment. The remainder of the employees (106 employees) were originally proposed to be housed in an approximately fifty ( 50) unit project to be constructed on Ute Avenue. With the withdrawal of this proposal , the Applicants now intend to provide the remainder of their employee housing commitment at the Airport Business Center and in a new project to be constructed on East Cooper Street . As outlined in the attached materials, the Ute City Place project on East Cooper Street essentially involves the conversion of a prior GMP approval to 100% deed-restricted employee housing while the acquisition of existing rental housing at the Airport Business Center would result in the deed-restriction of currently unrestricted units. From a procedural perspective , the Ute City Place project should be considered a discreet and separate proposal from the prior GMP approval . The project involves the construction of twenty-two (22) new deed-restricted employee housing units exempt from the City' s growth management allotment procedures . As such , it is subject to the special approval of the Council , based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission . Inasmuch as the prior Ute City Place GMP approval involved full subdivision review and rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) , the Commission and Council must find that the proposed revisions to the project are consistent with the original conditions of subdivision and RBO approval . No specific review by the Commission or Council is required for the deed-restriction of the Airport Business Center to employee housing guidelines . The Commission and Council , however , must find that the proposed utilization of both the ABC and Ute City Place units is consistent with the Applicants ' relevant lodge GMP application representations and is appropriate within the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD approval. Further analysis of these two new components of the Applicants ' revised employee housing proposal is provided below. UTE CITY PLACE The original Ute City Place application received a GMP allocation in the 1981 residential competition. The original applicant proposed to develop twenty-two ( 22) units on a fifteen hundred (1500) square foot parcel zoned R-MF . The project location is Lots C , D, E , F and G , Block 118 , City of Aspen (Cooper Avenue between West End and Cleveland Avenues) . Of the twenty-two ( 22) units proposed by the Applicants , eight ( 8) were free-market and fourteen (14) were deed- restricted employee housing units. The original application also received full subdivision review and approval and was rezoned to R-MF (RBO) in order to accommodate the density proposed. The project was also condominiumized in order to allow sale of the individual units. The Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD propose to purchase the Ute City Place site, make minor revisions in the original approved project , and deed-restrict all of the units pursuant to the City ' s employee housing guidelines. The revised project would house thirty- seven (37) employees. Given the fact that the project will no longer contain free-market units , an amendment to the prior GMP approval will not be required. Instead, the Planning Office proposes to essen- tially duplicate the procedural steps employed in the review of the original Ute City Place project . Obviously, consideration of the Page 3 Applicants ' requests for exemption from growth management for the construction of the twenty-two (22) units would also be required. The specific steps will involve conceptual subdivision review by the P&Z and Council , preliminary subdivision review by the P&Z and final subdivision review by Council . In addition, a public hearing will need to be held at the preliminary subdivision step in order to consider the Applicants' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. Council would also take action on this request at the final subdivision step. Should the Applicants be successful in the review of the revised Ute City Place project , then a condition of final subdivision approval would be the revocation of the prior GMP allocation. Council 's responsibility with respect to the Ute City Place proposal is to consider the appropriateness of this component of the Applicants' employee housing solution and of conceptual subdivision approval as recommended by the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission. Although the public hearing with respect to the RBO rezoning will not occur until the preliminary subdivision step, P&Z considered the appropriateness of the rezoning in its conceptual subdivision review. Based on the material submitted to date, the revised Ute City Place proposal appears to be identical in most respects to the original project which received preliminary subdivision approval by the P&Z and final approval by the Council . The architecture is identical to the prior proposal with the exception that the size of the free market units has been reduced consistent with the City' s employee housing guidelines . As a result the overall FAR of the project and the building footprint have been reduced substantially. With respect to the revised project ' s eligibility for RBO rezoning, the changes which the Applicants ' have proposed make the project even more consistent with the applicable criteria . Essentially, the only reason RBO rezoning is required is to allow the level of density proposed. Additional information with respect to the density allowed under existing zoning as compared to the density proposed will be available at your Monday meeting. The Planning Office supports the utilization of the Ute City Place project as part of the Applicants' employee housing solution subject to the conditions contained in the attached P&Z resolution. AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER APARTMENTS No specific review by the Commission or Council are required for the deed-restriction of the Airport Business Center units to employee housing guidelines . The Planning and Zoning Commission , however , endorsed the inclusion of the ABC units in the Applicants ' employee housing solution . The remainder of the Applicants' employee housing commitment , approximately sixty-nine (69) employees would be met by this proposal. While the Commission debated the appropriateness of using the ABC units extensively, both the Commission and the Housing Authority endorsed this proposal based primarily on the fact that the inclusion of these units in the Applicants ' employee housing solution will result in the deed-restriction of thirty-two (32) existing free-market units. While these units currently serve an employee housing function, there is no mechanism which insures their continued availability for employee housing purposes . In fact , the owners of the Airport Business Center units are currently discussing the appropriateness of an application for condominiumization with the Housing Authority. Given the fact that utilization of these units as part of the Applicants' employee housing solution would result in the deed-restriction of previously unrestricted units , and that applicants are allowed to meet their employee housing commitments throughout the metro area, the Planning Office supports this proposal . The principal issue which the Commission debated involved the transportation implications associated with the housing of hotel employees at the Airport Business Page 4 Center . Jim Curtis ' April 19 , 1984 letter , which is attached for your review, addressed this concern to the Commission's satisfaction. As the attached resolution indicates , the Commission' s endorsement of the ABC units is expressly conditioned upon the mitigation of potential transportation related problems. SUMMARY Should you concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommenda- tions , we would propose to include your actions with respect to the Applicants ' revised employee housing proposal in your resolution granting conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Planning Office is prepared to discuss the Applicants' employee housing proposal in detail following your discussion of the PUD' s free-market residential components . Should you have any questions, however , please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - -Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review DATE: June 11 , 1984 The purpose of tonight ' s meeting is to continue your discussion of the various conceptual PUD concerns associated with the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Hopefully, we can gain surficient concensus with respect to the various issues so as to allow the Planning Office to proceed with the preparation of a draft resolution. To facilitate your discussion , I have provided below a brief outline of the major issues associated with the Applicants ' proposal. The Planning Office ' s comments and P&Z ' s recommendations with respect to these issues can be found in our May 14 , 1984 memorandum to Council and the P&Z ' s resolution . In keeping with Chic- Collins ' comments from last week , I have not attached these do-, ments . Therefore , you should bring your May 14th Council packet to _,7day' s meeting. Should you have June questions 11th meeting , be of any assistance prior me to your Y at the Planning Office. DISCUSSION OUTLINE I. KOCH LUMBER LAND TRADE II. CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION REVIEW A. Site Design B. Height C. Parking D. Summit Street Extension E. Mill Street Vacation F. Ski Club Activities G. Trails III. REZONING A. Public to L-2 ME MO RANDU DI TO: Aspen City Council FROrl: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review DATE: June 11 , 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM: The purpose of tonight ' s meeting is to continue your discussion of the various conceptual PUD concerns associated with the Top of gill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Hopefully, we can gain sufficient concensus with respect to the various issues so as to allow the Planning Office to proceed with the preparation of a draft resolution. To facilitate your discussion, I have provided below a brief outline of the major issues associated with the Applicants ' proposal . The Planning Office ' s comments and P&Z ' s recommendations with respect to these issues can be found in our May 14 , 1984 memorandum to Council and the P&Z ' s resolution . In keeping with Chic Collins ' comments from last week , I have not attached these documents . Therefore , you should bring your May 14th Council packet to Monday' s meeting. Should you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance prior to your Monday, June 11th meeting , please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office. DISCUSSION OUTLINE I. KOCH LUMBER LAND TRADE II. CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISIOPI REVIEW A. Site Design B. Heiqht C. Parking D. Summit Street Extension E. Mill Street Vacation F. Ski Club Activities G. Trails III. REZONING A. Public to L-?. �T DENVER OFFICE HOLLAND & HAFT WASHINGTON,D.C.OFFICE SUITE 2900 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET 1875 EYE STREET,N.W. DENVER,COLORADO 80202 600 EAST MAIN STREET WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 95-8000 TELEPHONE 1202)466-7340 TELEPHONE(303)2 TELEPHONER(303)29-800 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 TELECOPIER(202)466-7354 TELEPHONE(303)925-3476 MONTANA OFFICE WYOMING OFFICE SUITE 1400 SUITE 500 175 NORTH 27TH STREET 2020 CAREY AVENUE BILLINGS,MONTANA 59101 CHEYENNE,WYOMING 82001 TELEPHONE(406)252-2166 - TELEPHONE 13071 632-2160 TELECOPIER(406)252-1669 TELECOPIER(3071778-8175 June 8 , 1984 ART'S-{U R G. DAILY S.E.DENVER OFFICE SUITE 1250 7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE ENGLEWOOD,COLORADO 80111 TELEPHONE 1303)741-1226 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Street Vacations - Aspen Mountain Lodge Dear Mayor Stirling and City Council Members: The suggestion has been made from time to time that the appli- cants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge project "compensate" the City for the rights-of-way being vacated within the hotel site area. This Council resolved the issue in a fair and realistic manner in Condition No. 6 of its Resolution No. 84-11 ( lodge conceptual approval ) , which requires that the applicants clarify in writing the "nature and extent of the improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support of their request for the vacation of various public rights-of-way and the granting of encroachment licenses ne- cessitated by the Aspen Mountain PUD. " This letter will carefully identify those proposed improvements. However , the idea that "additional compensation" is appropri- ate for the street vacations was raised again recently, and the applicants wish to take this opportunity to lay to rest certain misapprehensions that appear to exist concerning the essential ele- ments of the proposed street vacations. A. What legal right or "interest" does the City actually have in a public street? The governing Colorado statute is 1973 C.R.S. X31-23-107 , which provides that "all streets. . . described as for public use on the map or plat of any city or town or any addition made to such city or town are public property and the fee title thereto vested in such city or town. " This statute has been carefully examined by HOLLAND & HART June 8 , 1984 Page 2 the courts, which have concluded that the "fee" held by the City is a limited one, extending only to the surface of the street and so much of the subsurface as is reasonably necessary for street and highway purposes. Buell v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. , 321 F. 2d 468 ( 10th Cir . , 1963 ) , and in the trial court at 205 F.Supp. 865 (D.C. Colo. , 1962) . The same District Court goes on to say that the City merely holds such limited fee "in trust for the general public and also for the use of the abutting lot owners. " An earlier Colorado case had already held that the legislature intended to vest in the City only "such estate or interest as is reasonably necessary to enable it to utilize the surface and so much of the ground under- neath it as might be required for laying gas pipes, building sewers , and other municipal purposes" , and that the City in that case had no right whatsoever to object, to the mining and taking of ores beneath the street by an adjoining landowner . City of Leadville v. Bohn Mining Co. , 37 Colo. 248 (1906 ) . The Colorado Supreme Court made a pertinent observation in this case, stating that the statute ' s purpose is merely to clothe the municipality with title to the surface of the streets for public use , and not for the "profit or emolument of the City. " The Bohn trial court explained the rest of the theory, stating that the abutting land- owner "owns the remaining interest in the street" , which can only mean the areas above and beneath the surface which are not rea- sonably required for public purposes. While the applicants apologize for this tedious tour through the applicable Colorado law on the matter , it is probably the best way to make the point that in vacating a public street the City is giving up only a limited legal interest in that street, and any related question of "compensation" must take this fact into consid- eration. It should also be kept in mind that the City cannot simply sell a no longer necessary platted right-of-way to the high- est bidder ; it can only vacate the street, with the title thereto passing automatically by operation of law to the adjoining land- owners. In fact, no sale is involved, no deed of conveyance required. Once the city determines that a street is no longer needed for public purposes, its public trust responsibilities have been fulfilled and its "limited interest" therein may properly be vacated back to the owners of the lands adjoining the area. B. What authority does the City have to demand compensation for a street vacation? 1. The City' s power to vacate public rights-of-way derives from 1973 C.R.S. §43-2-303. This statute simply allows a HOLLAND & MART June 8, 1984 Page 3 City to relinquish its rights to streets or alleys within the City, and contains no provision whatsoever for the extraction of compen- sation from the owners of adjacent lands. 2. Similarly, the Aspen Municipal Code contains no authority for conditioning a street vacation on reimbursement of the City for the "value" of the rights being relinquished. In fact, to the extent that there is any inherent "value" in a vacated right-of-way, Code Section 24-2. 5 severely limits such value by forever excluding from density or open space calculations the land areas in a development tract acquired by vacation. 3. To the best of our knowledge, throughout the entire history of street and alley vacations within the City of Aspen neither a petitioner nor an adjoining landowner has ever been required to reimburse the City for the area over which the City relinquished its rights. It would seem totally arbitrary and unfair to impose such a condition in this one instance. Nor are we aware of any instance in which the City has required a developer seeking a right-of-way vacation (or any developer , for that matter ) to accomplish and pay for public improvements which are not directly necessitated by the developer ' s own project. For example , in 1982 the City Council determined it to be inappropriate to impose on the Hotel Jerome any responsibility for improving the grade problem on adjacent Bleeker Street. In sum, the applicants believe that the suggestion of "addi- tional compensation" is without legal authority, is unsupported by past or present City policy, and is otherwise unjustified and discriminatory. C. What exactly is the public giving up as a result of the applicants' proposed street vacations? 1 . Dean Street. Most of the proposed street area to be vacated lies within this right-of-way, and its vacation would appear to result in a net benefit to the public . With the excep- tion only of parking , all existing "public uses" of this right-of- way will be forever preserved , including vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, and all necessary subsurface utility rights. The applicants , on the other hand , are committing not only to the reconstruction of the pavement, sidewalks , curbs, gutters and landscaping throughout the entire area being vacated, but will also be forever responsible for the maintenance , repair , snow removal , general cleaning , and regulation and enforcement for the HOLLAND & HART June 8 , 1984 Page 4 entire area. Is there any "value" being relinquished by the public here which is not more than adequately compensated by the extensive financial responsibilities being assumed by the applicants? 2. Lawn Street. This is a short, dead-end street which was theoretically necessary when it lay between Blocks 2 and 3 of the Connor ' s Addition as originally platted , but which for years has served largely as private access and parking for the adjoining Cantrup properties. The street is of virtually no benefit to the public, and it is thus difficult to assess any value to what the public is relinquishing by vacating it. The similarly platted alley to the South of Lawn Street was vacated some time ago by the City as no longer needed for public purposes , and we assume that no consideration was required at that time. 3. Southerly Tip of Mill Street. Only a very small piece of this right-of-way is proposed for vacation, constituting the street' s "dead-end" against Aspen Mountain. It is our understand- ing that this tip has never been improved in any way, and that it therefore has never actually been utilized for public purposes. The public would seem to be relinquishing no value whatsoever by vacating it. The applicants feel they have established that if there are in fact any real "values" in the proposed street vacations, the bal- ancing of such values already more heavily favors the public than the applicants. Assuming for the moment, however , that there is some residual benefit to the applicants to which a value can be attached, let' s examine the specific improvements which the appli- cants are committing to make in the general area of the project which will benefit the public in general. D. Identification of "nature and extent of improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support of their request for the vacation of various public rights-of-way 1. As a result of the approval process, and in order to meet Council concerns , the applicants have modified their site plan to provide an additional 13 , 500 square feet of open space on CL zoned land. This open space will feature a winter ice rink which will be available to the public . 2. At the request of the City Engineer , the applicants are dedicating to the City portions of their land adjoining Galena, Mill and Monarch Streets, in strips up to 10 feet in width and HOLLAND & HART _ June 8, 1 984 Page 5 comprising a total of 5, 300 square feet, for purposes of widening and straightening out those public rights-of-way. 3. All overhead utilities will be located below ground within the project area. We quote the City Engineer ' s memo to the Planning Director of 11/15/83 : "The City Engineering Department would view the site design as excellent in terms of undergrounding of utiltities. . " . 4. The project proposes major improvements to the City' s water system. We quote from the above referenced City Engineer ' s memo: "These improvements result in an improvement of water service in the area beyond the needs of the project itself. The Galena main and the interconnect both serve to increase flows and reliability in the area. " 5 . The site plan proposes a pedestrian/ski link between Dean Street near Little Nell , the mountain to the south , and Gilbert to the west. We again quote the City Engineer : "Pedestrian circulation through the site both summer and winter is greatly enhanced . " i 6 . A complex and sophisticated area-wide drainage plan has been designed for the project by Rea Cassens and Associates. We quote once more from the City Engineer ' s memo: "The storm drainage system for the project, as outlined in the Rea Cassens report, is excellent in its adherence to the concepts outlined in the City' s own storm run-off management plan. This concept is beneficial to the area as a whole. " 7 . The plan proposes major street improvements . Quoting the City Engineer : "The site plan indicates minimal conflicts with existing streets by new curb cuts and, in fact, represents a reduction in overall conflicts by creating access to parking at only two locations. The application also offers _substantial construction of curbs, gutters , sidewalks , crosswalks , and pedestrian amenities as well as repairing of several sections of the area streets The plan represents a genuine enhancement of the public streets and rights-of-way adjacent to the project." 8 . The applicants offer up to $25,000 toward a develop- ment plan for the Rubey Park and Transit Stop. We quote Jay Hammond, City Engineer , a final time: "The Applicant' s offer of $25,000 toward development of a conceptual plan for Rubey Park might also provide a real incentive for the City to resurrect its plans for that area. " HOLLAND & HART June 8 , 1984 Page 6 On the basis of the foregoing , the applicants respectfully submit that the cost or value of these area-wide street and other improvements far exceed any value which may legitimately be given to the rights-of-way being vacated , and request that the Council approve the vacations without further compensation being required therefor . Very truly yours , Art ur�eic� D ly - - - - - - - for HOLLAND & HART Attorneys for the Applicants ACD/pal Enclosures cc: Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney Mr . Jay Hammond , City Engineer Mr . Sunny Vann, Planning Director Ella Neyland, Senior Vice-President t Mr . Robert Callaway Messrs. John Doremus and Joe Wells A i ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE • AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER •BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925-1220 May 18 , 1984 Mr. Bill Stirling, Mayor City of Aspen 506 E. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge/ Top o Mi11 Proposal Dear Bill: John Doremus has asked me to write a letter outlining our agreements with the developer regarding the Top of Mill Street Proposal. The Aspen Skiing Company has had numerous discussions with the developers to ascertain what impact, if any, the proposal would have on skiing. The discussions have led to a formal agreement which is acceptable to us and is awaiting signatures by the principals in San Antonio. In essence, it is our opinion that assuming the agreements are executed as drafted, that the proposal will not compromise the skiing on Aspen Mountain. Further, our agreements do not contemplate a Downhill Finish in the Top of Mill area. If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, rann Executive Vice President Operations JB/js ASPEN MOUNTAIN • BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN • SNOWMASS • BRECKENRIDGE Aspen Ski Cleo, Inc. P.O. Box 49 Aspen, Colorado 81612 �z '",1 r (303) 925-3125 ! i 1983-84 MAY 1 198 Board of Directors ,,� ASPEN / PITKIN CO. PfANNING OFFICE 1(ylli? ;�,Cit'llel' 7:1 '�`YL: r�"d51�PrYt 'ul i'ic° Presidera d:}tin �1�.imic9r 5'ec return Kit Davton Carolyn Hayes Jinn born t annie Madsen R n.Wc• Pelletier sori Ra,;l?urn "k,6ine Members t.irn t-�cnver _ John Hjavcs _ I onr Moore l Di,k Parker t aee t'tiierycn _ C tiarles Racine T�,d Rvan Don Stapleton Ruth whvte Director and Head ('oach ;ZY L c�n ci, 'cy Council p1 01 Sunny Vann, rlanninc` 7jirector Tp,7 Plc C`?LI ;,tai ,,j rt7- - Top of 1_1* 11 , Summi' ce D 1 7 South Galena Concei-.)'Cual PUr./Subeiivjisiori I'eview T) 1.9,04, To refresh your memory, the Aspen Fountain PITID consists of four Clistinct develonment nronosals : I. ) F,,n 447 unit resort hot-el , 2) the thirty-three ( 3 1) ) unit T cop of T7 i 11 residential C on 6 or,,k i n_J unt co-.,Ple.,-; 3) the twelve (12) unit 700 South Calena resUlential conOominiml comnle.-; an(2 4) ca one (1 ) unit resiOential acllk 6,ition to the existino, S i Eir i Place cluple.:. All of these Ccvelopr-(-nU Proposals are. contained -�C rC jTI) 4 te T h e App 1 J c a n IC s I r c. 4 f pT s_j-2 .t a within the Tq)z..)1 i c an n t s 11 .7 c _ _L - r-I i, tj L)_4 -; . - - - e:6 1-o ra-i' i -ate your review of the Top of Fill , __ sLion is �� Lach k- L - I t- - T t Surntrtit P"ace and 700 Sout-h (alma ,). r onro sall F,� should be notoOr however , -L-14-lat- the various oro-rosals have been revised in response to P&Z anC! Planninc7 Office concerns any that t-he oricinal plic ap --all- inn _ -o-(�ate is , therefore , not necess�-,rilv up-t T'hl e -p r o p o s e d h o t e-IL s v.,c c e s s f u 11y c omn e t e 6. In the C i t jr F 11983 L o lcq 0 :ITT c c e t-i and.t on a . ha s re cc i ved con ce nt u a 1 PT,T,�/subd Iv i s,i on arrnr oval 01 a mC a multi—,`,ez:.r cruota alloc6tion -from the Council . rl,h c., Planning i -)tual PUD/subdivision and '11,orinc Commission has, just conninto(I J.-�-sl conceL review of the resi(],eritial cori7,oncrt-s of the As-_.en !",ourtain PUD and MI, it are containeC, in the. attacheO. resolution. I.I.P i - to initiate conceptual PuL)/sul-)- ,_)urnose of vour I'ay 14-th -'iectinc, is Of clivision review 1- the Tpplicantsl residen-tial proposal at the Council level . The r c s 101.e n t a! cor-monent-s of the -7,s'oen fountain PTJD will. also require a rezoninC: , a (711.11 ezemption for the reconstru.c-tion of existinc.7' resident-i-al units , anCi I'040 ,reenline anCl' mountain viewn, -I-Eino review . TTith 'the oL the Tamlicants ' re(-,Tu(_-!st for rezoni-n(--7, these additional rcvie'.;7s are tne res-ponsibill. i t y of ti=c Pla.-nninc, En(.,. Toning Corimission anC, J-1- ')c a.CC ressec, in cl 1 a�- me c n L PUD/subdivision review. The Prmlicants ' emplovee housincl nrorPosal recLl -ire(:! as a, result of their loc]iae anC resiu-'entici-I allocations) is currently unc.;(-.rC'oin(-: review by the Plannino, FmC 7oninc- Com-i-tission . r-Phe Commission shoul(_t' complete its review bv tie end of -'a and its recoi.illendat ions shoull be available Prior -to Council ' s comrletion of its conceptuE.1 PUD/sull _ 4 Sidejj�- 4 F�l -omnonents, of the. aspen division revie�,.i oil fire r e c PUD. The T)ro-osed, r2c-) of Urill condominium co-mnlcz consists of thiri_-V-threc ( 33) (f.wellinciss units anc associated accescor,.y- facilities . r.."he units are apprc:imizately 3 , 000 s. f. in size,' contain 3 anC4 4 beCirooms , anCA are locateCl on anproxa,mately 5 . 5 acres E,t the south end of the Asnon r',-ourtaiin PUS' site AT-,i e n i t i e s i n c I u J e t o pools , extensive Op_ en space , ski- access and below crace parking . The si-te inclucIcs e-L(ih'L-- (,R) CitN,owned lots in the Calpit.ol Hill !\Cdition w'i-tich the i7�prllicz,,.nts pro,)oce to traClc for a oortion of 'C-Ir- 7och LumIner J_ ,p r o n e r t v which the-,7 j S o 0 E.T, 3-1 Th i E; proposed t r a 6 e id obvi ousl ,7 u] j c t L to Council approval tine, is cutlincd in (eta it in A r t D a o-u s 17 P.,r c h e t- t- e r , a C _1V o Of �,�'Iiclh is attached for your consiCerEti n. o r o i a r o s e s o f t Plannina -and. 7oninq Cor he r r e v ic,"', , the e iv i F,s i on P- I) L 1- F,'s u t I-I a-'I-- the 0 would ' e ab' e to necotiate a successful- trade . The -�oroi-)(-)sec, trace JS 01_-,�viousl-v essential to t- De 7 i r)p I c a n t s r3r o ' e t an th ere-1=ore , s h ou I(' Ine �.C 6 r e s s e C., h,� Council mn c u r r ent 1 y J Y With t E, r e v i ow c`7 the Ton of Fill r o T-:c,r;a l 4 t ''-''1 C e rp 0 o,,j So S- -)y 'Faric, Caritrup h c n a 11 y r o p o s e d IL as a f o u r-�Dl e-.1, and 4i r rc!�,,cnt 1�.; uncer cons.tr ion F`Z_ 7S,0 S F Ji-J1 I St r c ot in or(�er -r(- -i an' c(,,7,csLrJa.n L ; i 2. 11 " I)e comm�lete(, a s a ,771c.o a EA. Pace 7 trail link west of the huildin(7 . Ti.e thi.rcfl., unit , as ,•jell as the tI?irty-three (33) unit Top of t'ill compplex, Will replace the cre<ater ?part of forty ( 40 ) e i.stinq and Previously demolished residential units located on the As.T en fountain PUP site . The remaining six ( 6 ) unit residential credit will he utilized: to develop the sip, (6) residential units, currently nronoseCz as part of the resort hotel . The proposed twelve (12. ) unit 700 Eolith Galena comb: le- successfully competed in the 1983 residential CI-,P competition and has been awardec. c residential allocation by the Council. The site contains approximately 21 , 600 s . f . and is located just below the - Durant Condominiums on the east side of Galena Street and immediately adjacent to the proposed, resort hotel . The three story complex will contain one- , two-and three-bedroom units and an additional_ level_ of sub--grade parking. CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION REVIEW To be eligible for PUT' approval , an am licant must demonstrate the reasonableness of his annl.ication and plan , its confornitV to "the design requirements of the PUD regulatioIs , the proposed development ' s lack of adverse imin cts , and the plan ' s compliance with the intent and nurnose of the Planned Unit Development reaulations . The purpose and intent of the reculations is to encouradte, fle.,ibility, innovation and variety in the development of land so as to create a more desireable environment than would be possible throucih strict application of the zoninr.; code . In our opinion ; this application is consistent with theti e objectives an c3 with tl_e design requirements of the PLTD regulations . In order to achieve PUD desion objectives , the PUP reciulations Permit variations in most of the area and bulk requirement~ of the zoni_nq cone. To variation. however , is allowed in pe rmittec or censr y . 1.7hile a rezoning of the 71�.pplicants ' land is requested in conjunction with the Ton of T ill. complex. , the proposed single-family/duplex use is currently allowed under existinr. zoninc. Inasmuch as the Applicants ' proposal also makes use of City-owned parcels currently zoned Public, a rezoning of these lands will obviously* be required in the ev,�nt the prop_ osec lane. trade is accom,?lisheda. The major variations from the area and bulk requirements -7hich the Top of till , Summit Place an CA 700 South Galena components of the Aspen Fountain PUD c?ill recuire involve the applicable F11, and height requirements of the underlvincj zone districts and a reduction in required marking. All of the elements of the Applicants ' pro-oosal , i_owever , can be accomplished within the flexibility TJrovided for in the PUD regulations. As the Apr;lica:nts point out in their aPrlication , "Any comparison between the level of development proposed in the Aspen Mountain PUD and that permitted under the area and bulk requirements of the Code is highly interpretive as the Code includes no language regarding the calculation of maximum development allowed for proposals lying in more than one zone district nor mixed use projects including both lodge and residential development . " The Planning Of`ice ctenerall',! concurs with this :statement and believes , as do the t"l'plicants , that the City' s decisions with respect to the Applicants ' PITT' rroposals .should place emphasis primarily on the appropriateness of the r_.ropo salts, the acceptability of their impacts , anC the extent to G1hi.ch physical lodif ica tions are -required and can be made to make the 4"pro?7oSa1 . acceptable . ThC. 1,o'unC: iI approved a. ma?'_7_TC.tl:Ll e :'vernal FAA, for the entire f,sPen I`_ouI?fain PUD in its. resolution, crc.ntinq conceptual PUD/subdivision approval to the nrorjos ( hotel . The Courci..l , hot ever , retaineei the rich :. to revise its con(li ions of conceptual a')`-)roval_ followinc- its review of the residential components of the Pt's:?. �; ; the residential co Mnonel tS are consistent with the an=proveC€ FTP.., this meniicrandun', focusses primarily on cesian related concerns anC various technical iSSUeS which should: be addressed b,,17 the I'_')plicants prior to prel.imina:ry PUD/subdivi sior subilJ.ssion- The Planni.nc.. Office, hoC ,iever • " as, coiLlpleted a detaileC.. review of the external_ FT,t? ass-,()ci--teC with ili ; PUD and is prerareC to C _sous il':s findings in detail at ca subsequent r?eetinci Pace l, should Coun C 4 1 wish to reconsiCer this issue . The P&.7- has reviOWCd _L the Planning Office ' s Fil`%R calcul-7tions and has elected to place no 4- --s further conditions �.,7j_t-h respect to FP on the resiclential com r)o n e nt of the PUD. While the Planning Office feels that the Toy) of rill , Surlmdit Place an6 700 South Galena proposals are consistent with the spirit and, intent of our PUD requlations , there are a number of issues which we identified in our memorandurl' to the P&7 1 which Council should' also consider . The PLanninq. Office ' s and CommissionEs comments with respect to these issues are outlined below. Site Design/Visual Impact Tn c!eneral . the Top of r1ill , Sum, it ',1?lace and 700 South Galena. sites are well planned , resultinq in reduceC, visual impact , the retention Of useable open sp �ace and existinC? ve(7etation, and excellent pedestrian and vehicular access . The following, ho,,.7ever , outlines several site desiq,n/visual impact related issues which have been identified by the Planning Office and the Commission . Top of Mill/Summit Place The Top of rill site lies at the southern terminus- of "ill Street at the hase of Asnen Nountain . h e S4 L te consists of two distinct areas , '-ire lower r.art �7 11 i C 1-_, lies between the TFountain Oueen part-inc anC 1':?11 Street , south of Summit Ftreet , and, the upper structure L k- U mart �-,7hich consists of a, natural bowl startinq at the present terridnation of I'lill Street . recause of the natural contours of the site and the heic,ht of e,-istincl -develonm,.ent, the PT)T,,licants believe that most front of the buildincs in 11-- lic Top of Fill comn,, ie;� will not be seen the City . The comnle,': ' s sincle-fai-,iilv/duplex con-ficuraCion will further reduce its visual. imn,-:).ct and will provide a logical transition E� from the adjacent multi-fait'i1lY uses. to the olden snace area a t --he base of the 11,70UI-Itain . Ulith resTecZ t0 visual i-p a c - , the Planning Office believes the site to be well planneC anC responsive to the h 4_L cfh visual vulnerabil i t�7 of this Portion of Aspen Fountain. The use of architectural clusters , 4 min mal buildina footprints , and the ri,,rcvision of 1-)ar1-,inq below trade reduces site coverace and results in significant amounts of u.sable open space for the comrlex ' s residents . While the Planninq Office believes the tlq)plicants have cone to considerable lenqt-hs to ac,7.dress Che issue of visual imi�act , it is C,�i-j-.L Jcult to ad.ec,uately access the success of their lesion riven the level of retail submitted to 4 date. Additional_ information has been requested' as part of the A-.,,)T- _L cants ' nrelininarN! PUD/subdivision submission to enable the Planninct Office and P&Z to more accuretel-v cage the visual impact of the project . All of the thirty-three (33) sincle-.'-ariily/(IuT-.le.�, units adl n accessor-v structures pror)o I seC for the Top of Fill site are subject to 8040 atreenline review �,procedures . I'Titli the exception of visuFl im pact considerations, the 8040 qreenline criteria address themselves primarily to Enqineerinc, concerns . The Engineering T)epartrient has reviewec'. the T.pplicants ' conceptual PUD/subdivision submission and the Applicants Fre currently developinc, additional information in response to the Encineering ric. T)artnent- c o i,,irm c n t s The Plannin(_7 and Zorincq Commission, will conduct at formal 80 . O cFreenlinn revieT.,7 concurrent with their can S 4 'e r a t i on o f -In(:-: ' )n 1 i ca n t s ' p r e I i m,1 n a r,7 P./s u b 6 i v i f�,i(,,n. s u b Y._J s s,i on IU I- ij- - The additional injiFori-ation r(?ouc tc-6. will allow 'both the Planning 4.r,Ci O-f-fice anf l the C om-11 i s,s i on to better (5et-ermine the e:rtent of (7r a that will be recuire.,(! to accoT.roC,;ate the To-r. offf I-All conrle,- , the, hoic,,ht of the units above -f i n i s h c rfl. g r ca c7i e and h e -t_-)r o,?o s a 1 ' s o v e r,i I vi seal ir,-'pact S-:-Jecific cha-cfes which the Comirtission hias requested, in or6or to i,L-ini.mize t-he visual im -,,'Cact of the Tor) of 17ill -croposai incluJIle a reduction in the height of the corCiominiuTA units , revisions to the site r.lan so as to enhance the view 'k-A-rouah the Tiro 4; ect to the ski area , 'Chin. r(,tention of e,• i-t-' in,,! natu.re vecietation , anCl the installation P a C,.2 Toth the Flanninc, nffice an(�. the Enqineerina DerE,rt-Irtent i1ave i6entilf-ieC J � i ich varrant further E�ttention h17 at least tlao add-- L -onal issues whi the Annlicants and r,,hich should be addressed in cireater Oetail in 7 issues include their preliTfllinar-% PUD/subdivision sub-ilission . These J_ - the intact the adequacy of access for fire protection nurposes and I 1,i C 1,,Ib C7 C i V 4 1- i e S of the proposed Top of TIM coraplex on ad.-Iacent -in U the TJ i ou o'll by s kJ i ur.ip. 171-1ile: the tl;pplicants i.,ave represente(f,, that state-of-11-he-art fire protect-ion t-echnicfues will be employe6 in the project an C: that a "f station"staCon" will- be located, at the southern- most Portion of the site , this issue needs to be e,-plcred f u..r t I i e r by the Anplicants in conjunction with the Fire Department . Sir:ilarlv . -7 tl act L_ the SVi the construction of this project � i]_1 directly imp -',- Club rope tow ane, future utilizatE e ion of En 0 u c,f h b y ski -lump. This issue should, be resolved with the '01ki ComTjany and a d.d i It i o n a information submit-tel-It for consideration in conjunction with the 7'�-,-, li.- .L J cants ' r reliminars,.7 Pim/s,ubdivision stabri.AsSion. 700 South Galena The 700 South Galena cor_ip].-_. coi;Iplies with all an )licable area a.nd bulk recruirements of the underlvinq Zone district with t11C e,,-cer)'Lion of height . Lnproval of the project , therefore , ',Iill recuire variation, of the maximum allowable height , a �,,variations -oern, _issa1,-.)le unler the 4 PUP regulations . The riaxintur.i heiciht of the unClerlying L-2 zone ( _;_,Lstrict is twenty-eight ( 28) feet ., while the height of the 700 South Galena. project , as. origina.. 'Lly Y,).,Oposed, averac!e(9. approy1mately thirty-e_J (,h-,*- (38) feet . The extent of the variation requesteC under MID- wa,,S nalor concern of both the Planninci nffice an(. the P&7 . As E. result, the Applicants have revised --heir conccp-'L-_-ual architecture an(] the Commission ' s attached resolution reflects a substantial recuction in the project ' s overall heicfht . It should also be noted that the level of Cove- ionment pronosc,(_'t for the Top of .,''.ill site c,,:cee0s tl-se L-2 zoninlr requires ents for thc 21 , 600 s . -f' - site and' , therefore , the project Day only be constructec". in conjunction with the overall Aspen T'ounta- in PM) . T%,-e I v e ( 12 7 L units wf-h twenty -four (. 24 ) beClrooms- and. total adjusted floor area of 21 , 073 s.11 are proposeC. for the site. flowever , 4 Z7 the mult—far.,,ily J J_ on the 21 ,600 s .f . site. Section uevelonment- -,)ror)osL.' were basec solely 24-3 .7 .(k) of the Code ctioulCl permit no more than one bedroom ,..)Cr 1 , 000 s . f . of lan " area or a rilaxirnun of tTv,,enty,one (21) bedrooms. in tl-.(- -Dprove(3. , the 700 South Calena event the Aspen 111ountain PTID is, not ai component woulc-1 require a GFP amcndrient in order to allow its constru- -IL:i oil Since the 700 South Galena 1-ro- ec-1C_ is an intecrial ccT,,iT:1onent of the overall T-_seen 77ountain PUP, neither the Plannino Office nor the Cortirlission has a 1.-)ro!,Aerl? with resnec-'C to this issue at this t-ime. r,.dd'itional issues which were a6dressed bV the Plann1_n(- Office anc-1 the P&7, and which are reflected in the CoaTni ss ion ' s attacheC resolution include Cirainage and; slope stability, the identification_ oJ_4: eases-tents required in con_ Unction with the construction of the project ., anC the desireability of realigninc, Calena. Street in the vicinity- of the project so as to trac-fic circulation anC safety in the eneral site area . Circulation/Parking Requirements Top of [dill/Summit Place J tl e Tn n e e r i n e n a r m e n t c o n c u r s i�-, the, Anrl-icants ' contention L -1 C thz-,.t the e,.Ast.inc-. roo.Cl networll; in the v-icin-ity of the Top of "I - 11 , -i.c cenerateC. by these i lace ar.-c uate to hanCic the trE�-ff -ice - of the Ecrity ( 40) e-istinc- resic-�en-,C_ial k-1.10 1�ro- - k- -- - cl s. ai ct replc -,n o nt - �� I - tl, 4 u n i t on t h o T1 E-7,p c.n u n t n PUT' Site' b t 1)e (33) unit tj Il 4 t GUI' lit P result Top o IF T"i c o-,-,i r.1 r,7- a,`2i,f-_ o n c Plc a C d,i t o n fist' in n-"-- ,;lel-rc-ase in t_r a-L7 f i c qe n e r a t_-6, in the rjro- cct area, clue nrimzarilv C:0 Z 1'1 e 0'-e 1-LC ^1. Chic:! e 1 n c)c c u T-)FL n c v cli a r a.C t 0.r i t iC 0 the nrnlicarts ' -)ro'Josa1 . Pare 7111ile a c',h T ' ance in the' occupaicy characteristics of tile D' PUc resiOentica-L . d�%7el 1 in a units may r e sult in a redluc'Ci on 5.n traffic in the To T- of the Planning Office fill area , both the `tn(~ineerinq, Department anc-' t are concerned about circulation aric' accessibility in the t7enera-, ViCilit'V Of the Top Of 1"i11 site . For some tii-,ie , the City has pursue-C, e x t e n d i n q S u i,,r,i t .Street b e t!I e--n a n 6 17,o i r ch S t r e c- S s,0 a S LC improve -overall circulation ancl emerrency access in this r)art o J` i rq 4 - the C" n a.t i on 0 i: t- he City. The Top o,,7 !,7j.il site -r)1 El n n r or)o sc e s _L L the :7,ummit Street link iin orC.er to accomirioc�ate the r)(-,0 e s t r i a n and sk i trail from the TIountain to the Hotel . The Engineeriiw De T-)a.r t ri-i e n L_ Goes not support the elimination of the �,po_ssibility of the "C'uml-d' Street extension at this time, feelinc.-, that it is particularly important to -QroviCte alternative access to the many pro-perties on F�Outh i"onarch end that the- evtellsion would i bcnefit overall 4 circulation as woj as emergency access in IC1.1at area . 171,,,,e Encineer-Lnq P.epartment Mlc,CfestLS L en, -1--a ble t h a t. fF i i r t'n e r e 1-1 In.1 c,r a 2C i o n o J' IC h 4 -- issue with resTect 0 a.cc - , alternatives , involving the L-pp- licants , 'Cho? 7naincering Depart-rient I - and the Fire Department , - should -b,e condition of PUD annroval . The T.,p_ p. I i can ts are recuest i nc, a reduction in the total number Of x from 138 to 00 -parkin�7! s,,paces require(f. for the Top Of I-11-ill comiDle L. �U U �, i q )'us quest parkir 7 -,7.aces , Cr annro.:imatel -, t,,To 121 spaces per uni The TID-pliczint_-, .have nrovi6e_C, consi6erable information in their app-I.ication daleC sur-,,,ev in s Li p p c,r t- of a re d u c t_J on a n C. h D v_- al E-7 o undertaken an u p -o further their request . ra s,e d on the n f o r m a tC_i o n suboti IL--t e d to slate , t-he Eng ince r i nq Depa r'Ument . Planninc, Off ice an(. '2-&Z s)upport_ the AT)-plicants I r.ec!uest for a~ rec-'.uction in overall. narl- inc. shou!(7 Council wish to c,,nlore this issue further , addition,!, however, information v7ill be provided. Street Vacation The vacation of the southernmost tin Of South Nill street will be rec!uired to implement the T,...pplicants ' r1lo-p of E-ill propospal . 'file e, vacation of public rights-of-wa-y is accomplisheC through ordinance Of City Counc il . However , riven the impli cations of such requests on the, overall street network of the City , the Council tvpicallt,, reMiests input from the Planning aneI Zoninq Commission to facilitate �t_I - ants ' L.fleir rC-ViCV7. The FriaincerincT Department has reviewer the ripplic, L request an,,' has conclu6ed that the ,-,)ropose6 vacation wouic-1. Blot adversely ir,nact the gieneral area from a circulation stancl-noint . The propo seC o r vacation involves approi:imatels 2 , 300 f . a n 6 w o u 1 C b e u s c d, jP L. - - L acccssinO -on o- 11ill Con ir- le . ro resiOlential structures arc; L I -p,r o lose! JE o r the vacated area . Sub e c It to the'' a C.e ci u a t e r o v i s 10 n of- access to the site an6 appro.prlate utility ea.5ements the I'MaineerincT Den., artment has no nrobleT ,q4y1_ 0 t h e v a ca t JL o n o f.- th,i s, n, o r t i n o portion of Street . Tnasmuch as the right—Of-WEty which is to be vacatuc-Cl ma,.17 contain numercus. exi stinci utJlit-icc , Engineerrin(, Denart=,ent recommenCs tha`_- each franchise6 in the C'it'y, re(1arCiess- OIL whether or nod they ei, -of-way in question , siqn maintain utility eas, aents in the right -17_r - 's of 01-1- on the requestee' vacation in or e.e r to verify that the loss _hi S riq ht—oF-way 7 i1-j- not interfere wit`1- their iL r current or future n(--e d s the Planning Office would recluest- that the 'I �,4 1 identify those ir--,prove�:-1,-,ents and-:/or public lbeniefits which L a.c c r u e or" the Olevcicpn}ent of the overall PUT) WOUld Off Set the Cit':7 vF.cation of this nortion of Fill Street . REZONINGS 4 171he `7,sjpen 17.ountai r PljD a.nr�.ljication incluC,es ca rerduest " or several --,rOPOF v :elat_r_�d to 'L--!-,e To? o� re zonings , L-�,jo of ,-Ihich are :Iirectl.,� i 7% - 4 s e 0! a r e;one n 1 n o L-2 f o r "'}1C ,T)pl -cants, oriqinall recruc I - -- -ivolveC.. in '-he pro--Doseo, ow e, �,.7hich -jrc.. zoned, Public alC are in V01 Lulm'Dcr lane, tra(.7e , aL.i6", for the 'D;a1a,11ce ci t 0 0 0 f 7"ill site 11 t Z on e 6 1 5 (PUT" u c 8 0 41 0 e 1 e v (7)n c 1,1 J.5 r e- s D g; Z-.n d, r o-�. O-ecl e a t t a c h et] e.`::'"I i?71 t- s C'e-p.•i C t'ft e J S t J 1 7,on i n th e k-)arcels i1i qu.-Eitic.n . 'J",io Ar.r)licants, fo! 4a `_Lq us i z,.n (�- ,c, s on ♦eeae�,4i \\ �\,�\� \` � ` � �''� a/ice \��a��\��\1\\a�a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�\`��a»'+•'�a�aaa��\\�aaaaaaaa�.��\aa..ti��z♦� q 4,Njif ffiffi, wa-61 01 %,�,ssg\ ww'-Q., q INS R 0 0"N 0"MR:110-101, EN 'INN 10-0=15 wux NONCOM \\ \\\"\\\\\\\'C�\IRM S!5.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\?\C\\\ \CQ\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' ._'.1:�-`•".`-ti'"•"•*"'�"'�• °°"�p\\\\C\�•�t.;JP•�OJP�;J. \\ \\\\\\ . \ \mac•\ \�t '.� ` '�\�\ \ \ \ \\\ice 4 \�4\Q\\� � \ �\\\\.C\�i.•.•ii•s'i:�D.e� \\ \ ORRRI, \� e•••.•i i•i ii•••i• �� ...�Ca4.�\ .a�:......�\�:::::::a::�.ww\. \...\4CS\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\��4�ra::�....,.,.\44'�\•��•❖:•:.•:.•:.•/� ®® \\\\�\\\\\� :ark•::.:: �1 � !• • •ii`y�':••ieei0• � OR MW �};:.?M1N:yh}• a}uyt!JO:•XV.'Y�'i::: �••1•�.�•s ai e•�••• ASPEN MOUNTAIN PROPOSED The Lodge Top Of M i I I ZONING American 1 Corvoration DATE I O=Rn IM �•ooe.eoeo � .. r Ra000s.oeo a ® _ � e000000000a .� °iai=i o=i'�.�•o°o mss_' .. �'i � ��►� �'w«iiaoios°ii•i•saee �1~G 1��i �:15 ® ��`t► �` KNOW' ►•i`OiieoiG000iei°o� �'��4 �� • - • /�1� 1 �4.�� Nl wosooiowoioopi►•s°i"osiosieoioi'. �1�iV!�n 1��!aseo.e+ooeo.►ase.•+aooa,•0000soo.• . ��.� �.� � � �1,� Q•�,a°o`�•�.aier r�.•e000w00000�00000�►�\�U��`��_�� j/ �fi��j�4ti•�i�'�� e.►� .-. 1.♦>•• view♦♦♦♦f�"�.�,� �`+ .r.�`\ �\ i y � ►w40°4n ee�i•w•p''e i o°pew his �` :+. � �OO�ew•0w�•Awo.wee.we♦ ` �''��a.iw�� "�i• �� j,,? '7g,�tp��p..�aaw.►e.•A.le9.t.iA• �•��LS�L � �e•e'w•°e♦•w••'O.p�•►•e.•'•'�►ice«� •+sf'`.ia i; ��•��I�p��`a••pwpsp•••et•ee.••pA•w•eee�w ewp♦� ��•�~`�� l' e0000s00000000.os� \y .ii �1 � 4 o•►ow•o•+•0000's�+o*••o•°`•'►o*o°o`o• •� �' ''� - � � �� i1►.!i��'«'A�e�e�•�•.fe3•i•°1'i:i}cia u�v`°r\�•w��`i\\�\\�\� � 4De o sos°s°o°`\� hS\`+►+`�o s•....+o o i�� \�-�. �• �..■ • ... 4 e 1_' ♦�� ♦ �a ♦ �. ISBN LON N Qowodo,.• y \�\ .�..�� NINE—\\ rye �. ` •� '4 . Z�\�` y\\`� .\\\�a\•�...♦ .ate 1V RI MISM INN ON • •lam'}.•! mow, ♦'� \ R \ �`.♦a'R ` ` v •�\p SR \ \ . �. . •.1E ••C1�. q tip. �.'14�a�\�� ` �; � \\• � • �`\ �� a \ �►• �\die\ \��`::��,`rrW`v!L\ Ott- • i � 's t'�:` �� \\\♦ r, \� �ti� \\\. \�� ►1� C•_.�sue. QXN SON R tee``i� .�� .��\\ s•. N O `\may \� \��\\��\\\\\��•ii i i��•��i�•�•�•�•�•�.••.1.�i•.1�a i�� ff.9:2:",��1••••1<•��.��•:f��•••i•�i•��f��,•i "� \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�,•a�••i:�Oi•s�•�•�❖>�i i is••4:•i:�•a4..::°::•�•,a�.LL,•:••w.s.i•iO!:�•:ii ii�•�►�� \\��\�\.. ��\\\\`•i iiii iL•�•%•i sy'fe if°i�•�•�•�a�:�,�•��•.!`�'i:f,�;:,��•��iii iii• ei«•i❖'ii•�•.•iji•:�s i'• • .• \ as\�\\ \ •a,••iai,i°b i:i:•••%b i••.•i•i•i ii i ii••:••°:••:a O'•••i O i•i•i i i%i•:a••°•i O••ii••••�.•i�•i�i•��••••:•°'�Aa.•:•s••:•�•••��•i i°`�ia•°•0•••.•OO••••i•V•O••Oi.••O•�•••i�•r•ii••,i•i0:•',••�,•�•••••i•••••�•••••i•••°i••.'.:a•I•. •....•..tom. !Kg wo :.•ai�i}�i:•••�i•O i• iii '• ••• \��\ \\ \�\..` •J�•:•JOii0•iiaii,*i::'•••••°••ai•O•°•°•°•••��♦�.°O iii f:•i�:••O•i;«••iiifi•• ��\\\\ \ �\:❖:❖:•iii•••i°iii%th•••ii i••❖:❖�❖��iii i•••�•i•••ii•Vii••••••°i•:•io ciia.�•♦•.°••ii•••:•a•••ai s♦. \`\��\�\\�\��.`•X06•.•��••�:,..,ai°i••i�i i••♦, ❖.7:c i:..:•a•,•.•se.,�:�.�s��•.•,•A.•••°•°•i°•!••ii ii'°••i•�~��® ��\ •�. ..�.r\\.:.:.:.:.c....,••.••:J•.•....••ii,•ii.�s�•w.w.••.••w.•.,4.•�•:•.••.♦,s........•�•••••:ii:•::..•A,• s \\\��\\�\❖••'�i�Qi�i�•�Q•°.•!•�i�i�i�i!•!•�i�i�•�iTs!•!••i!iTi�i i iii' i4? i!i:1ii iii ii❖ii❖iii'ii❖i i:•iii ti i' .......... .❖...•.❖...:•. NX IgN :'r:t :: :::•.:::�:.;:;.;;.;._fir. MOUNTAIN ASPEN American Century Corporation � •S Pacie 6 of their rezoning proposals by the Commission, with6rew their request for rezoning to TJ-2 of that mortion of the Top of Fill. site currently zoned R-15 (PUD) (L) . in order to accomplish the Top of till n_ roposal , it will obviously be necessary% to effectuate the pro' osed land trade and to rezone those City-owned lots currently zoned Public . The F-pplicants continue to request a rezoning to L-2 for the City-owned lots . Poth the Planning Office anu the Planning.; anti Zoning Commissionr however , recommend that in the event the lane' trade is accomplished , that the parcels in question be rezonee, to R-15 (P[JD) (L) . The Planning Office's and Commission' s reasoning with respect to this recommendation is as follows: 1) While the proposed, development is consistent with the intent of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/AccortInodations Transition land use category ax�plieci to this area in the 1973 Aspen Lana Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required to achieve the proposed develor)ment ; 2) The primary reason for the Applicants ' request i's to enar-ile them to ta. -e ac;vE�ntace of the more favorable FAR ratio available in the L-2 zone district . Vince the FEAR provisions of the Nainicipal Code may be varies pursuant to the PUP regulations , a< rezoning merely to reduce the e:,tent of the requested variation is inappropriate ; an.c: 3} The L-2 zone ciis'cr i ct permits multi-family rE:sic�ential uses in addition to sincle-family units and duplexes , and. therefore , does not Guarantee that development will occur consistent with the adopted, Land Use Plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION/RECONSTRUCTION The Applicants for the Aspen r ountain PUS? are red, uestinc; an e�,ern.0 L_ from growth management for the development of the Top of r111/Fumr2it Place comple�:es . Specifically , the Tapplicants are requesting an ei:emption pursuant to Section 24 -11- . 2 (a ) of the zoning regulations for the reconstruction of forty ( 40 ) residentiail dwell.inc units . These units either currently eXist on the Tstpen Mountain PUS? si'-- or have been previously demolished and verified by the Pui.ldinc Depart- ment . As discussed earlier , tT'?e Top of 1"J-11/SuIlmlt com—,.lex will replace thirty-four ( 34 ) of the forty ( 40) existing or previously demolished residential dwelling units . The Applicants , With the assistance of the Uuildinq Department have inventoried these units and have submitted to the Planninq Office a request for their verifi- cation. F}fter careful review of the Applicants ` documentation , the Planning Office and Puilding Department have agreed to the verification of forty (4.0) residential dwelling units . r, detailed breakdown of these units is available should you require additional information.. ?While no specific P&Z or Council action is required with respect to this request for (7!'P exemption, the Planning Office suggests that any conceptual PUD approval with _ to the Top of Piill/Summit Place comnlex include the following condition,- which are consistent with the reconstruction -provisions of Section 24-13_ . 2. (a) of the Code : 1 . The Applicants should be limited to the reconstruction of no more than the veri.fie(3 total of forty (40) residential dwelling units ; 2 . The reconstruction of these residential units must l)e accon- L.lished within five ( 5) ';ears f:roi til e d'.c.te of dl 'i^Ol1t1012 ; a n t: ? . T1-in rc� construct- ion of the demolished residential units; should be limitedi to the Aspen I1ountain PUD site . 17o e :cm1� ion is recuired for the 700 South C"Ei__lena_ comnlez as this Project receive a quota allocation in the 1`.33 rE': d; Ldenti_a l ('''T'' compet i- ,_iOn. r-7 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIOTT RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE TOP OF DILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN 11OU14TAIN PUD AND RECOMMENDING A REZONING TO R-15 (PUD) (L) FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN Resolution No. 5 (Series of 1984) NTHEREAS T..-mer • Cc n C'er i i'r' '.C`L -:iorat. ioi� , Co inrce S�.\�1 tct:^ pC1��.L:a.'^_ 1 C �' i� 1 an-7. r _. e L �° \;c.\> t ,r ' , l c! er LC �C r r r'. -�r n - n i - tt \ ,p c31+.tr.: '. �C t ;?�?ICa�7.pn f-Or concer-'•tl'.U1 , l L'r 1VlSi on a'77rCL'ai rpr C' 'f C;_ �.t�Ci1?I.,_iis i i�?CF C C?IIC C i^?_r:1Li!': ^_pr .pnen4s p i ": _'pL.i��.v_zr_' 7t ?`< r:� 7 `11 e �,on WHEREAS , Che � �~ i 4 c _ ;n r =(fue �' - 4 na, , 2,!s f i c:�r ac c:j. ict �: a_c:� .C_„ • et __ �.rC -:�'�'�rpvals 1rl.c�_L�.rllnf> ��n!? Lc... _x__20 �.. --- 1 �..----1 1 ---=. L � . _c�.r l C` Q T a_, r r. \Y{: j_C IZ C.r 1 n T p, a �..L s 1 1.o on n t L- c. -or _:. U ,,Lr c_t _L-: z.crlec: WHEREAS, `� c � �� .'� ?-',�r �*Ii their r.e,:;L�.G�t nor rezorinC __i Ll, _G 11 �: ?ortj.on o _i!e o"s'} "{ i c.ur_ 2t'C: 15 (7-TID) !T,) anc: WHEREAS , �I_.n pc >;1 ":iij_:'Ct EnC.; 7o ninc CoI`iT'.7 : .`j.pn (he reiiZc.rLer t ref c rrC>c. 0 at`_ 'C_i'ZP 0-f'_..1.;>_i )nt` ` CSC CrpI2 I.0?C r 1:C j r?~'�_1C 4 Iii:S ° rectaest._. :- n l Pt1 ,I�-L'bC!.3.V1 lon c ? °rp�' _ of the, �'O C__ _ j_' 1 _.Ian: rtl :irl3-'- or conce _ _L:ca__ 1)1 re Conc:oritj_I2i 1111?° ; � 0 C. cc ].in _ c rl� i �_n r-zon , 7ro::t t..,J. .c p _ eet�nC . tl. lc pat I �lr h � ` {iC! Cpn ltC?7t'- cnc',, L.rrs1 ? - utl n01-_J ccC: u1-., ic, he rl tZ on Al?r 31 I r _',2 c, f! WHEREAS? the r p;';: li`;`:; c;n L= _�';^P', {:0 C!(1fCr �Orrl 1 ?C:`l:-j.oi? 91'uh r_espec to Lhe n"%T_-; _J1 can":: C.'l.I r o r 2 04 0 (7re;._.-_ine ca__ ="oun ai n Jcn,7 Plane e .� until tir, cons—i-7.c? � { - '`C-' ,:) i wC:C'nt Ei i .�r£�a.\i.^:�.r.._a rc] ?7�i':_ L.':1_ti-- rE.ti'2 .[ t..a.:_i.� 3.'t" .. i'd_�.iGit O._ �_i L T I. _ _ eC VE i? i `^ I?_CZl ia4- u r e o.' 'ic vE7 r ?ouE-, rev L iVi ipi tl!Jr`:1 . 51 0n, . _ the nec C. f'or r:lore de tail-ec'. inforr ati oi^ 1`i',. i L( ,^i to r c.c-ZCLlc_tel WHEREAS . ~u r> l.: .niC �t.o F :C'.._o : 2l? .'.�.�_ . 3 !;_\ 0-_ r1: I'ti i_c;' r, :l r'oC 1: , r<r� C;#. a''C r; yr}C �TT� �r !?I.)�;1''7.it '_C}12 c,.1Y;L0�. _ a t? ?CIZ !._ reCelt, ±Ill: J1_E'iitJa:C` L1C C, ..0 �• ' " ._ C r tic 0 ,t . �I^ 3 ' = C -_ t ±01� _L C'! .1 WHEREAS, tl pen C i tv Coiunc i 7 t j al nte -, 0- r .nt to '-(-t J M Q" the l7unici??aj Coe e nt al lo t..De t reoiCential units tzo the 700 Sou -l`: (Calenp. conclontinimm, ..G_ .:-1"i in llesolllt_io�n 17o . 7 S)e r i e Tip, n o f t h e T,s e n 17 0 1.� Fl J .s sel of 1984 ; ro s'e,c J o-i 2�l -17. ,3 (f) t e ,1--,-1 4 ss i o n r e v i e w WHEREAS , the '07 '-I i l7unicir, ,,al Coac nct��,,ithEtancinc , tl--L-- 700 south (7alena con lly -0 the -�-�e- Fountain PUTED v-1-tl res-ecL to the concel `,:�'._l - ponent of U n r 4 Z:, CC I-I.-C !'un i c ipa 1 CoCe at tee'.cl 0 n P U T_� On Crit( pji rit I,!tj� r 1 a y Ist cn C 17 ay a1-1 WHEREAS , have revisec, the 1"olp o --its 7 0 0 f o,,i n t a i r. PUP in -s i South, Callena con,-'o:- 114 U E), c oi,%L,,.)o n e n o- T.,snen re_%s,-,)ons,c to vc_rioijs concerns 1)t,, the Planninc. Of'flIc .: commi ssion incJ1 u(".inq a S ic,'nif-'i cE,.nt- -re 61 uct i on in the ove r,a I"L 1-1 e t NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 1)v '11-he TP3;:mnJnc, an 2onincl Co-malission nf the C L t7 AF.7 en , Colora- Section 1 ,ih,71i_- it rooE herel-v recoir,en.0 t-h la i the P.s')en C.—T Council concer)-tual PUTD/SlUbclivision z roval , u s u a n t o S.e c t i c,n s fir?-'! 0 4_2 . 7 0 f T u n i c i a' Cc)' - , i:c -`l-e `son of Fill- Pic-ice an C L 1,� T�s-1)e In o n�_- a_J n P T.37, 7 0 0 S o u t h (7 a 10!1 a C 0 n ()T` n co i�,,-r,,o n o rl-s L_�i 4 -� conC.it ions - s c c t t o t h e JLE c o-, in hn -)n Cant. ° c c rr 11 j j c-, of t 1 t nortio- of the site cur riert'v 0?,7 ned, the C 11r, 7' nn I j. c F,n t s, I resolution o c E,n o i n ee r i n c, z7 r 1-:,,i n t s 4 concerns [,,,71t' r I-s-pc ct o c E,.c c E ssilDii.ity cL cor J.n internal -�C.,.r -r4 re nrotection -nurno-les . J areas o-f thIc To;? of l'il :, t a cl y)r Or)0 s E,� c c n-p t E r ica.ntE 1.,s ion o L' 1� 4 tj'f,) toy' he 7:s-pen or tl-,o relocation o-E the j7)L 1 4 es (7, L con Jlcionc,17 0 1--: ` v F,. c,�i- j _,o o J I r e e T-r o r i�a t o of �-:Jll Lit i I Y r I of t L the 0-- zl-� f r F,1 ;7) 7"C' 2- 0 Z?,, -;,7, c -f on th e r o. e v a c a s o 1.fl s u r e t h c c r e r- e a.Chi c r i cj.h t c u r r t 0r tu r n c,e 6 s, 4 -1.F. i o ri of 7 C c t-l-)I rl C"e l- C jT _7 e site inclu(�inq i `0=,Dti oll Ll C. j L nc - o ti- e, e7,ten'L_ 0 er n o- L 0 f7 r-C. r - Resolution 7o . 91Pace 3 G The height of the Top of Fill co.nOominiuyi u,-its not e�,ceedinc: thirty-tl-.ree ( 33) feet Z12 Tlep_�-_,ur,7 d the lossest MCA elevEtion to the midpoint of the roof . 7 . The spDlicantsl revision of the Toy-� of 11--,11 site plan so as to increase the MtEnce between the Wo single-famill, units locatea at the southern IZE!rminus, of 77ill Street in, order to expanC the view through the project from Mite Stree-t- to the ski area . 8 . The retention , to the maximum nytent feasible, of existing mature vegetation ml the Top of Hill site and the installation of adeQuate landscoping so as to minimize the visual impact of the .project , in particular as vieweO from Fill Street , Lift I-A and the adjacent ski terrain. 9 . The Applicants ' provision of an Nequate easement, acceptable to the Engineering Department ? so as to allow the extension of Summit Street in the event the eMension is Nelned appro- priate by the City. 10 . The Applicants ' granting of an acceptable trail easement across the Top of Fill site so as to i-)rovi(�e access . to the extent feasible , t,; the base of jittle 17eli and Lift 1-1. 11 . The Applicants ' submission of a preliminary soils ane water table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to incluCe an evaluation of slope stability both during an& followinC construction. Conceptual pu- (f t c livision cl- -h- 700 couz-,I-h (7alena prcject should he erpressly conditioner-, on the Ipplicants ' ritigation of any bi soils , slope stalitY or crainage problems idnntifie6, the details of szaiC mitiglat--;-01111 to be included in the Apylicants ' preliminary PUD/subdivisicir) submission . 12 • The nprlicants ' identification of all easements requirec, in conjunction with the conEtruction of the 700 South Galena project and the acquisition of said easements , to the extent required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. 13 . The Algilicants ' agreement to a completion scliedule for the construction of the 700 South Galena project and 1-he provision of an appropriate performance 11-ion6i -,:-.o as to -nrevent and Pininize Wmaga to the surrounding landowners Q th(, form of an unsightly and/or unsafe col,--struction area for a longer period of time than W necessary. 14 . The height of the 700 South Galena. riondoininium units not enceeding a paximum of thirty--four ( 34 ) beet along the projects ' south facade , a naNirum of thirty-nine (39) feet along the north facade and a maximum of forty-three ( 43 ) feet in anv other location as compared to the maximum height allowN in" the underlying L-2 zone district of thirty-three ( 33 ) feet , all as measureO from natural araW to the ridge, of the roof and as shown on the Applicants ' revised elevation:::, dated April 27 , 1984 . These restriction E are to be note(7 and recorde6 on the Eprlicants ' final pup/subdivision plat. 15 . The Applicants ' reali(Ining Galena Street in tile vicinity Of the 700 South Galena project , to the eztent feasible , to ir- ,.prove .:raf.,= J.o, circulatio cnc7 samtv in the ceneral site area. 10 , The above conCitions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub- division approval . 17 . The reconstruction of evisting units 'T)ein ,, 1iritek tc the forty (40) units verifiN nursuart to Section-- 77, o c '!c!1. C o 6 c b n c c o i h e C: n rive 5- c,-1.r s the Cc.te GI. e m o i t i o 1 E_n C' b e i C r .t-r ct,eC,� - e m e . n U J.- en 7'o u a i n' C th 7_1. 4 mater -La.1 re-resentations o-IE the Tq-plJ nts col-ic-01?tU 7 z-,'- 1.-L4 1 11 Pui-`/,suhC1 livis ion an6' a-;?],�11cationz.! no�'C_ s?--eci- f J c,a 1.1_v r°-L�e r r e to c1 1r)0 v e 1)e i n c! T a c a.. c o n cl.i t i 0 n c)-ff t ii apPr Ova.1- Section 2 mlIE'L_ it Cioes thc-�tk the C i 1-T Council (''enl.,' the Lpplicants I requr_,E7t for rezoninc, -J-'r oT o 1'_a 7 Mo,) 01, Fill site- currentl)_�, o-,7p�- w t1i a n C4 c,o e ,00-r-- ion of e C herel.')y rccormen6 inSteca6 thFit the rCe s,) ;fie r e o n o C1 to I TL T)., IT,}F stich cr-,n a h ce p a-r c �7 conveye-C-. to the z -F t-he follow reasons: lnc rens: or 4 t 1 the intent T-71,1 4 elevel cprment is cons i s ten't C -he -,)rc.-)os-. . i - C f 'L:h e, P c c r-I F-, on IT.c c or.,,,.l o6 i o n S the L-10 zone cate(�or-%- anC of Trz,nsiition janC, use cate(-,ory to this in 11--he, 3-073 Aspen Land Use Plan , a rezoninc to L-2 is not recruirec. to achieve the nroposeC 6,evelonment. ' he -.primary reason for t-hc--.� reque_��t i- to enaIDIe ther, to a(7,van ta T-e Of the re J''av o r a, e F T;r r ti c C, 4 ,r ovi,,si.on.`' -1— L-2 zcne Since the FTR Clva 14 1 a,- n T of P-nn' 4 e T-)T C o,c,e -,a v varies==.I c d U,r S u pa n t t o regu1_ atl. ons, r e z o n n i 1,i e r e, 7 IC o re 6 11c e t h the rec-Liested variation jds jm_-.,.,-)pronr_J0.te. T e -2 zonC- istricC xrr.lit F,!uJti-fami' re:sicen -- in- 1 C. L e.,e s a n uses in aC(Hit-ion to si-i i c-1 f a-'.�i 1 Y U 11 i t S Z111 ! C'11— -I I 'therefore , 6oes noi- c:,uarant.cc tnzat Ceveloq?i',ient will cccur consistent wiyih tll-le F.(f,,(-)p1CcC-. LanCd T7se Plat-1. APPROVED 1-v.7 e E,n n i n c In n,: 7on.-ino Come-,liszz;ion C)-F the Cit of Co1orElco , Ert 'Cheir re(-mic'.r mcotine on Fa�.. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Perry 'FarT,ev, Chairman ATTEST: F_r 0,7,_r El 7 0 r Ir i s e P u,t City C' erli 19 PlEr?ORANDUN TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Revised Employee Housing Proposal DATE: May 8, 1984 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and consideration is the latest draft of your resolution recommending conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The resolution also recommends a rezoning to R-15 (PUD) (L) for that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and owned by the City of Aspen. I have incorp- orated the additional conditions with respect to 700 South Galena which you requested at your May lst meeting. The purpose of tonight ' s meeting is to review and amend as required the revised resolution and to formally review the Applicants ' revised employee housing proposal. The Planning Office ' s comments with respect to the Applicants ' revised proposal are outlined below. EMPLOYEE HOUSING The attached letters from Jim Curtis , dated April 23rd and April 30 , 1984, outline the Applicants ' revised employee housing generation figures and employee housing proposal . Both the generation figures and the employee housing proposal have been reviewed and endorsed by the Housing Authority . It should be pointed out, however, that further revisions to the generation figures and revised proposal may be forthcoming as further refinement of the lodge portion of the PUD continues . It should also be pointed out, that the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal is consistent, in terms of the percentage of employees housed, with their original lodge GMP repre- sentation . The major change to the Applicants ' original proposal involves the substitution of two ( 2) additional employee housing projects for the proposed fifty ( 50 ) unit project to be build on the Benedict/Larkin property on Ute Avenue. As the attached materials indicate, the revised proposal would house 195 employees in four (4) separate projects. To refresh your memory, the Commission, in its resolution recommending conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD, found that the conversion of the forty-four ( 44) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed- restricted employee housing would result in negligible growth impacts on the community and that said change-in-use was exempt from complying with the growth management allotment procedures of the Municipal Code. No further review of this component of the Applicants ' employee housing proposal is required by the Commission at this time. A condition of your approval, however, was that the Applicants submit additional information with respect to the mitigation of parking problems at the Alpina Haus as part of their lodge preliminary PUD/subdivision submission . In addition to the Alpina Haus Lodge, the Applicants also propose to convert and deed-restrict the fourteen ( 14 ) unit Copper Horse Lodge to employee housing . The change-in-use of an individually designated historic structure, however, is exempt by definition from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures . As a result, no specific review is required by the P&Z to accomplish the proposed change-in-use . The Commission, however, also identified a concern with respect to parking problems at the Copper Horse and proposed to further review this issue in conjunction with the Applicants ' lodge preliminary PUD/subdivision submission . The appropriateness Page 2 of both the Copper Norse and Alpina Haus for employee housing purposes is subject to P&Z and Council review in the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD. Together, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse will house 89 employees, or approximately forty-five percent (450) of the Applicants ' employee housing commitment . The remainder of the employees (106 employees) were originally proposed to be housed in an approximately 50 unit project to be constructed on Ute Avenue . With the withdrawal of this proposal, the Applicants ' now intend to provide the remainder of their employee housing commitment at the Airport Business Center and in a new project to be constructed on East Cooper Street . As outlined in the attached materials, the Ute City Place project on East Cooper Street essentially involves the conversion of a prior GMP approval to 100 percent deed-restricted employee housing while the acquisition of existing rental housing at the Airport Business Center would result in the deed-restriction of currently unrestricted units . From a procedural perspective , the Ute City Place project should be considered a discrete and separate proposal from the prior GMP approval . The project involves the construction of 22 new deed-restricted employee housing units exempt from the City' s growth management allotment procedures . As such, it is subject to the special approval of the Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion . Inasmuch as the prior Ute City Place GMP approval involved full subdivision review and rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) , the Commission must find that the proposed revisions to the project are consistent with the original conditions of subdivision and RBO approval . No specific review by the Commission is required for the deed-restriction of the Airport Business Center units to employee housing guidelines . The Commission, however, must find that the proposed utilization of both the ABC and Ute City Place units is consistent with the Appli- cants ' relevant lodge GMP application representations and is appropriate within the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD approval . Further analysis of these two new components of the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal is provided below. UTE CITY PLACE The original Ute City Place application received a GMP allocation in the 1981 residential competition. The original Applicant proposed to develop twenty-two ( 22) units on a 1500 s . f . parcel zoned R-MF. The project location is lots C, D, E, F and G, Block 118 , City of Aspen (Cooper Avenue between West End and Cleveland Avenues ) . Of the twenty-two ( 22) units proposed by the Applicant, eight ( 8 ) were free market , and fourteen. (14) were deed-restricted employee housing units. The original application also received full subdivision review and approval and was rezoned to R-MF (RBO) in order to accommodate the density proposed. The project was also condominiumized in order to allow sale of the individual units . The Applicants for the Aspen Mountain PUD propose to purchase the Ute City Place site, make minor revisions in the original approved project, and deed-restrict all of the units pursuant to the City' s employee housing guidelines . The revised project would house thirty- seven (37) employees. Given the fact that the project will no longer contain free market units , an amendment to the prior CMP approval will not be required. Instead, the Planning Office proposes to essen- tially duplicate the procedural steps employed in the review of the original Ute City Place project . Obviously, consideration of the Applicants ' request for exemption from growth management for the construction of the twenty-two ( 22) units would also be required. The specific review steps will involve conceptual subdivision review by the P&Z and Council , preliminary subdivision review by the P&Z and final subdivision review by the Council . In addition, a public hearing will need to be held at the preliminary subdivision step Paae 3 in order to consider the Applicants ' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay . Council would also take action on this request at the final subdivision step. Should the Applicants be successful in the review of the revised Ute City Place project, then a condition of final subdivision approval would be the revocation of the prior GMP allocation. The purpose of tonight ' s meeting with respect to the Ute City Place proposal is to consider the appropriateness of this component of the Applicants ' employee housing solution and of recommending conceptual subdivision approval to City Council . Although the public hearing with respect to the RBO rezoning would not occur until preliminary subdivision review, P&Z should also comment with respect to the appro- priateness of the rezoning at this time . Based on the materials submitted to date, the revised Ute City Place proposal appears to be identical in most respects to the original project which received preliminary subdivision approval by the P&Z and final approval by City Council . The architecture is identical to the prior proposal with the exception that the size of the free market units has been reduced consistent with the City ' s employee housing guidelines . As a result, the overall FAR of the project and the building footprint have been reduced substantially . A detailed analysis of the area and bulk requirements of both the original and revised project will be available at your Tuesday meeting. With respect to the revised project ' s eligibility for RBO rezoningr the changes which the Applicants have proposed make the project even more consistent with the applicable criteria . Essentially, the only reason RBO rezoning is required is to allow the level of density proposed. Additional information with respect to the density allowed under existing zoning as compared to the density proposed will also be available at your Tuesday meeting . The Planning Office supports the utilization of the revised Ute City Place project as part. of the Applicants ' employee housing solution subject to the attachment of appropriate conditions . AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER APARTMENTS No specific review by the Commission is required for the deed-restriction of the Airport Business Center units to employee housing guidelines . The Planning Office believes , however, that the Commission should make a recommendation to Council as to the appropriateness of the inclusion of the ABC units in the Applicants ' employee housing solution. The remainder of the Applicants ' employee housing commitment, approxi- mately sixty-nine (69) employees, would be met by this proposal . Based on preliminary discussions to date, the Commission appears to be divided with respect to this issue. It should be pointed out, however, that the Housing Authority has endorsed this proposal, based primarily on the fact that the inclusion of these units in the Applicants' employee housing solution will result in the deed-restriction of thirty-two (32) existing free market units. While these units currently serve an employee housing function, there is no mechanism which insures their continued availability for employee housing purposes. In fact, the owners of the Airport Business Center units are currently discussing the appropriateness of an application for condominiumization with the Housing Authority. Given the fact that the utilization of these units as part of the Applicants' employee housing solution would result in the deed-restriction of previously unrestricted units, the Planning Office supports this Applicants ' proposal. The principal issue which we have identified at this time involves the transportation implications associated with the housing of hotel employees at the Airport Business Center . Jim Curtis ' April 19, 1984 letter, which is attached for your review, addresses this concern and we are prepared to discuss it in further detail at your Tuesday meeting . Any endorsement by the Commission of the Applicants' use of the ABC units should be conditioned upon the specific measures to be taken to mitigate transportation problems. Page 4 SUMMARY Should you concur with the Planning Office recommendations, we propose to prepare a draft resolution endorsing the Applicants' revised employee housing proposal and specifically recommending conceptual subdivision approval for the revised Ute City Place project . The resolution would outline the Applicants ' proposal in detail and contain any conditions you might wish to add with respect to your endorsement . Suggested conditions for which the Planning Office would develop specific language would include, for example, the timing of the Appli- cants ' acquisition of the various properties, the execution of appropriate deed-restrictions, the mitigation of transportation related problems, etc . This resolution could be prepared for your May 22nd regular meeting and could be forwarded to Council independent of your resolution with respect to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena projects . Obviously, there are alternative approaches which you may wish to take . The Applicants ' will be available at your Tuesday meeting to discuss this issue as well as any other questions your might wish to raise with respect to their revised employee housing proposal. ,. Ed fFia RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AND RECOMMENDING A REZONING TO R-15 (PUD) (L) FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN Resolution No. (Series of 1984) WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savinas Association, Alan. R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants" ) , have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub- division approval for the Top of Mill and Summit Place condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews and approvals including 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R- 15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" ) did consider the Applicants ' requests for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the Top of Mill and Summit Place condominiums, 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review, and rezoning from Public to L-2 at meetings held on March 20th, March 27th and April 17, 1984, and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted on April 10, 1984 ; and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect to the Applicants ' request for 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review until its consideration of the Applicants ' preliminary PUD/sub- division submission, given the technical nature of the various review criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately assess project impacts ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 3 (f) of the Municipal Code, any project needing PUD or subdivision approval which has received a development allotment may be deemed by the Planning Office to have satisfied the conceptual presentation requirements of the City ' s Resolution No. 84- Paste 2. PUD and subdivision regulations ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 4 (8) of the Municipal Code, a development allotment of twelve ( 12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7, Series of 1984; and WHEREAS, the Commission did review, Section 24-11 . 3 (f) of the Municipal Code notwithstanding, the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD with respect to the conceptual PUD/subdivision criteria of the Municipal Code at meetings held on April 24th, May lst and May 8, 1984 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado: Section 1 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual PUD/subdivision approval , pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8 . 7 of the Municipal Code, to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD subject to the following conditions : 1 . The Applicants ' acquisition of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned by the City. 2. The Applicants ' resolution of the Engineering Department ' s concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes . 3 . The Applicants ' submission of a detailed proposal, acceptable to the Aspen Ski Club, for the relocation of the Ski Club ' s facilities . 4. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the retention of all utility rights, the provision of appropriate utility easements, and each utility franchised in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that the loss of the right-of-wav will not interfere with each utility' s current or future needs . 5 . The Applicants ' submission of an acceptable detailed storm drainage plan for the Top of Mill site, including information with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required to construct the proposed retention ponds. 6 . The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding thirty-three ( 33) feet as measured from the lowest floor elevation to the midpoint of the roof . 7 . The Applicants ' revision of the Top of Mill site plan so as to increase the distance between the two single-family units located at the southern terminus of Mill Street in order to expand the view through the project from the Street Resolution rho. 84-_ Page 3 to the ski area. 8 . The retention, to the maximum extent feasible, of existing mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact of the project, in particular as viewed from Mill Street. Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain. 9. The Applicants ' provision of an adequate easement, acceptable to the Engineering Department, so as to allow the extension of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro- priate by the City. 10 . The Applicants ' granting of an acceptable trail easement across the Top of Mill site so as to provide access , to the extent feasible, to the base of Little Nell and Lift 1-A. 11 . The Applicants' submission of a preliminary soils and water table investigation of the 700 South Galena site to include an evaluation of slope stability both during and following construction. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the 700 South Galena project should be expressly conditioned upon the Applicants ' mitigation of any soils, slope stability or drainage problems identified, the details of said mitigation to be included in the Applicants ' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. 12 . The Applicants ' identification of all easements required in conjunction with the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the acquisition of said easements, to the extent required, prior to the issuance of an excavation permit. 13 . The Applicants ' agreement to a completion schedule for the construction of the 700 South Galena project and the provision of an appropriate performance bond so as to prevent and minimize damage to the surrounding landowners in the form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area for a longer period of time than is necessary. 14. The height of the 700 South Galena condominium units not exceeding a maximum of thirty-four ( 34 ) feet along the projects ' south facade , a maximum of thirty-nine (39) feet along the north facade and a maximum of forty-three ( 43) feet in any other location, all as measured from natural grade to the ridge of the roof and as shown on the Applicants ' revised elevations dated April 27, 1984 . 15 . The Applicants ' continuing to explore, in conjunction with the Engineering Department, the feasibility of realigning Galena Street in the vicinity of the 700 South Galena project so as to improve traffic circulation and safety in the general site area. 16. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub- division approval . 17 The reconstruction of existing residential units being limited to the forty (40 ) units verified pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 ( a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within five (5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site. 18. All material representations of the Applicants ' conceptual PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications not speci- fically referred to above being made a condition of this approval . I Resolution No. 84-__ Page 4 Section 2 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council deny the Applicants ' request for a rezoning f rom Public to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned by the City and does hereby recommend instead that the parcel (s) be rezoned to R-15 (PUD) (L) f at such time as the parcel (s ) may be conveyed to the Applicants , for the following reasons : 1. While the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations Transition land use category applied to this area in the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required to achieve the proposed development. 2. The primary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio available in the L-2 zone district . Since the FAR provisions of the Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PU D regulations , a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of the requested variation is inappropriate. 3. The L-2 zone district permits multi-family residential uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes and, therefore, does not guarantee that development will occur consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on May , 1984 . ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By Perry Harvey, Chairman ATTEST: Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk I ct J`~ .._o'cl .� �t.�., APR -2_8_1982 r (:ecept'o� Pdo. �� Loretra G�inn r'�•, �'.' �� Ga. Rccor?ec 'O r- KrP N SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT = � C�p cbp THIS AGREEMENT, made this Z= r), day of q z_ cam , 1982 Cn by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herei _tee referred to as City) and HBC Investments (hereinafter referred to as Subdivider) W •I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted to the City for approval, execution, and recordation, a final plat (hereinafter referred to as the "Plat") concernin the de elopment of a project known as theme-794-�affth Galena Street" roject ("Project" ) on a parcel of real property owned by the subdivider .and located at 700 South Galena Street, and formally described as Lot 16 and Parcel B, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivisions , City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 1982, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the Project subject to certain specific conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council will approve, execute , and accept for recordation the plat on the further condition that Subdivider execute this Agreement formally acknowledging it acceptance of all the conditions and requirements imposed by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, covenants, and conditions contained herein, and the approval , execution and acceptance of the plat for recordation by the City of Aspen, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the improvements on the above-described property, the Subdivider shall provide as follows: a. With regard to slope stabilization during excavation and construction, the Subdivider shall provide a comprehensive engineering design for both temporary and permanent earth-retaining structures (and the monitoring thereof during excavation and construction) . Said design and monitoring system shall be signed and sealed by a licensed geotechnical engineer and approved by the City Engineer. If the earth-retaining design finally approved by the City Engineer requires temporary or permanent �,o,N425 encroachment on neighboring property or City right-of-way, the Subdivider shall secure all of the permits, licenses and/or easements of the neighboring property owners and/or the City as required by law. b. With regard to surface and subsurface drainage -during excavation, construction and occupancy, the Subdivider shall provide a comprehensive engineering design for said drainage. Said design shall include provisions for on-site retention of storm flows (including dry wells, retention wells, and planted diversion berm) and for filtration of the drainage to remove mud and construction debris. Said design shall be signed and sealed by a licensed geotechnical engineer and approved by the City Engineer. If the drainage design finally approved by the City Engineer requires an overflow connection to storm sewer, the Subdivider shall enter into a separate agreement with the City to extend, all at Subdivider' s cost, the existing storm sewer up Galena Street to the Project, all to the City' s specifications for such storm sewer C. With regard to consistency of the amended GMP application and City approvals with the building plans to be submitted, the Subdivider shall submit said building plans to the City Planning Office for verification of compliance of those plans with the amended GMP application and the binding plat approvals of the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. d. With regard to all utilities required for the project, if the submitted project construction plans or City or utility company requirements provide for utility installations in property locations not now burdened by easements, Subdivider shall be required to convey the relevant utility easements in standard form at no cost to the City or utility companies. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy ("CO" ) for the Project, the Subdivider shall provide as j follows: I a. The twelve employee units at the 925 East Durant phase of this joint project must be built, deed-restricted to City low-income, rental/resale guidelines and covered by i valid City certificates of occupancy. b. The Project must contain all design features and amenities as identified in the amended GMP application for the Project and required as conditions of approval in the P&Z and City Council including, but not limited to, the following: . BUOK 46 !ac1,723 (i) Twenty-six (26) underground parking spaces and one (1) surface parking space, until such time as the 10 spaces for the Continental Inn are removed pursuant to a separate written agreement by the subdivider and approved by the City of Aspen. (ii) Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the site retained as open space. (iii) Energy conservation features (with required R-values) as required by the P&Z in its preliminary plat approval of March 2, 1982. (iv) Social facilities including a day care center, - recycling facilities and indoor/outdoor pool. (v) Site design as a three-story straight line configuration, as presented in the amended GMP application and approved by Aspen City Council. (vi) Heated sidewalks , six feet in width, along the entire South Street frontage. (vii) Curb and gutter along the entire South Galena Street frontage. (viii) Elevators and stairs from the underground garage to all three floors and building and site design to facilitate access for handicapped persons. 3. With respect to the following improvements: temporary and permanent earth retaining structures, and temporary and permanent water drainage systems as described in paragraph 1 above, and curb and gutter and the heated sidewalks as described in paragraph 2 above, to the extent required by Section 20-16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Subdivider agrees to provide a guarranty for no less than one hundred (100) per cent of the current estimated cost of the improvements, as that cost shall be computed by the City Engineer or approved by the City Engineer based on cost estimates supplied to him by the applicant ' s engineers or technical representatives. Said guaranty shall be provided to the City prior to delivery to Subdivider of a building permit for this project. Said guarranty shall. be in such form and amount as approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer but shall provide at least as follows: The guaranty shall be in the form of an irrevocable sight draft from a financially responsible lender or an irrevocable letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender; and said guaranty shall give the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Subdivider, to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. In addition, Subdivider hereby agrees to warrant for one year all such improvements that may be accepted by the City under Section 20-16. 4. Construction on the 700 South Galena phase of the joint project must begin as early in 1982 as is practicable , allowing for the spring soil conditions. The Subdivider acknowledges that he is bound by the construction completion schedule and permit expiration provisions found in Section 7-141 (d) of the Aspen Municipal Code (which amends Section 302 (d) of the Uniform Building Code) . Subdivider also agrees that prior to delivery to him of the building permit (although the permit may be issued) either (i) Subdivider' s contractor shall purchase, execute and be bound by a performance completion bond, or (ii) Subdivider himself will obtain such a bond as required by the final plat approval of the Aspen City Council. -Any -such completion bond shall be sufficient to complete the project as approved upon default of either Subdivider or his contractor and shall name the City as a beneficiary and a copy shall be delivered to the City. If Subdivider violates said Section 7-141 (d) , then the Subdivider, in addition to the penalties provided under that section, shall pay to the City as liquidated damages $200. 00 per day for each day he is in violation of the provisions of Section 7-141 (d) even if such violation is excused or a variance granted therefore by appropriate City officials or boards. Such damages have been agreed to between the parties hereto as required to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood caused by such delay in construction. 5. Subdivider acknowledges that final plat approval for this Project (and prior preliminary approvals) creates no right of reasonable reliance as to a favorable determination or other independent approvals required including, but not limited to, a Residential Bonus Overlay application or requests for permits, licenses and easements from the City as provided in paragraph "l.a. " hereinabove, although an RBO has always been anticipated and planned by the subdivider in conjunction with this project and the 925 East Durant Street site, and such plans made known to the City of Aspen. 6. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Subdivider and the City and their respective successors and assigns. 7. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in - - - - accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 8. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section or the application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Agreement and the validity of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby. �OOK 425 725 9. The Subdivision Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement between the parties herein with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from time to time only by written instrument executed by each of the parties hereto. 10. Any notices required to be given to the parties to this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given if personally given or deposited in the United States mail to the parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below: City of Aspen: Subdivider- or its Successors - - - - City Manager or Assigns: 130 South Galena Street HBC Investments Aspen, Colorado 81611 P.O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 81612 MEMORANDUM TO: SUNNY VANN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: JAY HAMMOND, CITY ENGINEERING DATE: APRIL 27, 1984 RE: 700 SOUTH GALENA CONCEPTUAL P.O.D. ------------------------------------------------------------ During last Tuesday's meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, a number of issues were raised regarding that portion of the Aspen Mountain P.U.D. comprising 700 South Galena. Some of these issues were rather sophisticated due, in part, to our prior experience with the site during the Cantrup era. It would seem appropriate, at this time, to suggest two conditions to conceptual approval that require specific action on the part of the applicants prior to preliminary approval. 1. Concerns expressed regarding the stability of the excessive slope as well as potential drainage problems would point to the need for at least preliminary soils and water table investig- ations on the site at this time. Spring runoff would be an excellent time to undertake work to investigate the concerns expressed by the Tipple Inn Condominium Association. In addition, preliminary soils work should point to solutions addressing slope stability both during and following construction. 2. The prior proposal for 700 South Galena created some problems relative to construction easements and permanent utility easements. This site plan would appear to create less conflict in these areas but should address easement needs, particularly along the easterly property line, in some detail. JH/co/700So.GalenaCon.P.U.D. J.D. MULLER ATTORNEY AT LAW JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET MAILING ADDRESS:P.O.BOX 4361 ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE:303/925.1923 24 April 1984 Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado HAND DELIVERED Re: 700 South Galena project To the Commission: At their annual meeting on April 4, 1984, the members of the Tipple Inn Condominium Association authorized me to object for them to variances, variations or other changes from the area and bulk requirements of the L-2 zone district which the applicants for the new 700 South Galena project might request, either in the form of a variance application before the Board of Ajustment, a rezoning, a special review, an SPA or--as it has happened--in the form of a PUD application before you and the City Council. While individual Tipple Inn owners may object to the project as a whole, the condominium association objects to the project insofar as it exceeds what could be built under "existing underlying zoning, " that is, the area and bulk requirements listed in Section 24-3 .4 for the L-2 zone, with no changes. The present project was given a GMP allotment on March 12, 1984 of 12 free market units and 9 off-site employee units. If you assume the statements and drawings in the GMP application are still an accurate statement of the area and bulk specifications of the project, the project exceeds what could be built under existing underlying zoning in at least two ways : 1 . the proposed building is approximately 38 feet high while the maximum height allowed in the L-2 zone district is 28 feet, making the project ten feet higher than-'allowable; and, 2 . the project has 24 bedrooms on 21 ,600 square feet, but the maximum density in L-2 [minimum lot area per dwelling unit] computed by 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom requirements, is : Planning and Zoning Comm. 24 April 1984 Page 2 3 1-bedrooms = 1 , 250/1 bdr x 3 = 3,750 6 2-bedrooms = 2, 100/2 bdr x 6 = 12,600 3 3-bedrooms = 3,630/3 bdr x 3 = 10,890 required square feet = 27, 240 shortage = 5,640 [The 700 South Galena project formerly proposed by Hans and June Cantrup was within the height limitation and had 17 bedrooms. The Cantrup building had a total square footage of 20,450 (94.7% of allowed 1 :1 FAR) , as opposed to the present project' s 21 ,073 (97.6% of FAR) . ] In addition to objecting to the above area and bulk "extras" which have been added to the former Cantrup project, our Association re-registers the concerns expressed about the previous project' s placement and construction, which this Commission and the City Council agreed with to the extent of including them as requirements in the Cantrups' subdivision agreement for 700 South Galena, namely: 1. the production of a comprehensive engineering design for temporary and permanent earth-retaining structures and the monitoring of those structures during excavation and construction ( including the securing of all appropriate easements, permits and licenses from surrounding landowners such structures and/or excavation measures might require) , all to address the problem of slope stability on the project site; 2 . the production of a comprehensive engineering design with regard to seepage, surface and subsurface runoff, and drainage during excavation, construction and occupancy of the project ( including, where necessary, the provision of dry wells, retention wells, and planted diversion berms for storm flows, and for filtration of drainage to remove mud and construction debris) ; and, 3. the agreement by the developer to a completion schedule for construction of the project and further agreement to the execution of a performance completion bond and late penalties, all to prevent damage to the surrounding landowners in the form of an unsightly and/or unsafe construction area in close proximity, for a longer period of time than is necessary. We request that a water study similar to the study the applicant has made for the Top of Mill and Spar Complex project be done for the 700 South Galena project, with special emphasis on the historical seepage problem. We also request that an engineering study be submitted by the applicant prior to approval of the project addressing the stability of the area with specific Planning and Zoning Comm. 24 April 1984 Page 3 recommendations on the method of excavation and backfilling of the project to insure sufficient lateral and subjacent support of surrounding property. We request that these recommendations be made conditions of the approval of the project, and carried forward as part of a subdivision agreement, as was done with the prior project. We object to the incorporation of the 700 South Galena project in the "overall" PUD of which this application forms a part. The allowance of height in excess of the L-2 zone requirement and density in excess of the L-2 zone requirement has no land use justification. This parcel of property is distinct from the other parcels in use and situs. Its only relation to the I.Age and other sites is common ownership at the present time and the possibility of future common management. If these considerations--common condominium and/or guest occupancy management and related ownership--are sufficient to grant PUD variations at 700 South Galena, the concept of PUD as a method of adapting development to "a particular site" has no limits. The true "site" is small and the project is unrelated to land uses on the other sites in any way sufficient to affect the PUD considerations on those sites; and conversely, those sites have insufficient land use effect on 700 South Galena to affect its PUD considerations. Even PUD variations must be "harmoniously organized in relation to each other and to surrounding property" [§24-8.23 . The 38-foot height variation is at odds with the heights of the two buildings which adjoin the project site at grade; both the Tipple Lodge and the Tipple Inn conform to the 28-foot limitation of the L-2 zone district. Section 24-8.3 (c) states that "the overall project shall not exceed the allowable density in the zone district in which the PUD lies. " Considered as a separate PUD application, the 700 South Galena project could not ask for more than 21 bedrooms under the "maximum" maximum density requirements of §24-3.7 (k) , and even fewer under the density computed by bedroom-sized units set out above, which latter is the standard properly applicable to the site; a variation to allow 24 bedrooms would simply not be lawful under a separate PUD. Only by aggregating its acreage with that of other sites can the 700 South Galena project request a variation to 24 bedrooms. (For purposes of this letter we are assuming that the aggregate computation is correct. ) PUD variations must meet the objectives of Article VIII of the Municipal Code, which are set out in §24-8 .1 . Reading through the six objectives shows that the 700 South Galena project is simply not the type of project to which a PUD variation was meant to be applied were it considered alone; and, there is no good land use reason to consider it as a part of other sites. It may Planning and Zoning Comm. 24 April 1984 Page 4 be argued that a better design is the exchange for any "extras" in height and density. This assumes that you have to accept the whole package or none at all . The PUD can still be granted, but it can be granted for a 700 South Galena project no higher than 28 feet and no more dense than a non-PUD or a PUD on 21 ,600 square feet in L-2 would be. Thank you for considering our comments and requests. S ' cerely, J. ler JDMcc Copies to: Board of Managers, T.I .C.A. Mr. Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer VM'r. Sunny Vann, Planning Director Mr. John Doremus 15- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review and Revised Employee Housing Proposal DATE- April 24 , 1984 Attached for your review and consideration is a revised draft of a resolution recommending conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD and recommending a rezoning to R-15 (PUD) (L) for that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and owned by the City of Aspen . I have incorporated the additions and changes you requested at your April 17th meeting . With the exception of specific conditions with respect to the 700 South Galena project , I believe the resolution to be complete and up- to-date . The purpose of tonight ' s meeting is to: 1) Initiate discussion of the Applicants ' revised employee housing proposal , 2) Review the 700 South Galena project with respect to the conceptual PUD/subdivision criteria of the Municipal Code, 3) Review and amend as required the revised draft resolution. Given the fact that May 14th is the earliest date at which Council can review the residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD , I would suggest that you refrain from forwarding your resolution with respect to the Top of Mill until such time as you have comlpeted your review of the Applicants ' revised employee housing proposal . Your recommendations with respect to their proposal could then be incorporated in the Top of Mill resolution and forwarded to Council for consideration at their May 14th meeting. The Planning Office ' s initial comments with respect to the Applicants , revised employee housing proposal are outlined below. We have also included an overview of potential conceptual PUD/subdivision concerns with respect to 700 South Galena project. EMPLOYEE HOUSING The attached letters from Jim Curtis , dated April 17th and April 19 , 1984 , respectively , outline the Applicants ' proposed revisions to their original employee housing proposal . Essentially, the Applicants propose to abandon the Benedict/Larkin project on Ute Avenue, replacing it with deed-restricted units at the Airport Business Center and a new project to be constructed on East Cooper Street. While the Planning Office has not reviewed the specific details of this new proposal, we generally support the basic concept. The Ute City Place project on East Cooper Street involves the conversion of a prior GMP approval to 100% deed-restricted employee housing while the acquisition of existing rental housing at the Airport Business Center would result in the deed-restriction of currently unrestricted units . The principal issue which we have identified at this time involves the transportation implications associated with housing hotel employees at the Airport Business Center . The Applicants ' April 19th letter addresses this concern and we will be prepared to discuss it in detail at such time as formal review of the Applicants ' Page 2 revised proposal occurs. No formal action with respect to the Applicants ' revised employee housing proposal can be taken tonight. Should you agree conceptually with the Applicants ' revisions , a detailed memorandum addressing the review requirements of the Municipal Code will be prepared by the Planning Office and formal review could be conducted by the Commission at your regular May 8th meeting . The Applicants must secure permission to submit an application on behalf of the current owners of the two properties or place the properties in question under option prior to formal action by the Commission. In addition, the Housing Authority must take formal action , tentatively scheduled for the Authority ' s Thursday, April 3rd meeting , with respect to the revised proposal and the Planning Office must review the specifics surrounding the prior GMP approval of the Ute City Place project. The Ute City Place project involves the construction of twenty-two ( 22 ) new deed-restricted employee housing units . As such, it is subject to special approval of the Council , based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Inasmuch as the Ute City Place project involves an HBO rezoning , the Commission must find that the proposed revisions to the project are consistent with the original conditions of RBO approval. No specific review by the Commission is required for the deed-restriction of the Airport Business Center units to employee housing guidelines. The Commission , however , must find that the proposed utilization of the ABC units is consistent with the Applicants' lodge GMP application and is appropriate within the context of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD. 700 SOUTH GALENA - CONCEPTUAL POD/SUBDIVISION REVIEW Attached for your review and consideration is the 1983 Residential GMP Project Profile and Planning Office recommended scoring for the 700 South Galena residential component of the Aspen Mountain PUD . Generally speaking , the impacts of a proposed project are reflected in the scores which the project received in the GMP process. Similarly, receipt of a GMP allocation would tend to indicate that the majority of those impacts have been successfully mitigated. As the Planning Offices ' recommended scoring reflects, no major defic- iencies of a conceptual nature with respect to the proposed project were noted. In fact , the Planning Offices' recommended scoring with respect to public facilities and services were increased based on the Applicants ' clarification that the project would only be built as submitted in conjunction with the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The 700 South Galena project also clearly exceeds the underlying zoning requirements for parking and open space. It should be pointed out , however , that the level of development proposed exceeds the L-2 zoning requirements for the twenty-one thousand six hundred ( 21 , 600 ) square foot site and may only be permitted in conjunction with the development of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD. Twelve (12) units with twenty-four (24) bedrooms and a total adjusted floor area of twenty-one thousand seventy-three ( 21 , 073 ) square feet are proposed for the site as part of the Aspen Mountain PUD. However, if the multi-family development plans were based solely on the 21 , 600 square foot site , Section 24-3.7k of the Municipal Code would permit no more than one bedroom per 1 , 000 square feet of land area or a maximum of twenty-one ( 21 ) bedrooms. In the event the Aspen Mountain PUD is not approved , the 700 South Galena project would require a GMP amendment in order to allow its construction. As the attached project profile indicates , the 700 South Galena project essentially complies with all applicable area and bulk requirements of the underlying zoned district. The only variation required under the PUD regulations with respect to 700 South Galena is the project ' s height. The maximum height of the underlying L-2 zone district is Page 3 28 feet while the proposed project appears to average approximately 35 feet on the attached conceptual drawings. As the Planning Offices ' recommended scoring points out , however , the massing, articulation of units , and materials create a desirable transition between the proposed hotel and residential units to the southeast and the scale is compatible with other structures in the area . The Applicants ' are prepared to discuss the height at your Tuesday meeting should this be a major concern. Neither the Planning Office nor the Engineering Department have identified further conceptual issues which should be addressed at this time . The Applicants , however , will present the 700 South Galena project at your Tuesday meeting, and should you have any additional concerns , they can easily be incorporated into your resolution. Should you have any questions prior to your April 24th meeting , please feel free to contact me at the Planning Office. DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL POD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AND RECOMMENDING A REZONING TO R-15 (PUD) (L) FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN Resolution No. (Series of 1984) WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants " ) , have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub- division approval for the Top of Mill and Summit Place condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews and approvals including 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R- 15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Comrission" ) did consider the Applicants ' requests for conceptual PUD/subdiv.,.., . A- the Top of Fill and Summit Place condominiums , 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review, and rezoning from Public to L-2 at meetings held on March 20th, March 27th and April 17, 1984 , and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted on April 10 , 1984; and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect to the Applicants ' request for 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review until its consideration of the Applicants ' preliminary PUD/sub- division submission, given the technical nature of the various review criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately assess project impacts ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -11 . 3 ( f) of the Municipal Code, any project needing PUD or subdivision approval which has received a development allotment may be deemed by the Planning Office to have satisfied the conceptual presentation -requirements of the City 's Resolution No. 84-__ Page 2 PUD and subdivision regulations ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 4 (g) of the Municipal Code , a development allotment of twelve ( 12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No . 7 , Series of 1984; and WHEREAS, the Commission did review, Section 24-11 .3 (f) of the Municipal Code notwithstanding , the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD with respect to the conceptual PUD/subdivision criteria of the Municipal Code at a special meeting held on April 24 , 1984 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado: Section 1 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual PUD/subdivision approval , pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8 .7 of the Municipal Code , to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD subject to the following conditions : 1 . The Applicants ' acquisition of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned by the City. 2. The Applicants ' resolution of the Engineering Department ' s concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes. 3. The Applicants ' submission of a detailed proposal, acceptable to the Aspen Ski Club, for the relocation of the Ski Club' s facilities. 4. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the retention of all utility rights, the provision of appropriate utility easements , and each utility franchised in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each utility' s current or future needs. 5 . The Applicants ' submission of an acceptable detailed storm drainage plan including information with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required to construct the proposed retention ponds. 6. The height of the Top of Mill condominium units not exceeding thirty-three ( 33) feet as measured from the lowest floor elevation to the midpoint of the roof. 7. The Applicants ' revision of the Top of Mill site plan so as to increase the distance between the two single-family units located at the southern terminus of Mill Street in order to expand the view through the project from the Street Resolution No. 84- Page 3 to the ski area. 8. The retention , to the maximum extent feasible, of existing mature vegetation on the Top of Mill site and the installation of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact of the project, in particular as viewed from Mill Street , Lift 1-A and the adjacent ski terrain. 9. The Applicants ' provision of an adequate easement, acceptable to the Engineering Department, so as to allow the extension of Summit Street in the event the extension is deemed appro- priate by the City. 10 . The Applicants ' granting of an acceptable trail easement across the Top of Mill site so as to provide access , to the extent feasible, to the base of Little Nell and Lift 1-A. 11 . The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub- division approval. 12. The reconstruction of existing residential units being limited to the forty ( 40) units verified pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within five (5) years of the date of demolition, and being restricted to the Aspen Mountain PUD site. 13. All material representations of the Applicants ' conceptual PUD/subdivision and residential GMP applications not speci- fically referred to above being made a condition of this approval. Section 2 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council deny the Applicants ' request for a rezoning from Public to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned by the City and does recommend instead that the parcel (s ) be rezoned to R-15 ( PU D ) ( L) at such time as the parcel (s ) are conveyed to the Applicants for the following reasons : 1 . While the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations Transition land use category applied to this area in the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required to achieve the proposed development. 2. The primary reason for the Applicants' request is to enable them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio available in the L-2 zone district. Since the FAR provisions of the Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PU D regulations , a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of the requested variation is inappropriate. 3. The L- 2 zone district permits multi-family residential uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes and , Resolution No. 84- __ Page 4 therefore , does not guarantee that development will occur consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on April , 1984 . ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By Perry Harvey, Chairman ATTEST: Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk DRAFTr�- RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE TOP OF MILL, SUMMIT PLACE AND 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUM COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AND RECOMMENDING A REZONING TO R-15 (PUD) (L) FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TOP OF MILL SITE CURRENTLY ZONED PUBLIC AND OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN Resolution No. (Series of 1984) WHEREAS, American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association, Alan R. Novak and Robert Callaway (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants " ) , have submitted an application for conceptual PUD/sub- division approval for the Top of Mill and Summit Place condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the application requests certain additional reviews and approvals including 8040 Greenline and fountain View Plane review and a rezoning to L-2 for those portions of the Top of r"ill site currently zoned Public and R-15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" ) did consider the Applicants ' requests for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, 8040 Greenline and Mountain View Plane review , and rezoning at regular meetings held on march 20th and March 27 , 1984 , and at a duly noticed public hearing conducted on April 10, 1984 , at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the Applicants ' request for rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to defer formal action with respect to the Applicants ' request for 8040 Greenline and flountain View Plane review until its consideration of the Applicants ' preliminary PUD/sub- division submission, given the technical nature of the various review criteria and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately assess project impacts ; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have withdrawn their request for rezoning to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned R- 15 (PUD) (L) ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did allocate, pursuant to Section 24-11. 4 (g) of the Municipal Code , a development allotment of twelve ( 12) residential units to the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD, as set forth in Resolution No. 7 , Series- of 1984 ; and Resolution No. 84- _ Page 2 WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Office" ) has recommended that conceptual PUD/sub- division review by the Commission of the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Mountain PUD be waived , pursuant to Section ')4-11. 3 (f) of the Municipal Code , as a result of the project' s successful receipt of a development allotment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen , Colorado: Section 1 That it does hereby concur with the Planning Office recommendation and waive conceptual PUD/subdivision review by the Commission for the 700 South Galena condominium component of the Aspen Nountain PUD. Section 2 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual PUD/subdivision approval , pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8 . 7 of the Municipal Code , to the Top of Mill , Summit Place and 700 South Galena condominium components of the Aspen Mountain PUD subject to the following conditions : 1. The Applicants ' acquisition of that portion of the Top of mill site currently owned by the City. 2. The Applicants ' resolution of the Engineering Department ' s concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the Top of Mill site for fire protection purposes. 3. The Applicants ' submission of a detailed proposal, acceptable to both the Aspen Ski Club and Skiing Company , for the relocation of the Ski Club' s facilities. 4. The vacation of Mill Street being conditioned upon the retention of all utility rights , the provision of appropriate utility easements , and each utility franchised in the City signing off on the proposed vacation so as to insure that the loss of the right-of-way will not interfere with each utility' s current or future needs . 5 . The Applicants ' submission of a detailed storm drainage plan including information with respect to the extent and nature of the grading required to construct the proposed retention ponds. 6. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub- division approval . 7 . The reconstruction of existing residential units being limited to the forty ( 40 ) units verified pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code, being accomplished within five (5) years of the date of demolition , and being restricted to the Aspen i?ountain PUD site. Resolution T11o. 84- _ - - - - Page 3 8 . All material representations of the Applicants ' conceptual PUD/subdivision and residential GRIP applications not speci- fically referred to above being made a condition of this approval. Section 3 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council deny the Applicants ' request for a rezoning from Public to L-2 of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently owned by the City and does recommend that , instead , the parcel (s ) be rezoned to R-15 (PUD) (L) at such time as the parcel (s ) are conveyed to the Applicants for the following reasons : 1. While the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the L-2 zone category and of the Recreation/Accommodations Transition land use category applied to this area in the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, a rezoning to L-2 is not required to achieve the proposed development. 2. The primary reason for the Applicants ' request is to enable them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio available in the L-2 zone district. Since the FAR provisions of the Municipal Code may be varied pursuant to the PU D regulations , a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of the requested variation is inappropriate. 3. The L- 2 zone district permits multi-family residential uses in addition to single-family units and duplexes and , therefore , does not guarantee that development will occur consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on April ______, 1984 . ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By Perry Harvey, Chairman ATTEST: Barbara Morris, Deputy City Clerk 13 TOP OF 71 LL POTENTIAL UNIT BUILDOUT Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office April 10 , 19V LOT 3 TOP OF MILL 1 . Lot area . R-15 (PUD) (L) = 75 ,62P s . f. L-2 457000 s. f. Public = 14 ,500 s. f . Conservation 105 ,000 S . f. 240,128 s.f. 2 . Potential unit buildout. P-15 (=) (L) l 3 duplex lots ? 20 ,000 s. f./lot 6 units 2 single-family lots 0 approy. 15 ,000 S . f /lot = 2 units L-2 j5 ,000 S. f . lot area/3 ,000 2. f. floor area/unit2 15 units Conservation Applicants " 94 ,000 s. f. parceY = I unit City 's ollr000 S. f. parceY, 1 unit TOTAL ±25 units lAssumes 14 ,500 s. f. Public parcel rezoned to P-15 (PUD) (L) . NO KAMM 10t area rec.fuire. -in ont for singlE-faraily/duplex units in the L-2 zone district; number of units allowed is a function Of unit size an c] floor area . ZaSSUTnes 3 , 0010 s . f . of floor area Per dwelling unit as proposed by anplicants . hole allows one single-family unit on a non-conforring lot of record. FLOOR AREA AND FLOOR AREA RATIO ANALYSIS Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office P,nril 10 , LOT 1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE 1 . Lot area eXclucli.ng vacates, rights-of-way. l 211 ,254 s. f. 2 . Lot area including vacated rights-of-way. 241 , 107 s . f. 3 . Proposed external floor area. 2 310 ,275 s. f. 4 . TJ.1owable external floor area under e;istir.g zoning excluding vacated rights-of-way. 229 ,309 s. f. L-1 floor area (21 ,049 s . f . !? 1: 1. E'E`.,R) s. f. L-2 floor area (172 ,112 s. f. 0 1: 1 FAR) = 1.72 ,112 s. f. CL floor area (18 ,054 s. f . 0 2 : 1 F. ^-.) = 36 ,108 s. f. 5 . Allowable internal FAR under existing zoning eZcluding vacated rights-of-wm,,. 3 1 .09 : 1 229 ,309 s. f . floor area/211 , 254 s. f. lot area 5. Allowable e sternal floor area under E-1. istinq zoning including vDca ted rights-of-way. 263 ,574 s. f . L-1 floor area ( 26 , 36^ s. f. 0 1 : 1 FAR) = 26 , 368 s. f . L-2 floor area ( 192 ,172 s. f . 1. 1 7i R) = 1 '2 ,172 s. f. CL floor area (22 ,567 s. f. 0 2 . 1 FAIP) = 45 ,134 s. f. 7. Allowable e)sternal. FAI undr_r ex stinr zoning including vacates. rights-of-t•;ay. 1 .09 : 1 263 , 674 s. f. floor area/241 , 107 s . f. lot area 8 . Proposed external. FAR excluding vacated.', rights-of-way. 1 . 47 : J_ 31.0 ,275 s. f . floor area/211 , 254 s. f. lot area 9 . Proposed external FA^ inc1udi g vacated rights-of-way. 1 . 29 . 1 310 , 275 s. f . floor area/241 ,107 s . f. lot area LOT 2 SUMMIT PLACE CONDOMINIUMS 1 . Lot area . 5 ,360 s. f. 2 . Allowable external FAR under exi stinc; zoning. 1 : 1 3 . allowable fl.eor area uncJer c}:i st nc; zoning. 5 ,360 s. f. A . Proposes' external floor a:rea. � 5 . Proposer', external FAI:. 1 . 43 : 1 Page 2 LOT 3 TOP OF MILL CONDOMINIUMS 1. Lot area excluding vacated right.-of-way. 5 240 ,128 s . f. 2 . Lot area including vacated right-of-way. 242 , 813 s. f . 3 . Lot area excluding vacated .right-of-eray and land zoned Conservation . 6 135 ;12`? s. f. 4. Lot area including vacated': right-of-way and excluding land zoned Conservation . 1-37 , 31.3 s . f. 5 . Proposed external floor area. 101_ ,000 s. f . 6. A_llOWable external floor. area under existingi zoning excluding vacated ric?ht-of-way and land zoned Conservation . 7 72 ,000 s . f. L-2 floor area ( 45 , 000 s. f . 0 1: 1 FAP.) - 45 ,000 s. f . FZ-15 (PUDI (L) floor area (90 ,128 s . f. lot area/15 ,000 s. f ./lot- approximately 6 single- family lots ) ti lots '? approximately 4 ,500 s. f . floor area/lot = 27 ,000 s . f . 7. Allowable external. F1\R under existing zoning excluding vacated right-of-way and land zoned Conservation . -x-0 .53 : 1 72,000 s. f- . floor area/135 ,128 s . f. lot area 8 . Allowable external floor area under existing zoning including vacated right-of-way and excludiinq lard zoned Conservation . 72 , 170 s. f. L-2 floor area ( 45 ,000 n 1 : 1 PAN = 45 ,000 s. f . R-15 (PUD) (L) floor area (92 , 813 , . f. lot area/15 , 000 s. f./lot = approximately 6 single- family lots) 5 Lots 0 approximately 4,500 s. f. fl_oor area/lot - 22 ,500 s. f. 1 lot 0 approximately 4 , 670 s. f . floor area = 4 ,570 s. f. 9 . Allowable external FAIR under existing zoning, including vacated right-of-wa�7 and excluding land zoned Conservation. 4-0 .52 : 1. 72 ,170 s. f . floor area/137 , 81.3 s . f . lot area 10 . Proposed external. FAR excluding right-of-way and land zoned Conservation. 0 .75 : 1 101 ,000 s. f. floor area/135 , 128 s:. f . lot area Page 3 1.1 . Proposed external FAR including right-of--way and excluding land zones'. Conservation . 0 .73 : 1 1.01 .000 s. f . floor area/1337,M s . f . lot area 12 . Proposed external F11.R excluding right-of-1lra N.7 and including lancl zoned Conservation . 0 . 42 : 1 101 ,000 s. f . floor rea/240 ,1.28 s. f . lot area 13 . Proposed external FF.R including rights-of-way and land zoned Conservation. 0 . 42 : 1 101 ,000 s. f . floor area/2.42 ,, 813 s. f- . lot area LOT 4 700 SOUTH GALENA CONDOMINIUMS l. . Lot area . 2.1 , 600 s. f. 2. Proposed external floor area . 19 ,260 s. f. 3 . Allowable external floor area under existing L-2 zoning. 2..1 , 600 s. f. 21 , 600 s. f . n 1. 1 F7%P, 4 . Proposed external FAR. 19 , 260 s. f . floor area/21 , 600 s. f. lot area 0 . 09 : 1 TOTAL ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD 1 . Lot. area excluding va.catec rights-of.-wa1T. 478, 342 s. f . 2. Lot area including vacated rights-of-wa`ti 510 , 880 s. f. 3. Lot area excluding vacated rights-of-way and land zoned Conservation . 373 , 342 s. f . 4 . Lot area including vacated rights-of-way and excluding lane; zoned Conservation. 405 , 880 s. f . 5 . Proposed external floor area. 9 x!38, 203 s. f . 6 . Allowable external floor area under existing zoning excluding vacated rights-of-way and land zoned Conservation . _i_320 ,269 s. f. 7 . Allowable external FAR unC�cr existing zoning+ excluding vacated rights-of-t,7ay and l,:nd zoned Conservation . 323 ; 269 s. f . floor area/373 , 30.2 s. f. lot area 8 . 1\11owable external floor area under existing zoning including vacated rights-of-way and excluding Land :zoned Conservation . -x-362 , 304 s . f. 9 . Allowable external FAR under existing; zoning including vacated rights-of-,-,ay :;nd excluding land zoned Conservation . X0 . 89 : 1. 362 , 804 s. f . rl.00r area/4:05 : "00 s. f . lot area 10 . Proposed external. rAR excluding rights-of-way and land zoned Conservation . 1 . 17 : 1 438 ,203 s . f . floor area/373 . 'x'2. F. . f. Lot area Page 4 ].1 . Proposed external FA^ including rights-of-WEly and excluding land zoned Conservation. 1 .03. 1 438 ,203 s. f . floor area/405 , °30 s. f. lot area 12 . Proposed external. FAR e,'ccluding rights-of-way and including land zoned Conservation. 0 . 92 : 1 438 ,203 s. f. floor area/478 ,342 s. f. lot area 13 . Proposed external FAR including rights-of-way and land zoned Conservation. 0 . 86 : 1 438, 203 s. f . floor area/510 , 830 s. f . lot area Footnotes 1 22 ,654 s. f. of Dean Street anc? 7, 199 s. f. of La,,rn Street. 2 Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval (subject to review of remainder of PUT?, City Council. resolution No. RZ-11 , Series of -1924) . 3 c,?hile the T'unicipal Code makes no specific reference to the exclusion of vacated lands in FAR calculations , Section 24-2 . 5 states in part that " . . . in determining land available for development, there shall be excluded from the calculation of allowable density or required open space those areas of the development tract acquired by vacation. " Density ( i . e. , dWel.linc; units/acre ) with respect to lodge Uses is a function of allowable FAIL vihi.ch in turf; is a function of site area. It would appear to follow, therefore , that vacated lands are excluded from the calculation of allo,aab].e FAR. for lodge uses since they must be excluded from the calculation of allowable densit,7 "in determining land available for development. " Substantiation of this interpretation, however, falls within the area of Council ;solid,,. 4 Approximately 5 ,112 s. f. currently exist on Lot 2 . 5 2 , 685 s. f. of South rill Street. 6 105 ,000 s. f. of land above the 8040 elevation is zoned Conservation. 7 In those cases in which a building site is located in more than one zone district, a structure' s maximum external. floor area is the sum of the allowable external floor areas for those portions of the site in each zone district , provided , however , that the structure or use in cYuestion is permitte0 in each zone district and that each district has an applicable external F=loor area limitation . Lodge uses are prohibiter] in the C, Conservation zone district . F.s result, that portion of the site zone,? Conservation theoretically , could not be used for purposes of calculating external floor area for structures or uses permitted elsewhere on the property . Furthermore , there is no external floor area limitation imposed on the Conservation zone district and, therefore, no ability to actgregate allowable external. floor area as outlined above. From s practical. perspective, inasmuch as external FAR is a_ numerical statement of the relationship of the size of a. structure to its building site. , it v,ould seem logiCcal in mixed use PUD ' s to compare total building square footage to total building site. The Punicipal Code is essentially silent ,•:ith respect to the above issues , and , therefore , any interpretation is subject to Council policy. 8 The 90 , 120 s . f . lot area assumes , for purposes of this analysis, that the 14,500 s.f. of City-owned land will be conveyer, to the applicants and rezoned from Public to n-15 (PUn) (L) . - hile the 90 ,128 s. f. R- 15 (PUT?) (L) parcel could also be subdivided in a single-far-tily/duplex lot configuration , the subdivision depicted produce- the maximum allowable external floor area and has, therefore, been uses' for compar- ison purposes. Page 5 9 Conceptual. PUD/subdivision approval (suhject to review of remainder of PULE, Cite Council_ Resolution Pdo. °^-1.1- , Series of ln) . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and related reviews DATE: April 10 , 1984 The purpose of tonight' s meeting was originally to consider the appli- cants reauest for a rezoning to L-2 for the City owned lots which are involved in the proposed Koch Lumber land trade and which are presently zoned Public and for the balance of the Top of Mill site up to the 8040 elevation which is presently zoned R-15 (PUD) (L) . The applicants , however , have withdrawn their request for rezoning of the R-15 (PUD) (L) parcel in view of the fact that the proposed rezoning is not essential to the development of the Top of Mill proposal. A rezoning of the existing Public parcels will still be required , and the applicants would like to take advantage of tonight' s published public hearing for consideration of this request. The Planning Office is prepared to discuss density/FAR issues surrounding the Top of Mill proposal at your Tuesday, April 10th meeting. Following this discussion, it would be helpful for P&Z to identify those remaining issues associated with the Top of Mill proposal which you would like addressed at your next meeting. The architects for the project are currently addressing various concerns voiced by staff and the P&Z and should have revisions forthcoming in the near future . Please bring the Planning Office ' s March 20 , 1984 P&Z memorandum to your Tuesday meeting. Should you have any questions prior to Tuesday, please contact me at the Planning Office. �t HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW WASHINGTON,D.C.OFFICE DENVER,COLORADO OFFICE 1875 EVE STREET,N.W. S5S SEVENTEENTH STREET 600 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 1200 SUITE 2900 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 DENVER,COLORADO 60202 TELEPHONE(303) 925-3476 TELEPHONE(202)466-7340 TELEPHONE (303) 575-8000 TELECOPIER (202) 466-7354 TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261 LARAMIE,WYOMING OFFICE BILLINGS,MONTANA OFFICE HOLLAND& HART& KITE SUITE 1400 A WYOMING PARTNERSHIP 175 NORTH 27TH STREET 618 GRAND AVENUE BILLINGS,MONTANA 59101 LARAMIE,WYOMING 82070 TELEPHONE (406)252-2166 TELEPHONE(307)742-8203 TELECOPIER (406)252-1669 TELECOPIER (307)792-7618 April 6 , 1984 ARTHUR C. DAILY (303) 925-3476 Mr. Sunny Vann, Planning Director City/County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Top of Mill -- Withdrawal of Rezoning Request Dear Sunny: In its present form before the Planning and Zoning Commission, our Residential GMP Submission for the Top of Mill project includes a request that the City rezone from R-15 (PUD) ( L) to L-2 a portion of the Top of Mill land area. At the time the Submission was pre- pared, it was felt that the inherent vagueness of the existing R-15 (PUD) (L) designation under the Municipal Code recommended the sub- stitution of a clearer and more functional zoning category. More- over , the L-2 designation appeared to be substantially more compat- ible with both the zoning classification and the actual use of neighboring properties. One consequence, however , would be a perceived increase in allowable F.A.R. , and it is this factor that seems to be causing doubts about the propriety of the rezoning proposal . In light of our conviction that the P.U.D. regulations are sufficiently flexi- ble to allow approval of the proposed Top of Mill development with- out violation of any existing Code restrictions or requirements , we have concluded that the rezoning request is superfluous. The uncertainties relating to the R-15 (PUD) (L) category will disappear in any case once a P.U.D. Plan for the entire area receives final approval . HOLLAND & HART April 6, _ 1984 Page 2 For these reasons , we hereby withdraw the subject rezoning request. We do wish to preserve, however , our request that the portion of the "City Lots" presently zoned Public be rezoned L-2, such rezoning to become effective upon the consummation of the pro- posed land trade between the City and the Applicants. Very truly yours , l_ Arthur C. Daily for HOLLAND & HART Attorneys for the Applicants ACD/jlf cc: Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney Doremus and Company Mr . John Roberts Mr . Robert Callaway Mr. Alan Novak r,T, n-r; "'0: Aspen Plannino and "toning Cormraissin an , Plaannin,�� director -L,,nnv n E, T 7 T- Tc)- of Tlill Conceritual 7UTj P eV DA`7 rr h 27 , ISe 'rill.(- `,7cur -; rch- w-Prn r5,,m:-rr- this arrrli - C 0,t 0l-1 I.0 1 e .,'or r E-,s s j-c,n 8 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 1984I hereby certify that on this _?& day of �� , , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. Jane Lynn We stein PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill Rezoning, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on April 10 , 1984 , at 5 : 00 P. M. , before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission , 130 S. Galena, Aspen , Colorado, to consider a request to rezone the upper portion of the Top of Mill site above Fifth Avenue Condominiums . The current zoning designation for this portion of land is R-15 (PUD) (L) and the applicants request that this property be rezoned to L-2 . The applicants are also requesting L-2 zoning for lots owned by the City which are being considered for a land trade (Koch Lumber Property) with respect to this application, which land is presently zoned Public. The two areas include 85 , 511 sq. ft. of land area. For further information contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 , ext. 283 . s/Perry Harvey Chairman , Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 22 , 1984. City of Aspen Account. Bob J. Scarborough Valdamar Mark 600 E. Hopkins 515 S. Galena St. Aspen , CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 David G. Elmore Spar Consolidated 10001 East Evans Mining and Development Denver, CO 80231 Company 28 State St. Boston, MA 02910 Robert Prentis Morris Box 9069 Aspen, CO 81612 Hans B. & June Cantrup Box 1188 Aspen , CO 81612 Durant Condominium Assn. Condominium Rental Management, Inc. 747 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Fifth Avenue Condo. Assn. Condominium Rental Management, Inc. 747 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Fashing Haus Condominium hzt3;dK t 04LLI o (54X+Condominium Rental Management, Inc. t�o� 747 S. Galena St. 4 s. Aspen , CO 81611 ^_ 0100 Mountain Oueen Condo. Assn. V� Box 8880 Aspen , CO 81612 700 Monarch Condo. Assn. c/o Stirling Homes 600 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 Joe Cabell 1765 Ala-Monan Blvd. Honolulu, Hawaii Christopher B. Hemmeter Hemmeter Center Honolulu, Hawaii 96819 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Reviews DATE: March 20 , 1984 To refresh your memory, the Aspen Mountain PUD consists of four distinct development proposals : 1 ) an approximately 447 unit resort hotell; 2) the 33 unit Top of Mill residential condominium complex ; 3 ) the 12 unit 700 S. Galena residential condominium complex; and 4) a one unit residential addition to the existing Summit Place duplex . All of these development proposals are contained within the applicants ' 11 . 7 acre PUD site . The applicants ' proposed conceptual lot plan and an aerial photo of the properties in question are attached to facilitate your review of the Top of Mill/Summit Place proposals . The proposed resort hotel successfully competed in the City' s 1983 Lodge GMP competition, and P&Z has recommended conceptual PUD/subdivision approval and the award of a multi-year allocation to City Council. In addition, the P&Z has granted a change-in-use exemption for the conversion of the 44 unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed-restricted employee housing, and has further recommended that Council award the 44 units removed from the lodge inventory as a result of the conversion to the applicants. The applicants ' request for rezoning to CL (Commercial Lodge) of the Chase Duplex., Hillside Lodge , etc. has been withdrawn. Their requests for rezoning to R-6 (RBO) of the Benedict/Larkin parcel and an exemption from growth management for the construction of approx- imately 50 employee housing units thereon have been tabled pending Council action with respect to the proposed resort hotel. The P&Z ' s recommendations are currently being considered by the Council. The proposed 12 unit 700 S . Galena complex_ successfully competed in the 1983 Residential GrP competition and has been awarded a residential allocation by the Council . Given the relatively discreet nature of this development proposal and its successful receipt of a development allocation , the Planning Office proposes to waive conceptual PUD/sub- division review pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code . The purpose of your March 20th meeting is to initiate conceptual PUD/subdivision review of the 33 unit Top of Mill complex, and the Summit Place addition. These two proposals will also require a rezoning, a GMP exemption for the reconstruction of existing residential units , and 8040 greenline and mountain view plane review. These additional review requirements should be considered in conjunction with the applicants ' request for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval . The Planning Office's comments with respect to the above review requirements are outlined below. CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION The proposed Top of Mill condominium complex consists of 33 single family/duplex dwelling units and associated accessory facilities. The units are approximately 3 , 000 s . f . in size , contain three and four bedrooms and are located on approximately 5 .5 acres at the south end of the Aspen Mountain PUD site . Amenities include two pools , ski access and below grade parking. The site includes eight (8) City-owned lots in the Capitol Hill Addition which the applicants lNote : The applicants original proposal of 480 lodge units has been reduced to 447 lodge units and 6 residential units to be constructed in conjunction with the resort hotel . /� 11 1 7111 I t �.I � s.a �• 9� VACA / SUMMIT—3TRE �j�/ ' SUM E CONDOMINIUMS 5240 SO F r�,•/ _.e__, T. — r/�/ /1 1• ' — 411.• SNAR STREET J JUNIATA STREET' -{ ... _ •. I 1� .•.•. ERT STRPT f LOT I �T ASPEN MOUNTA L(ME R y A 2A `44 a F\r. _ (.AWN ST.�AffATION� F I T l DEAN ST. VACATION 1� .................... i -- T _ m 1 ( DURANT AVEMS �f i H�o ' 1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN ('():\(•l,;l''1't �.11, CONSULTANTS DRAWING NO. Ai."rve.r"v era H.•..�v i��s,~.x The Lodge•Galena•TopOf Mill j�(),j, pI�_k. American Century Corporation DATE 1 I)ECENIRF.R 1983 57 An \ V v v d \nOA� \ \� 40, a "�y aY1K i \\� \ c ti a vd ` ` r s .'!F9 •V .. was,`\\EIR v It \ Ai ♦ r �. N "� 01 1 '=vv a �.. � , • a�� r•�r vc� a � vA� ti �a t Am Vi I�(�'IIIII iIVV y y p 1 tw• Ayt , s� yg Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Review March 20 , 1984 Page 2 propose to trade for a portion of the Koch Lumber property which they also own. This proposed trade is obviously subject to Council approval ; however , for purposes of this review , you should assume Council' s consent. The Summit Place Townhouses , originally proposed as a fourplex and presently under construction at 750 S. Mill Street, will be completed as a triplex in order to provide a ski and pedestrian trail link west of the building. The third unit , as well as the 33 unit Top of Mill complex will replace the greater part of the 40 existing and previously demolished residential units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site. The remaining six unit residential credit will be held in reserve by the applicants for possible use at a later date. To be eligible for PUD approval , an applicant must demonstrate the reasonableness of his application and plan , its conformity to the design requirements of the PUD regulations , the lack of adverse impacts of the proposed development, and the plan' s compliance with the intent and purpose of the Planned Unit Development regulations. The purpose and intent of the regulations is to encourage flexibility, innovation and variety in the development of land so as to create a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of the zoning code . In our opinion, this application is consistent with these objectives and with the design requirements of the PUD regulations . In order to achieve PUD design objectives, the PUD regulations permit variations in most of the area and bulk requirements of the zoning code. No variation, however, is allowed in permitted uses or density. While a rezoning is requested in conjunction with the Top of Mill complex , the proposed single family/duplex use is currently allowed under existing zoning. The major variations from the area and bulk requirements which the Top of Mill/Summit Place portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD will require involve the applicable FAR and height require- ments of the underlying zone districts and a reduction in required parking. All of the elements of the applicants ' proposal , however , can, be accomplished within the flexibility provided for in the PUD regulations. As the applicants point out in their application, "Any comparison between the level of development proposed- in the Aspen Mountain PUD and that permitted under the area and bulk requirements of the Code is highly interpretive as the Code includes no language regarding the calculation of maximum development allowed for proposals lying in more than one zone district nor for mixed use projects including both lodge and residential development. " The Planning Office essentially concurs with this statement and believes , as do the applicants , that the City ' s decisions with respect to the applicants' PUD proposals should place emphasis primarily on the acceptability of the impacts of the proposals and the extent to which physical modifications are required and can be made to make the proposals acceptable. The extent to which the FAR of underlying zone districts should be varied for the Aspen Mountain PUD is currently under consideration by the Council. In view of the lack of Council resolution with respect to the lodge portion of this PUD, and the implications of that resolution with respect to FAR in general, the Planning Office has not addressed this issue in this memorandum. Instead, we have focused primarily on design related concerns and various technical issues which should be addressed by the applicants prior to preliminary PUD submission . Hopefully , Council will resolve its FAR concerns concurrent with your review of the Top of Mill/Summit Place proposals . The Planning Office will provide additional information with respect to FARs in subsequent memorandums. While the Planning Office feels that the Top of Mill/Summit Place Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Review March 20 , 1984 Page 3 proposals are basically consistent with our PUD regulations, there are a number of issues which should be considered by the P&Z . The Planning Office ' s comments with respect to these issues are outlined below. Site Design/Visual Impact The Top of Mill site lies at the southern terminus of Mill Street at the base of Aspen Mountain . The site consists of two distinct areas , the lower part which lies between the Mountain Queen parking structure and Mill Street , south of Summit Street , and the upper part which consists of a natural bowl starting at the present termination of Mill Street . Because of the natural contours of the site and the height of existing development, the applicants believe that most of the buildings at the top of Mill will not be seen from the City . The complex ' s single family/duplex configuration will. further reduce the visual impact and provide a logical transition from the adjacent multi-family uses to the open space areas at the base of the Mountain. With respect to visual impact, the Planning Office believes the site to be well planned and responsive to the high visual vulnerability of this portion of Aspen Mountain. The use of architectural clusters, minimal building footprints, and the provision of parking below grade reduces site coverage and results in significant amounts of usable open space for the complex ' s residents . While the Planning Office believes the applicants have gone to considerable lengths to address the issue of visual impact , it is difficult to adequately assess the success of their design given the level of detail submitted to date. Additional information should be provided as part of the appli- cants' preliminary PUD submission to enable the Planning Office to more accurately gage the visual impact of the project. Both the Planning Office and the Engineering Department have identified at least two additional issues which warrant further attention by the applicants which should be addressed in greater detail in their preliminary PUD submission. These issues include the adequacy of access for fire protection purposes and the impact of the proposed Top of Mill complex on adjacent Ski Club activities and the Willoughby ski jump. While the applicants have represented that state-of-the- art fire protection techniques will be employed in the project and that a "fire station" will be located at the southernmost portion of the site, this issue needs to be explored further by the applicants in conjunction with the Fire Department. Similarly, the construction of this project may directly impact the Aspen Ski Club rope tow and future utilization of the Willoughby ski jump. This issue should be resolved with the Ski Company and additional information submitted for consideration in conjunction with the applicants ' preliminary PUD submission. Circulation/Parking Requirements The Engineering Department concurs with the applicants' contention that the existing road network in the vicinity of the Tor) of Mill/Summit Place complex is adequate to handle the traffic generated by these two projects. In fact, the replacement of the 40 existing residential units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site by the 33 unit Tor) of Mill complex and one unit Summit Place addition may result in a net decrease in traffic generated in the project area, due primarily to the potential change in occupancy characteristics of the applicants proposal . While a change in the occupancy characteristics of the PUD' s residential dwelling units may result in a reduction in traffic in the Top of Mill area , both the Engineering Department and the Planning Office are concerned about circulation and accessibility in the general vicinity of the Top of Mill site. For some time, the City has pursued extending Summit Street between gill and Monarch Streets so as to Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Review March 20 , 1984 Page 4 improve overall circulation and emergency access in this part of the City . The Top of Mill site plan proposes the elimination of the Summit Street link in order to accommodate the pedestrian and ski trail from the Mountain to the hotel . The Engineering Department does not support the elimination of the possibility, of the Summit Street extension at this time, feeling that it is particularly important to provide alternative access to the many properties on South Monarch and that the extension would benefit overall circulation as well as emergency access in that area. The Engineering Department suggests that further explanation of this issue involving the applicants , the Engineering Department and the Fire Department with respect to acceptable alternatives should be a condition of conceptual PUD approval. The applicants are requesting a reduction in the total number of parking spaces required for the Top of Mill/Summit Place complex from 138 to 80 spaces . The applicants have providE!d considerable information in their application in support of a reduction and are also currently undertaking an updated survey to further substantiate their request. 11hile both the Engineering Department and Planning Office basically support the applicants ' request, the results of the updated survey should be submitted for further consideration as part of their preliminary PUD submission. In the Event the survey indicates a need for additional parking in the Top of Mill/Summit Place complex, the applicants have agreed to address this need as required. Street Vacation The vacation of the southernmost tip of South Mill Street will be required to implement the applicants ' Top of Mill proposal . The vacation of public rights-of-way is accomplished through ordinance of City Council. However , given the implications of such requests on the overall street network of the City , the Council typically requests input from the Planning and Zoning Commission to facilitate their review. Consequently, the applicants are requesting your con- sideration of the proposed street vacation as a part of the Top of Mill conceptual PUD review. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicants' request and has concluded that the proposed vacation would not adversely impact the general area from a circulation stand- point. The proposed vacation involves approximately 2 , 800 s . f . and would be used for accessing the Top of Mill complex. No residential structures are proposed for the vacated area. Subject to the adequate provision of access to the site and appropriate utility easements , the Engineering Department has no problem with the vacation of this portion of Mill Street. Inasmuch as the right-of-way which is to be vacated may contain numerous existing utilities, the Engineering Department recommends that each utility franchised in the City , regardless of whether or not they maintain utility easements in the right-of-way in question, sign-off on the requested vacation in order to verify that the loss of this right-of-way will not interfere with their current or future needs . Similarly , the Planning Office would request that the applicants identify those improvements and/or public benefits which will accrue from the development of the overall PUD which would offset the City' s vacation of this portion of Mill Street. REZONINGS The Aspen Mountain PUD application , as amended , includes a request for three rezonings , two of which are directly related to the Top of Mill proposal . The applicable zoning regulations require that the Planning and Zoning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider rezoning requests and report its recommendations to City Council for their consideration. A public hearing has been published for Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Review rlarch 20 , 1984 Page 5 April 10th and adjacent property owners will be notified. The Planning Office is prepare to provide a brief overview of the requested rezonings at your Tuesday, March 20th meeting. P&Z consideration of the applicants' requests , however , should be deferred until the public hearing . The applicants' specific rezoning requests are examined below. R-15 (PUD (L) and Public to L-2 The applicants are requesting a rezoning to L-2 for the City-owned lots which are involved in the proposed Koch Lumber land trade and which are presently zoned Public , and for the balance of the Top of Mill site up to the 8040 elevation which is presently zoned R! 15 (PUD) (L) . The applicants ' attached exhibits depict the existing and proposed zoning for the parcels in question. Rezoning applications by private applicants are typically heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission only during meetings scheduled by the Commission for this purpose in the months of April and October of each year. An applicant, however, may request either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council to sponsor their request for rezoning thereby circumventing the twice yearly restriction. The applicants , in order to allow consideration of their rezoning request in conjunction with their Top of Mill conceptual PUD/subdivision application , are requesting that the P&Z sponsor their application for rezoning to L-2. - - - - In reviewing a request for rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to consider the following evaluative criteria : 1 ) The compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone district and land uses; 2) the impacts of the rezoning upon traffic , parking and utilities ; 3 ) the impacts on air and water quality; 4) the community need for the rezoning; 5 ) the compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan as amended; and 6 ) the extent to which the proposed rezoning will promote the health , safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen. The applicants ' principal argument in favor of this rezoning is that the single-family/duplex units to be constructed on the rezoned parcels are consistent with the intent of the Recreation/Accommodations Transition land use category applied to this area in the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan which calls for accommodations development of limited height, bulk and scale. While both the intent of the L-2 zone district and the proposed single-family/duplex development are consistent with the intent of our adopted land use plan , the applicants ' primary reason for requesting this rezoning apparently is to enable them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio available in the L-2 zone district. By utilizing the district ' s 1 : 1 external FAR ratio, the applicants can reduce, at least statistically, the overall FAR of the Aspen Mountain PUD. As noted in the conceptual PUD discussion, the applicants are requesting a variation from the underlying FAR requirements of the applicable zone districts . Obviously the greater FAR allowed in the L-2 zone district would make the FAR of the overall PUD appear smaller than if we were to attempt to calculate FAR under existing R-15 (PUD) (L) zoning. Inasmuch as the underlying FAR requirements of any zone district may be varied pursuant to the PUD regulations, and taking into consideration that the proposed uses are permitted uses in the existing zone district , we see no community benefit in rezoning that portion of the site currently owned by the applicants from R-15 (PUD) (L) to L-2 simply to produce a more favorable FAR figure. The Planning Office, therefore, recommends that you deny the applicants ' request for sponsorship of the R-15 (PUD) ( L) rezoning and recommend denial to City Council . Should Council accept the proposed land trade , the Planning Office would recommend that P&Z endorse a request for \,�I10�•® �i�1�`�$ ia s�••`�s� a•\ ��\�\\\��'1�\\\\\�� \.��\.fit•, O��\ �: AA %'.N7 A 1 O ire•{ \x ;•�•,ee M\ �\ \ INN AM � ON:�0� ya kNEW Igo sm XA ft 10%,01, t\\N44ffi; 1111 2 R"..I Iffil 'a. MA im"MENNs-NIN 1,10 SIN, MN ��!`i� ` \ e \tee, • �` \ e•�\��..��`� �\ \ • _ \.`__ \\ •mot \, MCC \. \• \� \" MR,Vii««i:•e\'� J� •nMma \ ORA\ \ \.\� �•�� \\\ .\ ,.�..v i.• ........... gg sum IN WIN t RMISONMI I ow," ASPEN MOUNTAIN PROPOSED ZONING \ American Century Corporation t] p \ ' � 'rl�� •••tea; � '� \ I�III�j�►j1�1�4�gll1� \�1b�sssos�s�°��io Sao°: ® �''��'.'��V�`�a�� ' \�-�► �—�--�� ffggg r4" .�►•••••}•••N••. •. 4 Il ��•►��•��oo��`Ni�.�iNi�►oo"•`�i °i+ i\�:�� S �-Iq ►j 1/��.�fll� N��►o�';N.iioi°•`'N•••i�i`oorioisi�i`: . ��\�♦ \'\`�� \\��. 1 ) j1 ��r°�!�i :o:�s?►�.•''ioi�i`i•=s•°i�►S\\Lw St��►\��\��\ •� �/P �•/I////�S'�►�I�N� gNai��l�•'•N•�•��ONN:�°A'�N�:Ni`�•N•�•�•�•�� 1�, ��_��..��\�\�\��. �'�' � �j////�/�i,N./////�'', n �Nyi�►i'i�•�i•N•rNi.N�•�1►�i►!Vj- � � \:.%.L..S'�. t i/y/�1�s. •oi•N,••�N••o•.•••N•. WIMM& �iy//Lid �� ♦kr e/liyQbNj►•ssNsN�-*ivy 'iii'•=',' \\`�1\\\\\ ��'�\� \,\� �' / /y'��/�Y� .'$fir•h.•-=i•��'ti• •1i. :�a?` \\\\�� vs "kk iW ifq�/A/i w��!is•.r..•At1.d_s. s_:D-r•i�a•F:�e =•�;• \ ��-�� "��\.\ . �� .0 I II I ////� 4yyyi'N�j t a•bh°� \\\\\\\a\` a •\ � �\.\\. :\`..�, \• �r.�� Al /�///��!gNos�s•\`�I��\�,�`��\�� \�\`�\`\�`�\"�`��1i�.`�. :�� i� . — � /'•��iN�iy9�:9.��1��e\1. •;.�L r. ., ei.e.`��a? \�\\��`\\'�`��'�a�.��"a ��\. ��%AN .•••�� ll ♦ N-ww�"T \ g \VA\ s' �� ti \e\ \\_ tea\.\�.\�.. .\v .♦' %.• `\\�``'�t sit 1.♦�• \ �i`' No N NW •.��••t�.�:a!1t'1`�� \ ♦ \ i Ott.•.♦\'. Is N ow Ott, M mgg INIRM �i�\ \\s, \\ \�\� ` �� ' `\\\ .mow \\ .`I:. \��\i\` ��.�\•�` a ON:I V. �► MW NAS Lggg SAWN gwg IZA ON SOM mo g R5 el N \"�\\;\\\\\\�`\\\\\\C::•:J:♦i0❖i%O.��I••��•i•i❖• .�.,a, �.. �•:r • ••��:�0.0�•�• .•i•• •�x•.0 ♦••:k, • .. , ,, • \�\ \:i•.�:iii❖••iO•i i ii•i•:••❖ii r iei••�•�::ia.•:��i'�•��%:•�i••••❖i:".of i a�.�� i.,:._'o::•�J.� , .•,. , , . �.•�\ ��\\ •.♦•••�.��•••♦•:ii.•:i�.•••i i::•0 i•:i0••.�.� �•i i••i♦!.•:i�:w•i::.•>"♦i i•:•i`:!.' � �\ �`e��'\��C o:•:.•:.••••••••••••••i•.:�ii?•ie��•A;•;•?��%•ii•i•::♦i i•%��C�i:J•�.�. •��oi'•��.•:•:�:•�� kL ON SON 4 RX. �": . ..;�I". '. .: : :,. ------ \\�\�\�\\\\��:��♦❖��•�•i�♦i�i♦�i.•n�1.•••••�•i•�ice:♦...� •n..+1��♦�•� i�!�:,..•.�:•�i,•.•.. i••••i•.i•♦:•i 1".� '�~��® \ \\�♦�•�••♦•••♦•♦�:�♦•••i�•••♦•••••:••♦•••♦•♦•••••• •�.�• ♦ •♦•mot ♦••••��•••••••.•••• ��•:-:�.•s�::: )� ems+ ` : .:, .:.•.;: . ASPEN MOUNTAIN 1 •! Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Review March 20 , 1984 Page 6 rezoning of that portion of the Top of Mill site currently zoned Public to R-15 (PUD) (L) . GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION/RECONSTRUCTION The applicants of the Aspen Mountain PUD are requesting an exemption from growth management for the development of the Top of Mill/Summit Place complex. Specifically, the applicants are requesting an exemption pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the zoning regulations for the reconstruction of 40 residential dwelling units . These units either currently exist on the Aspen Mountain PUD site or have been previously demolished and verified by the Building Department. As discussed under CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION, the Top of Mill/Summit Place complex will replace 34 of the 40 existing or primarily demolished residential dwelling units . The applicants , with the assistance of the Building Department , have inventoried these units and have submitted to the Planning Office a request for their verification. After careful review of the applicants ' documentation, the Planning Office and Building Department have agreed to the verification of 40 residential dwelling units. A detailed breakdown of these units is available should you require additional information. While no specific P&Z or Council action is required with respect to this request for GRIP exemption, the Planning Office suggests that any conceptual PUD approval with respect to the Top of Mill/Summit Place proposal include the following conditions which are consistent with the reconstruction provisions of Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Code : 1. The applicants should be limited to the reconstruction of no more than the verified total of 40 residential dwelling units; 2. The reconstruction of these residential units must be accom- plished within five (5) years of the date of demolition; 3 . The reconstruction of the demolished residential units should be limited to the Aspen Mountain PUD site. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW The intent of the City' s 8040 Greenline regulations is "to provide for review of all development above the 8040 greenline within the City of Aspen and all development 50 yards below the 8040 greenline so as to aid in the transition of development from urban uses to the adjacent agricultural and forestry uses ; to insure that all develop- ment is compatible with the prevailing slopes ; to provide for the least disturbance to the terrain and other natural land features of the area; to guarantee availability of utilities and adequate access; to reduce the impact of development on surface runoff , the natural water shed, and air pollution; to avoid losses due to avalanches, unstable slopes, rockfall and mudslides ; and to enhance the natural mountain setting. " The P&Z is responsible for the above review and is required to submit its recommendations to the Building Department . No permit shall issue or development occur which is not in compliance with the approved plan. As shown on the attached proposed zoning map, the 8040 greenline extends through the Top of Mill site . Similarly, the conceptual PUD plan indicates that all of the 33 single family/duplex units and accessory structures proposed for the Top of Mill site are subject to 8040 greenline review procedures and, furthermore , that five (5) of the thirty-three (33) units have been sited between the 8040 greenline and the 8050 elevation. Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Review March 20 , 1984 Page 7 With the exception of visual impact considerations, the 8040 greenline review criteria address themselves primarily to engineering concerns . The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicants' conceptual PUD/subdivision submission and has provided the following comments : 1. water service to the Top of Mill portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD site is impacted by the elevation of the structures . The applicants have indicated a willingness to install booster pumps to service the project in order to guarantee fire flows in the area . The design of any such booster system should be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineering and Water Departments. 2. The Engineering Department ' s review of the Top of Mill site design has raised the question of adequate access to the upper units for fire and emergency purposes. The application suggests the construction of a "fire station" at the south end of the site . Further comment from the Fire Department should be solicited to ascertain the accept- ability of such a system. Fire fighters would be required to haul hoses and equipment some distance through the project to access a problem in the southernmost structures. Elevator and stair access from the parking facility could also be impaired by a major fire. 3. Preliminary soils investigations by a soils consultant has indicated the existence of recent fill on the Top of Mill site as well as mine tailings and the potential for subsidence associated with past mining activity. The applicants should be required to pursue detailed investigation of these potential problems and address the techniques necessary to mitigate any hazards that are identified. 4. The proposed retention ponds and other drainage facilities designed to address the need for storage of off-site unpolluted runoff from Aspen Mountain appear to be somewhat cramped as proposed . The Engineering Department feels , however , that the basic concept of site drainage is in order and anticipates that further refinement of the site plan will suggest better siting for the various facilities needed. It should also be noted that the applicants control a sub- stantial parcel to the north and that some of the drainage associated with the residential portion might be handled on the lodge parcel . The Engineering Department' s concern regarding the difficulty of placing retention ponds on the Top of Mill site should be explored further by the applicants in conjunction with the City staff. The remainder of the engineering related review criteria appear to have been adequately addressed at the conceptual level at this time . The Engineering Department , however , reserves the right to comment further pending the submission of more detailed engineering plans as part of the applicants ' preliminary PUD submission. Given the technical nature of many of the review criteria , and the need for more detailed information in order to adequately assess the proposals' impacts , the Planning Office recommends that P&Z ' s formal action with respect to the applicants ' request for 8040 greenline review be deferred until preliminary PUD consideration. With respect to those review criteria which are primarily visual considerations, the Planning Office believes that the unique nature of the Top of Mill site greatly facilitates screening of the proposed project so as to reduce undesirable visual impacts and maintain the open character of Aspen Mountain. The applicants' site plan successfully clusters the single-family and duplex structures so as to minimize roads , increase open space, and preserve Aspen Mountain as a scenic Aspen mountain PUD - Top of Mill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Review March 20, 1984 Page 8 resource . The Planning Office , however , would also like to review the preliminary PUD submission so as to better determine the extent of grading that will be required to accommodate the proposed Top of Mill complex, the height of the units above finish grade and the proposal ' s overall visual impact. We, therefore, also reserve the right to comment further with respect to the appropriateness of 8040 greenline approval. MOUNTAIN V I EW PLANE REVIEW The intent of the City' s view plane procedures is "to protect from obstruction mountain views from designated parks and other public places to increase the beauty of Aspen and the enjoyment of its residents and visitors, to strengthen the City' s environmental heritage , enhance its tourist industry and maintain property values , and to promote the general prosperity and welfare of the community. " When a view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height below that otherwise provided for in the Municipal Code , all development of areas so affected are required to proceed according to PUD regulations in order to provide maximum flexibility in building. The Planning and Zoning Commission, however, may exempt an applicant from PUD requirements when it determines that the view plane "does not so affect the development site as to require application of PUD or that the affects of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated. " As the attached Wheeler Opera House View Plane map indicates , the view plane is described in such a way that as the topography rises in the lodge district , the ground plane itself actually penetrates the view plane (at an approximate elevation of 7990 feet ) in the vicinity of Summit Street. The applicants ' contend, and the Planning Office generally agrees , that the City' s intent in adopting the view planes was to establish a review procedure to examine , on a case- by-case basis, proposals for building sites near the origin of the view plane, where construction to the full height allowed under zoning could block out all or a significant portion of the view of the mountains beyond. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the applicants believe, and the Planning Office agrees, that the angle of the Wheeler Opera House View Plane was most likely chosen in response to potential development on the sites between the Opera House and Wagner Park , which could have had a dramatic impact on the view from the Wheeler of the surrounding mountains. Given the fact that the ground plane itself actually penetrates the view plane at the 7990 foot elevation, it is reasonable to assume that the view plane was not developed to control development in the upper portions of the lodge district. The City' s 8040 greenline review procedures more adequately address the visual impacts of development in these areas. As the applicants point out, City mapping of the view planes on adopted zoning maps supports this position . The view planes historically have been terminated on the maps when maximum heights permitted under zoning are reached. The applicants further contend that if the City' s interest in regard to the Wheeler View Plane was to suggest that no development be appropriate above elevation 7990 feet , then the City' s decisions to apply L-2 zoning to extensive amounts of land above that elevation, and the adoption of a 28 foot height limit, was inconsistent with the former intent. The applicants accurately note that an exemption from PUD require- ments was granted on March 18 , 1975 to the Hyman Avenue Corporation for the building at 315 E. Hyman Avenue ( i . e . , the Mason & Morse Building) , to allow a building height greater than that permitted under strict compliance with the Wheeler Opera House View Plane . This previous decision by the City has effectively raised the angle of the view plane along the building' s roof line so that construction Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of rill/Summit Place Conceptual PUD and Related Review March 20 , 1984 Page 9 occurring beyond is no longer visible. Given the fact that the "effec- tive" view plane intercepts the Top of Mill site well above the 8060 elevation, the Planning Office believes that view plane considerations with respect to the Top of Mill complex are moot for all practical purposes. RECOMMENDATIONS The above discussion summarizes the Planning Office ' s preliminary comments with respect to the applicants ' Top of mill/Summit Place proposals. The Planning Office is continuing to review the applicants' submission and additional comments may be generated as a result of that review, the P&Z ' s consideration of the applicants ' proposal , and Council' s continuing discussion of the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Specific Planning Office recommendations with respect to the above reviews , and preliminary conditions of approval , if appropriate , will be provided at a later date . The Commission ' s consideration of the applicants ' proposals will most likely be continued until your March 27th work session and, subsequently, to your April 3rd regular meeting. Should you have any questions with respect to the above material or the Aspen Mountain PUD in general prior to our March 20th meeting , please do not hesitate to give me a call in the Planning Office . t MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Al Blomquist, Councilmember RE: Koch Lumber Trade DATE: March 12, '1984 The letter of March 1 , 1984 by Art Daily offers a land trade worthy of Council consideration. I suggest the following counter offer: 1. Site Offered to City 21 ,084 sq. ft. 2. Retained Parcel 40,931 sq. ft. 3. Koch Site Total 62,015 sq. ft. 4 . Vacated Streets to PUD - 32. 512 sq. ft. 5. SUB TOTAL 29,503 sq. ft. 6. Site offered to City - 21 ,084 sq. ft. 7. SUB TOTAL 8,419 sq. ft. 8. Part of Water Tank Parcel 8,419 sq. ft. 9. FINAL BALANCE. . . . . 0 An "even" trade The RESULT is the total Koch site for a City Park. Any density and FAR might be transferred if a part of the PUD, at current R-15 values. The water tank parcel would also help the FAR (slope?) . (I ..don't know the status of the alley on the Koch site. ) NOTE: The entire hillside below the water tank and contiguous along the East edge of the Top of Mill site is city property. The 8,419 square feet to be severed would round out the Top of Mill boundaries and give the development owned greenbelt protection and improve its exclusivity. Rationale 1. The vacated streets are currently "open space" available to the public. Vacating them would deny their open space use by the public. Some grounds for asking replacement do exist. 2. Vacated streets may not be counted in the FAR calculations, but the Koch parcel may be counted if added to the PUD. 3. The part of the Water Tank site is not needed for water tank purposes and would help "buffer" the Top of Mill project. 4 . The Koch parcel is ideal for a public park- and the benefits are proper per the PUD conceptual scheme, i.e. , the clustering of buildings in one place to leave open space in another place. It is also consistant with the purpose of FAR. klm cc: Art Daily Paul Taddune CIT c 0 ASPEN F Vie`T TAiI'. 130 .th gal . `" s.treet asp v 'i K ' x.$1611 Y "N . 020 MEMORANDUM VA R J- DATE: March 9 , 1984 � �__ €" ? P;TKIN TO: Members of City Council PLANNING()FJJ(f City Manager Planning Director----�. FROM: City Attorney RE : Aspen Mountain Lodge Project : Proposed Land Trade Encl: Letter from Art Daily, dated March 1 , with attachment Forwarded herewith for your review and comment is the March 1 , 1984 , letter from Art Daily on behalf of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project which proposes to trade a portion of the Koch Lumber property for the eight Capitol Hill Addition lots presently owned by the City. As you will note, the applicant also proposes to construct for the Ski Club, on any site selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least equal size and of better quality and func- tionality to the one now occupied by the Ski Club on Lots 14 and 15, at applicant ' s sole cost and expense; ' and to dismiss with prejudice Civil Action No. 82-CV-44 and any and all claims and allegations set forth therein. The proposal also points out that any understanding that may be reached between the City and the applicant will necessarily have to be contingent upon (i ) the closing by the applicant of its acquisition of Koch Lumber property from the Cantrup Bankruptcy Estate, and (ii ) the eventual final approval by the City of the applicant ' s PUD plan. This proposal should be discussed as an agenda item at some appro- priate time, and I would appreciate hearing your thoughts in this regard. PJT/mc HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER,COLORADO OFFICE WASHINGTON,D.C.OFFICE 5S5 SEVENTEENTH STREET 600 EAST MAIN STREET 1875 EYE STREET,N.W. SUITE 2900 SUITE 1200 DENVER,COLORADO 60202 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 TELEPHONE (303) 575-6000 TELEPHONE(303) 925-3476 TELEPHONE(202)466-7340 TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261 TELECOPIER(202) 466-7354 BILLINGS,MONTANA OFFICE LARAMIE,WYOMING OFFICE SUITE 1400 HOLLAND&HART& KITE 175 NORTW,'27TH STREET March 1 , 1984 AWYOMING PARTNERSHIP /j BILLINGS,MONTANA 59101 618 GRAND AVENUE TELEPHONE (406)252-2166 LARAMIE,WYOMING 82070 TELECOPIER(406)252-1669 TELEPHONE(307)742-8203 TELECOPIER(307)792-7618 ARTHUR C. DAILY (303) 925-3476 Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Land Trade Dear Paul: The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project ' s P.U.D. Plan includes in its proposed development area eight ( 8) Capitol Hill Addition Lots which are presently owned by the City of Aspen (the "City Lots" ) , it being mutually understood between the Applicant and the City that the Applicant must submit a proposal for the acquisition of the City Lots , which is deemed acceptable to the City, before the P.U.D. Plan as currently structured can receive final approval . For the past several years there has been informal discussion of a possible land trade involving a conveyance to the City of a portion of the "Koch Lumber" property, situated at the corner of Cooper Avenue and Garmisch Street, in exchange for the City Lots . The Applicant believes that a trade along these lines can be developed which will be both fair and beneficial to both parties, and desires to submit the following proposal for the City's consideration. The pertinent facts concerning these two (2) properties are set forth below. 1 . City Lots (a) Lots 7 and 8 were acquired by the City by Trea- surer 's Deed on March 1 , 1948 for the sum of $14 .18. They are zoned "Conservation" , and to the best of our knowledge they have not been put to any use by the City, whether public or otherwise. (b) Lots 9, 10 , 11 and 12 were acquired by the City by Quitclaim Deed on January 10 , 1941 for an apparently nominal con- sideration. Lot 9 is zoned Conservation, while Lots 10 , 11 and 12 HOLLAND &HAFT Paul Taddune , Esq. , City Attorney March 1 , 1984 Page 2 are di..vided . by the zoning district line so as to be zoned partially Conser`,vation and partially "Public" . Here again, we are not aware of any use of these Lots by the City. (c) Lots 14 and 15 were acquired by the City by Trea- surer ' s Deeds on March 1 , 1948 for the sums of $21 . 39 and $16 . 39 , respectively. They lie entirely within the Public zoning district, and have been leased to the Aspen Ski Club for a period of fifty ( 50 ) years commencing August 10 , 1981 at a rental of Ten Dollars ( $10 .00 ) per year . The Ski Club has constructed a building on the property which it uses as a skier training center and for office, storage and other related purposes. (d ) A Survey Engineers survey map of the area establishes the following square footages for the City Lots : Lot 7 1,211 sq. ft. Lot 8 1, 856 sq. ft. Lot 9 3 ,142 sq. ft. Lot 10 1,913 sq. ft. Lot 11 1, 887 sq. ft. Lot 12 2,121 sq. ft. Subtotal: 12 ,130 sq. ft. Lot 14 5,093 sq. ft. Lot 15 3,637 sq. ft. Subtotal : 8,730 sq. ft. Total City Lots: 20 ,860 sq. ft. 2. Koch Lumber Property This property was acquired by Hans Cantrup on April 23, 1979 , for the sum of $300,000 . 00 , and is presently zoned R-15. It is comprised of all of Block 62 (Lots A-I only) of the City and Townsite of Aspen, all of Block 1 (Lot 10 and partial Lots 11-16 only) of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, the platted alley in said Block 1 , Eames Addition, a small unplatted triangular parcel, and the entire portion of the Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way which adjoins said Block 1, Eames Addition on the Southwest. The Koch Lumber property is currently unimproved, and contains a total of 62 ,015 square feet of land. HOLLAND &HART Paul Taddune , Esq. , City Attorney March 1 , 1984 Page 3 Proposed Exchange It is not an easy matter to assess the respective fair market values of these properties. All of the City Lots lie within highly restrictive zoning districts, 42 percent of the land is encumbered by a long-term lease which has no capitalized value to the City, and the City does not appear to have any legal access to the remaining 58 percent of its land ( ie. to the other six ( 6) City Lots ) . The Koch Lumber property is not yet subdivided for develop- ment purposes, and its questionable R-15 zoning classification is the subject of litigation filed by Hans Cantrup in Civil Action No. 82CV44 . Under these circumstances , the Applicant believes that comparable square footage may well be closely comparable in value. Accordingly, the Applicant hereby proposes to convey to the City roughly 21 ,084 square feet of the Koch Lumber property, com- prised of the entire Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way located thereon and partial Lots 13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1 , in exchange for the 20 ,860 square feet contained in the City Lots. I am enclosing for your use a survey map of the Koch Lumber property which delineates the parcel which the Applicant proposes to deliver to the City, and the parcel which will be retained by the Appli- cant. In addition, the Applicant hereby agrees to the following conditions to the consummation of the land trade: ( 1 ) The negotiation and signing between the Aspen Ski Club and the Applicant of a mutually satisfactory understanding whereby the Applicant agrees to construct for the Ski Club, on any site selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least equal size and of better quality and functionality to the one now occupied by it on Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol Hill Addition, at Applicant ' s sole cost and expense. In exchange, the Ski Club must terminate its existing leasehold arrangement on these City Lots . The exact timing of these commitments will have to be worked out with the Ski Club. Clearly, however , the Ski Club will have the continued use of its present building for at least the 1984-85 win- ter season. ( 2) The dismissal with prejudice by the Applicant of Civil Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth therein. All rights pertaining to this suit will be assigned to Applicant upon the closing of its purchase transaction with the Cantrup Bank- ruptcy Estate . HOLLAND &H-ART Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney March 1 , 1984 Page 4 V,p would appreciate your bringing this proposal to the atten- tion oaf the appropriate City departments and officials as promptly as possible. We will be available to discuss the matter further with them at any time. It should be noted that any understanding that may be reached between the City and the Applicant will neces- sarily have to be contingent upon -( i-) the closing by Applicant -of- - - - its acquisition of the Koch Lumber property from the Cantrup Bank- ruptcy Estate, and (ii ) the eventual final approval by the City of Applicant ' s P.U.D. Plan. Thanks for your continuing professional cooperation and assis- tance in this complex matter . Very truly yours, Arthur C. Daily for HOLLAND & HART Attorneys for the Applicants ACD/jlf cc : Mr . Sunny Vann Doremus & Company Mr. John Roberts Mr. Robert Callaway Mr. Alan Novak i r ! G H 1 A f7 C d I I I P�l_OGt� GZ J�?t'EN I I I I i i i I i I r I 1 4 r ALLE'f 14 l3 12 I Ii I 10 Itr I� I MOCK 1, CAME) ^MITIOfN I � 71Q ,, a, ;N•t •::t t HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT t.AW DENVER,COLORADO OFFICE WASHINGTON,D.C.OFFICE SS5 SEVENTEENTH STREET -600 EAST MAIN STREET 1875 EYE STREET.N.W. SUITE 2900 SUITE 1200 DENVER,COLORADO 80202 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 - TELEPHONE (303) 575-8000 TELEPHONE(303) 925-3476 TELEPHONE(202)466-7340 TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261 TELECOPIER(202) 466.7354 BILLINGS.MONTANA OFFICE LARAMIE,WYOMING OFFICE SUITE 1400 f}1� HOLLAND S HART 6 KITE 17S NORTH 27TH STREET March 1 , 19 V 4 A WYOMING PA RTNERSMI BILLINGS,MONTANA 59101 618 GRAND AVENUE TELEPHONE (406)2S2-2166 LARAMIE,WYOMING 82070 TELECOPIER (406)252-1669 TELEPHONE(307)742-8203 TELECOPIER(307)792-7618 ARTHUR C. DAILY (303) 925-3476 Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Land Trade Dear Paul: The Aspen Mountain Lodge Project ' s P.U.D. Plan includes in its proposed development area eight ( 8) Capitol Hill Addition Lots which are presently owned by the City of Aspen (the "City Lots" ) , it being mutually understood between the Applicant and the City that the Applicant must submit a proposal for the acquisition of the City Lots , which is deemed acceptable to the City, before the P.U.D. Plan as currently structured can receive final approval. For the past several years there has been informal discussion of a possible land trade involving a conveyance to the City of a portion of the "Koch Lumber" property, situated at the corner of Cooper Avenue and Garmisch Street, in exchange for the City Lots. The Applicant believes that a trade along these lines can be developed which will be both fair and beneficial to both parties, and desires to submit the following proposal for the City' s consideration. The pertinent facts concerning these two ( 2) properties are set forth below. 1 . City Lots (a) Lots 7 and 8 were acquired by the City by Trea- surer ' s Deed on March 1, 1948 for the sum of $14. 18 . They are zoned "Conservation" , and to the best of our knowledge they have not been put to any use by the City, whether public or otherwise. (b) Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 were acquired by the City by Quitclaim Deed on January 10, 1941 for an apparently nominal con- sideration. Lot 9 is zoned Conservation, while Lots 10, 11 and 12 HOLLAND &HART _ Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney March 1, 1984 Page 2 are divided by the zoning district line so as to be zoned partially Conservation and partially "Public" . Here again, we are not aware of any use of these Lots by the City. (c) Lots 14 and 15 were acquired by the City by Trea- surer ' s Deeds on March 1, 1948 for the sums of $21 .39 and $16. 39 , respectively. They lie entirely within the Public zoning district, and have been leased to the Aspen Ski Club for a period of fifty ( 50 ) years commencing August 10 , 1981 at a rental of Ten Dollars ( $10 .00 ) per year . The Ski Club has constructed a building on the property which it uses as a skier training center and for office, storage and other related purposes. (d ) A Survey Engineers survey map of the area establishes the following square footages for the City Lots: Lot 7 1,211 sq. ft. Lot 8 1,856 sq. ft. Lot 9 3,142 sq. ft. Lot 10 1,913 sq. ft. Lot 11 1,887 sq. ft. Lot 12 2,121 sq. ft. Subtotal: 12,130 sq. ft. Lot 14 5,093 sq. ft. Lot 15 3,637 sq. ft. Subtotal: 8,730 sq. ft. Total City Lots: 20 ,860 sq. ft. 2. Koch Lumber Property This property was acquired by Hans Cantrup on April 23, 1979 , for the sum of $300,000 . 00 , and is presently zoned R-15. It is comprised of all of Block 62 (Lots A-I only) of the City and Townsite of Aspen, all of Block 1 (Lot 10 and partial Lots 11-16 only) of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, the platted alley in said Block 1, Eames Addition, a small unplatted triangular parcel, and the entire portion of the Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way which adjoins said Block 1 , Eames Addition on the Southwest. The Koch Lumber property is currently unimproved, and contains a total of 62 ,015 square feet of land. HOLLAND &HART Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney March 1, 1984 Page 3 Proposed Exchange It is not an easy matter to assess the respective fair market values of these properties. All of the City Lots lie within highly restrictive zoning districts, 42 percent of the land is encumbered by a, long-term lease which has no capitalized value to the City, and the City does not appear to have any legal access to the remaining 58 percent of its land ( ie. to the other six (6) City Lots ) . The Koch Lumber property is not yet subdivided for develop- ment purposes, and its questionable R-15 zoning classification is the subject of litigation filed by Hans Cantrup in Civil Action No. 82CV44 . Under these circumstances, the Applicant believes that comparable square footage may well be closely comparable in value. Accordingly, the Applicant hereby proposes to convey to the City roughly 21 ,084 square feet of the Koch Lumber property, com- prised of the entire Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way located thereon and partial Lots 13-16 of Eames Addition Block 1, in exchange for the 20 ,860 square feet contained in the City Lots. I am enclosing for your use a survey map of the Koch Lumber property which delineates the parcel which the Applicant proposes to deliver to the City, and the parcel which will be retained by the Appli- cant. In addition, the Applicant hereby agrees to the following conditions to the consummation of the land trade: ( 1) The negotiation and signing between the Aspen Ski Club and the Applicant of a mutually satisfactory understanding whereby the Applicant agrees to construct for the Ski Club, on any site selected and obtained by the Ski Club, a new building of at least equal size and of better quality and functionality to the one now occupied by it on Lots 14 and 15 of the Capitol Hill Addition, at Applicant' s sole cost and expense. In exchange, the Ski Club must terminate its existing leasehold arrangement on these City Lots. The exact timing of these commitments will have to be worked out with the Ski Club. Clearly, however , the Ski Club will have the continued use of its present building for at least the 1984-85 win- ter season. (2) The dismissal with prejudice by the Applicant of Civil Action No. 82CV44 and all claims and allegations set forth therein. All rights pertaining to this suit will be assigned to Applicant upon the closing of its purchase transaction with the Cantrup Bank- ruptcy Estate . HOLLAND &HART Paul Taddune, Esq. , City Attorney March 1 , 1984 Page 4 We would appreciate your bringing this proposal to the atten- tion of the appropriate City departments and officials as promptly as possible. We will be available to discuss the matter further with them at any time. It should be noted that any understanding that may be reached between the City and the Applicant will neces- sarily have to be contingent upon (i ) the closing by Applicant of its acquisition of the Koch Lumber property from the Cantrup Bank- ruptcy Estate, and ( ii ) the eventual final approval by the City of Applicant 's P.U.D. Plan. Thanks for your continuing professional cooperation and assis- tance in this complex matter . Very truly yours, � it' Arthur C. Daily for HOLLAND & HART Attorneys for the Applicants ACD/j l f cc: Mr. Sunny Vann Doremus & Company Mr. John Roberts Mr. Robert Callaway Mr. Alan Novak MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Top of Mill - Rezoning (Public Hearing) , 8040 Greenline and Conceptual PUD Review DATE: February 21, 1984 As the attached letter indicates, the applicants of the Top of Mill project (Aspen Mountain PUD) have requested that their application for rezoning, 8040 Greenline and Conceptual PUD review be tabled. The purpose of the requested tabling is to allow the applicants additional time to address the City Council ' s concerns with respect to the hotel portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD. As your February 21st meeting is a published public hearing for consideration of the applicants' request for rezoning, the Planning Office recommends that you open the public hearing with respect to this matter and continue it to your second regular meeting in March. We also recommend that you table the additional review requirements associated with the Top of Mill project to the same meeting. The date of the continued public hearing will be March 20, 1984 . I Doremus & company 608 east hyman avenue aspen, colorado 81611 telephone: (303) 925-6866 i i February 16, 1984 f i Mr. Sunny Vann Director, Aspen Pitkin Planning Office 3 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 j Dear Sunny: As you know, the development team for the Aspen Mountain PUD has been focusing in recent days on revisions that clearly must be made in the Lodge program in order to address City Council's concerns with the Project. i This is obviously a crucial period for the Lodge project and we do not feel that we can adequately prepare for a presentation to the Council of the most recent revisions to the Lodge proposal and at the same time concern ourselves with the Top of Mill project. Therefore we are requesting that consideration by P&Z of Top of Mill and the related rezoning request be tabled in order to give us adequate time to deal with the remaining issues on the hotel and then turn our attention to the Top of Mill and any other unresolved issues of the PUD. i Sincerely, w Joe Wells JW/jb I r I MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Housing Office Building Department (Jim Wilson) Parks Department Fire Chief FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE : Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP Submission Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline and View Plane Review DATE: December 8 , 1983 Enclosed herewith is the application submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, Mr. Alan Novak and Mr. Robert Callaway. This application consists of two actual cases, 700 S. Galena, a 1984 Residential GMP submission, and the Top of Mill which is a PUD/Subdivision submission which also requires rezoning, 8040 greenline review and view plane review. The GMP portion of this application (700 S. Galena) is a request to construct a 12 unit condominium project at 700 S. Galena. This is the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD submission. Also included in this submission is the applicants ' request to reconstruct approximately 33 residential units at the Top of Mill. This portion of the request also requires PUD/Subdivision, 8040 greenline review, rezoning and view plane review. The Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP por- tion of this submission has been scheduled before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 17 , 1984 . The Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, rezoning, 8040 greenline and view plane review will be scheduled shortly thereafter. In order for the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presenta- tion, we would appreciate having your comments returned to the Planning Office no later than December 30, 1983. Thank you. �r CITEc y SPEN 130 r e e t asp T 1611 Paul J. Taddune City Attorney August 25 , 1983 Gary S. Esary Assistant City Attorney Peggy Carlson Administrative Assistant Chris Neuswanger TNT Marketing , Inc. P. O. Box 576 Vail , Colorado 86157 Re: Summit Place Townhouses Dear Chris : In response to your letter of August 22 , 1982 , I am enclosing a copy of a letter I wrote on the same subject to a representative of another prospective purchaser. To emphasize the point , it is my recollection that the street dedication and paving , to be done by the developer at no cost to the City, was in exchange for the unique easement/right-of-way arrangement and to mitigate the impact upon the neighborhood and the City of the exceptional bulk of the finished four-plex. The value of the easement/right-of-way and the cost of the paving was not to be subtracted from park dedication fees, utility hook-up or utility connection charges , building permit fees , real estate transfer tax or other reltated City fees. Please let me know if you have any questions . Very truly yours, Gary S. Esary Assistant City Attorney GSE/mc Enc. cc : Paul Taddune (w/ encl . ) Wayne Chapman .Sunny Vann 11 Drueding (w/ encl . ) Spencer Schiffer (w/ encl . ) CITY. (JF .'=ASPEN 130 south`,galena street aspen ,: colorad0_'-81611 303-925`=2020 Paul J.Taddunc City Attorney HAND DELIVERED Gary S. r-.sary Assistant City Attorney Pcgby Carlson August 16 , 1983 Administrative Assistant Mill ) i I I This is in response to your letter to me of August 4 , 1983 , in this matter. This project has had a long and convoluted history of land-use review. I first became involved in it in September , 1981 , when I was associated with Grueter & Edmondson , then acting City Attor- ney . The issues presented below have certain sub-issues and interre- lated issues , but I think any difference of opinion in regard to the present development rights of the referenced project will cen- ter on the following: Background -- Summit Street easement/dedication/construction -- I have never confirmed the calculations that the' present Summit Place lot (without adjustments ) contains sufficient F.A.R. allow- ance for the planned four-plex. However, it is clear that if the Summit Street right-of-way was dedicated to the City prior to construction of the four-plex, the resultant decrease in the lot size would decrease the allowble F.A.R. and make the fourth unit impractical . Even without subtraction of the right-of-way, the the planned four-plex is a very bulky building and objectionable to some in the neighborhood. The applicant suggested a compromise in which the City would first take an easement for Summit Street , at no cost to the City, ( instead of a right-of-way dedication) . Then the area of the easement could be used for F.A.R. purposes . At some point after construction had begun, the applicant would then dedicate the right-of-way, at no cost to the City, making the four-plex non-conforming as to F.A.R. i August 16 , 1983 Page Two Finally, to mitigate the effect of the bulk of the . building on the neighborhood, the applicant would then pave Summit Street (with sidewalk and curb and gutter) at no cost to the City. 1 . The first dispute between the City and the applicant was the calculation of the park dedication fee. The City' s recollection of the deal was the easement dedication arrangement plus the bulk for a free right-of-way and paving , period . Any park dedication fee would have to be calculated and paid separately. The appli- cant says that the value of the right-of-way should be subtracted from the park dedication fee due. My personal recollection is that the City' s position is correct and Wayne Chapman agrees with my recollection. Further, Wayne says that he would not be disposed to recommend such a reduction in the park dedication fee. 2 . The second problem area is the right to the fourth unit , assuming the F.A. R. problem is handled . The applicant has a duplex by right . He built a garage for a four-plex underground and then got permission to deck the extra garages under a no-reli- ance "build at your own risk" arrangement . The third unit comes from the previously-existing unit on the property, as evidenced by the Fred Crowley inventory letter. The fourth unit was to have been transferred from the contiguous "Snow Chase" property. The City ' s recollection of the arrangement was that the "Snow Chase" unit be transferred in exchange for a deed-restriction on the "Snow Chase" lot "sterilizing" that lot from future development by any method other than future GMP applicaton. The applicant ' s position is that the Snow Chase lot will be deed-restricted but still available for single-family residence development and any GMP exemptions that may apply. 3. The Subdivision Agreement is in draft but has not been finalized. There are a number of possibly troublesome issues that will have to be solved by the agreement, including the timing of the Summit Street easement/dedication , the value of the paving costs and security for the paving, and related documents to be attached as exhibits (grant of right-of-way, deed-restriction , etc. ) . To sum up, although the concept of the four-plex development has been agreed to by the City, there are many issues crucial to the development that have not been worked out and , as reported above, over which substantial disagreements have arisen. Even if an - August 16�-1983 - - - Page Three applicant were to agree to the City's position on 'all these issues , it would take some time for the City staff to get together the numbers necessary to review and/or draft the agreements and issue the building permits (legal description of easement/dedica- ton , final F.A.R. calculations , paving costs , estimates , calcula- tion of park dedication fee, etc. ) . This information is provided as a courtesy to you in response to your request. The information in it is taken from the City Attor- ney' s files and is the best of my personal recollection and opinion of the status of the project and related issues. Any dif- ferences of opinion or interpretation between the City and any applicant will ultimately be decided through the public process and you are advised not to rely to your detriment on information not contained in the public record. It is my intent to provide information to be helpful to all parties in their negotiations but not to bind the City ( as I have no authority to do) to actions and positions not actually taken by administrative, legislative or quasi-judicial authority of the City Council. If you need any additional information , please so request in writ- ing . jAsist ul yours, sa ity At ney cctiPaul Taddune Wayne Chapman Sunny Vann Spencer Schiffer ( t MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director _ FROM: Jay Hammond,, City Engineering DATE: January 24 , 1984 Aspen Mountain Project Residential Subdivision, P.U.D. , RE: Rezoning, 8040 Greenline -------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application, and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department would offer the following comments relative to the various reviews required: Conceptual Subdivision and P.U.D. The application and associated mapping is quite adequate for conceptual subdivision and P.U.D. purposes . 1. The application indicates that the residential portions of the project are to be condominiumized. Condominiumization will require recordation of a plat following construction and prior to sale of the units. The platting will serve to delineate common areas and how various elements will be defined for ownership purposes. The applicants should be required to dedicate the various proposed trail alignments to the City. 2. The submission goes to considerable length to justify their request for a reduced parking requirement for the project. While their arguments are certainly well researched and probably valid, we are considerably less comfortable with the parking reductions requested for the residential projects (particularly for the Top of Mill portion) in view of their distance from the transit routes and the longer term nature of the residential unit occupancy. One possible solution may be to require the applicant to provide limo service on a regular basis to encourage short- term users of the condominiums not to use their cars . We would also suggest taking the applicants up on their offer of supporting a survey of lodge and condominium parking demand. Updated data of this nature may suggest revision of our current code requirements. 3 . Some clarification of how the proposed Top of Mill project will impact existing site characteristics such as the Willoughby jump and the ski club rope tow and slalom hill would be helpful . It would appear this project may preclude use of these various facilities. Page Two January 24 , 1984 Aspen Mountain Project Residential Subdivision, P.U.D. Rezoning, 8040 Greenline 4 . We have no special concerns relative .to the P.U.D. at this time except to note that the proposed building heights of 34 to 36 feet is in excess of the 28 feet allowed in the proposed L-2 zone. Rezoning Concurrent with this submission, the applicants are requesting a rezoning of the Top of Mill site from R-15 (PUD) (L) to L-2. The major impact of the rezoning relative to engineering concerns is the increased density permitted on the site due to upzoning to L-2 . Problems relative to site access (further discussed in the 8040 Greenline review) are aggravated by the density of the project. Reductions in density at the Top of Mill may be necessary to facilitate fire and emergency access to all units. 8040 Greenline Several concerns are raised by the project when considered relative to 8040 Greenline criteria. 1. Water service to the Top of Mill portion of the site is impacted by the altitude of the structures . The applicant has indicated a willingness to install booster pumps , to service the project in order to guarantee adequate fire flows in the area. The design of any such booster system shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineering and Water Departments . 2. our review of the Top of Mill site design has raised the question of adequate access to the upper units for fire and emergency purposes. The submission suggests the construction of a "fire station" at the south end of the site. Further comment from the Fire Department should be solicited to ascertain the acceptability of such a system. Fire fighters would be required to haul hoses and equipment some distance through the project to access a problem in the southerly structures. Elevator and stair access from the parking facility could be impaired by a major fire. 3. Preliminary soils investigations by a soils consultant have indicated the existance of recent fill on the Top of Mill site as well as mine tailings and the potential for underground excavation associated with past mining activity. The applicant should be required to pursue detailed inves- tigation of these potential problems addressing the techniques necessary to mitigate any hazards that are identified. Page Three January 24 , 1984 Aspen Mountain Project Residential Subdivision, P.U.D. , Rezoning, 8040 Greenline 4 . Greenline review recommends "reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain. " This goal is in conflict with the applicants desire to construct buildings in excess of the height restrictions associated with the proposed zoning. Mountain View Plane The City Engineering Department has no particular concerns relative to view plane review at this time. The applicant' s analysis of the existing Wheeler View Plane as well as its current obstruction by the Hyman Avenue (Mason and Morse) building would appear to be proper. JH/co cc: Dan McArthur MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering DATE: March 15, 1984 RE: Top-of-Mill Residential P.U.D. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to our discussions of yesterday, I would supply the following supplemental comments regarding the Aspen Mountain Project' s proposed Top-of-Mill residential P.U.D. Please consider these additional comments in conjunction with my memorandum to you of January 24 regarding this project. 1. Summit Street - During review of the Lodge application we touched briefly on the issue of "closing" the Summit Street extension between Mill and Monarch Streets as it impacts area circulation and emergency access. The Top-of-Mill site plan proposes eliminating the Summit Street link in order to accommodate the pedestrian and ski link to the mountain from the lodge. We do_ not _support the elimination of the Summit Street link at this time, feeling that it is particularly important in providing alternative access to the many properties on South Monarch benefitting overall circulation as well as emergency access to that area. It is our opinion that while the street should remain passable it should still be possible to maintain the pedestrian/skier link across the street. As a condition of approval, I would suggest further discussion of this matter between our office, the Fire Department, and the applicant regarding acceptable alternatives. 2. Drainage - I am inclined to agree that proposed detention Ponds and other drainage facilities are somewhat cramped on the site plan. We feel, however, that the concepts for the site drainage are in order and anticipate that further refinement of the site plan will suggest better siting for the various facilities needed. It is also significant to note that the applicants control a substantial parcel to the north and that some of the drainage associated with the residential portion might be handled on the lodge parcel. Our concerns regarding the difficulty of placing pond areas on the Top-of-Mill should be considered by the applicant at this time. 3 . Skier Access - My investigations of existing topography do not .indicate a convenient skier access from the site to Little Nell. Further investigation of this may be appropriate, however, as there already exist easements in the Anthony Acres area. 4 . Vacation of South Mill Street - The proposed vacation of the Page 2 March 15, 1984 Top-of-Mill Residential P.U.D. southerly tip of South Mill Street is an item involving the granting of approximately 2, 800 square feet of public Right-of way to the applicant' s. The vacated area would be used for the access roadway onto the site and will not support structures. The area proposed for vacation is a small stub of right-of-way that is of little value to area circulation or utility needs. Subject to the adequate provision of access to the site and utility easements on the project plat, this department has no particular problem with the the vacation of the southerly tip of Mill Street. JH/co cwc� —� vr^oJ N4-oA -3 -NO ;Zcv� A Cam? )1��n tr-w -''-01 -01 D-J 110 )'(lv�r-N%4/40,w -01 1.0 9 PrOTIDIT"j .-,I f� I-ry 1�11 J113 --iflw" 1j, If" , qrzn�� /\-rVn -VL YVIV -Brlr� -a-0 ;� p - �__ 10-4 u�ob Q r( II Of a "4vu . 'Iv*,A al-� �V�j h1ka Ol LMT O'�x k��l yt-o,- 0� ec- (j'---� �v Illp ail • 1,. V�o `e�v'Q�L 011�.�o-c i a� �.�•9;`r1�.. �.St.. ��;,�.¢,K't�Q,\ oz.��b..►� �.� Ctl-�.�..� � a4,0 cLf 'I ' o 1...4't-`F(Q-- . t P - o� ob�• Cam" r�Mn/�.0•.�t �., 800 c1a�Q� ' r Vo�,ca'�-eft a-k�¢-& i i i '. �- - CJOL o NNS- 1 C,;rCJa � tr i° MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney ' City Engineer (City Water Department Aspen Metro Sanitation District Housing Office 'Building Department (Jim Wilson) Parks Department Fire Chief FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP Submission Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline and View Plane Review DATE: December 8 , 1983 Enclosed herewith is the application submitted by American Century Corporation, Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas, Mr. Alan Novak and Mr. Robert Callaway. This application consists of two actual cases, 700 S. Galena, a 1984 Residential GMP submission, and the Top of Mill which is a PUD/Subdivision submission which also requires rezoning, 8040 greenline review and view plane review. .The GMP portion of this application (700 S. Galena) is a request to construct a 12 unit condominium project at 700 S. Galena. This is the residential portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD submission. Also included in this submission is the applicants ' request to reconstruct approximately 33 residential units at the Top of Mill. This portion of the request also requires PUD/Subdivision, 8040 greenline review, rezoning and view plane review. The Aspen Mountain PUD - 700 S. Galena - 1984 Residential GMP por- tion of this submission has .been scheduled before the Aspen Planning and zoning Commission on 'January 17 , 1984 . The Aspen Mountain PUD - Top of Mill - PUD/Subdivision, rezoning, 8040 greenline and view plane review will be scheduled shortly thereafter. In order for the Planning Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presenta- tion, we would appreciate having your comments returned to the Planning Office. no later than December 30, 1983. Thank you. \F CrR••? � T� � A, Sop #Irv'> C Oct^ � T.►r� + _ �Si�i � � CITY ASPEN 130 Sgitt i sA'tree t aspext,:. x:$1611 WATER DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: SUNNY VANN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983 Orb P RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD 700 S. GALENA If the applicant adheres to our recommendations as set forth in our 9/28/83 letter to Doremus & Co. on page 73 of the application, we have no additional comments to make pertinent to this application. JM:lf MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Dept. FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officerk4 DATE: January 25 , 1984 TO: Top of Mill 700 S. Galena 1) Top of Mill Is the city still interested in an easement for Summit Street? (See attached letters from Gary Esary) 2) Both Top of Mill and 700 S. Galena refer to open space or green space percentages . I question whether the calculations consider all the criteria of Section 24-3 . 7 (d) . 3 . The applicant does not specify the setbacks on these projects. When will these be addressed in enough detail to determine compliance. 4 . Applicant on page 113 refers to height above finished grade. Section 24-3 . 7 (g) calculates height from "natural undisturbed ground slope. " 5 . I question whether "stack parking" is permitted in the garage below 700 S. Galena project. 6 . The applicant should be aware of the pending park dedication fees . A bedroom count should be made of existing residential units to be demolished. Sunny, I realize that variances can be given because of the PUD nature of this project. In reviewing the submission, I feel that all approvals should be detailed reference height, setbacks , open space , etc . This Department can comment more when we get a detailed submission. cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official Jim Wilson, Building Official BD/ar