The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.Aspen Mountain PUD.A78-92 CASELOAD' SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 9/30/92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: x737 A78-92 STAFF MEMBER: DM PROJECT NAME: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUDA_m_e_ndment/Lot 1 Project Address: Legal Address: APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership/Perry Harvey Applicant Address: 600 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 200 925-4272 REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Representative Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 5-8080 ------------------------------------------------ FEES: PLANNING $ 1976.00 # APPS RECEIVED 10 ENGINEER $ 225.00 # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ 140. 00 . TOTAL $ 2341. 00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: x P&Z Meeting Date 12-k5 PUBLIC HEARING: YE NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. School District City Engineer ✓ Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT P,"- Aspen Water _ Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board ---�7- Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: 00 I5� INITIALS: DUE: 1?, FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Department Zoning Administration Aspen Fire Protection District Building Inspector FROM: Diane Moore, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1 Parcel ID No. 2737-182-85-001/005 DATE: October 15, 1992 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership. Please return your comments to me no later than November 12, 1992. The Design Review Committee will be meeting on November 5, 1992, at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor City Council Chambers. Thank you. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197 October 15, 1992 Joe Wells 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1 Case A78-92 Dear Joe, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, December 8, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300 ' and to post the subject property with a sign prior to the public hearing, on or before November 28, 1992. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review Committee (DRC) . The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which meet with Planning and the applicant early in the process to discuss the application. This case is scheduled for November 5, 1992 at 3 : 00 p.m. , City Hall, City Council Chambers. If you have any questions, please call Diane Moore, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Suzanne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant 6 d i w E O DUM o6lu - TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain Subdivision - PU%�" pdment for Lots 1, 3 and 5; Subdivision of Lot 1,'Aland Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization of Blue Spruce Building DATE: SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the conditions stated at the end of the memo. APPLICANT: Savannah Limited Partnership, represented by Joe Wells and Perry Harvey. LOCATION: The Aspen Mountain Subdivision is located at the base of Aspen Mountain, south of Durant Avenue, between Galenastand Monarch. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is constructed on Lot 1. Lot 3 is the Top of Mill site*D Lot 5 currently contains the Grand Aspen Hotel. ZONING: Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) Wfk PLD We_4JJ_ APPLICANT'S REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a PUD Amendment to transfer all 22 hotel units approved for the second and third floor of the Blue Spruce Building to the planned re-development of the Grand Aspen Hotel. This will leave a total of 257 hotel units within the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and allow for a total of 72 hotel units to be built when the Grand Aspen Hotel is re-developed. In exchange, the applicant requests that 6 of the 47 residential units planned for Lots 3 and 5 be transferred to the Blue Spruce Building. These will be the only residential units built in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. The applicant also requests subdivision approval to create a new Lot 1A of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. Lot lA will contain only that portion of Lot 1 north of Dean Street (the Blue Spruce Building) . The subdivision will enable the applicant to establish a'�' a Community" (formerly known as a ' ' Common Interest Ownership condominium) for the proposed residential units in the project. The applicant is reserving its rights under Colorado's recent Common Interest Ownership Act, but requests condominiumization to create separate fee ownership for the residential units. PROCESS: PUD Amendments are approved pursuant to the terms and provisions of Final PUD Review, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the Final Development Plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the Final Development Plan, the amendment is subject to both Conceptual and Final review. Final PUD Nrequires a recommendation by P&Z and final action by Council, at which time an amended PUD Agreement is adopted. Subdivision and condominiumization require a recommendation by P&Z and final action by Council, done concurrently with Final PUD. ?Xrocessing of a GMQS amendment and re-scoring of the project is not necessary to implement this proposal. The applicant does not propose any significant changes tOAapproved design features, public facilities, or other commitments made in obtaining the GMQS allotments. The allotments which are being transferred between Lots 1 and 5 have previously been approved for both lots and were evaluated during the original GMQS competition based primarily on commitments made for the entire PUD, which remain unchanged. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Following is a summary of the comments received by the Planning Office from referral agencies. Complete copies of 5� the original memos may be found in Attachment "A" . Engineering: - A condominium map and plat must be submitted, meeting the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.D of the Municipal Code. When the parking calculation for the residential units is determined, the spaces should be designated on the plat or in the condominium documents. Environmental Health: - Water supply and sewage disposal lines are in place, with adequate capacity to serve the project. - New woodburning fireplaces are prohibited in the metro area. Two / gas-log fireplaces allowed for the building are already allocated. fGas appliances are allowed in the residential units, but are not addressed in the application. STAFF COMMENTS: * This project requires multiple approvals. J&eview criteria awe identified for each application type. OJLQ- 1. PUD Amendment- As noted above, PUD Amendments are reviewed according to the terms and provisions of Final PUD Review, Section 24-7-903 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The Commission and Council are authorized,_when °..;„n - - -} "to insure that the development will be compatible with current community conditions" , to apply " new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the original approval" and to take into consideration "changing community circumstances as they affect the project' s original representations and commitments" . For the Commission members to adequately review this proposal, it is first necessary to provide background information as to the PUD's evolution, summarized in the following table and discussion. 2 A5k dJ�9��t� ' / �-,) (Cdq'el A-6UM-5 - bAah,2-, bj L- Croef2-t,'n n ism 5 vrFo � w(' �v� -Y�IDSe Gcctes�z,� Uses , !) 1 History: The Aspen Mountain Subdivision as initially submitted by John Roberts in 1983 for PUD review_4 to obtain lodge and residential GMQS allotments. Final PUD approval was granted in 1985 for a project containing a total of 447 hotel units (275 replacement and 172 GMQS units) and 54 residential units (42 replacement and 12 GMQS units) , spread across 5 lots. Development of the 447 hotel units was to occur as "Hotel Phase I", to contain not more than 300 hotel units and 14 residential units on what has become the Ritz-Carlton site, and "Hotel Phase II", on the Grand Aspen site, to contain not more than 190 hotel units and 14 residential units, �_�ed �Ho �►at� n- ^f fhe two phases would not exceed 447 hotel and 14 residential units. The remaining 40 residential units were planned for Summit Place, Top of Mill (which only received Conceptual PUD approval) and Galena Place. Following the acquisition of the property by Hadid Aspen Holdings, a PUD Amendment application was submitted for Lot 1, the Ritz- Carlton, in January p�1988. During its review by P&Z and City Council, consideration was also given to the development program for Lots 3 and 5. One result of this review process was an offer by the applicant to drop 105 hotel units from the development program, in order to secure approval for a 292 unit hotel on Lot 1. During the review process, the applicant transferred all of the residential units permitted on Lot 1 to Lots 3 and k. The principal reason for this transfer was that*%liminatiig �thek square footage resulted in a significant reduction in the size of the hotel, allowing a break to be made to the building' s mass along Mill Street. The record does not indicat there were any policy discussions which found residential units i appropriate for Lot 1. t,af The amended PUD which emerged from the 1988 review permitted 292 hotel units and 0 residential units in the Ritz-Carlton, and 50 hotel units and 47 residential units in the re-development of the Grand Aspen/development of Top of Mill property. Since 1988, two Insubstantial PUD Amendments have been processed by the staff, which have had the effect of eliminating 13 hotel units from the Ritz-Carlton. The applicant did not ask to have these units transferred to other lots within the PUD; instead, they were actually dropped from the total unit count. At the present time, theme 279 hotel units are allowed on Lot 1, while 50 hotel units are allowed on Lot 5, for a total of 329 hotel units. The applicant's proposal would amend these totals to 257 and 72 hotel units respectively, with the total PUD still containing 329 hotel units. The proposal would also transfer 6 residential units to Lot 1, leaving 41 residential units to be built on Lots 3 and 5. The applicant represents there will be no exterior modifications to 4 the Blue Spruce Building due to the change in planned use from hotel to residential units. Review Criteria: The PUD review criteria includes several general planning requirements, followed by a number of more specific standards which are most applicable to development of vacant land. The criteria are reviewed below, as applicable to this project. Ia. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the Aspen Mountain base area for "Recreation/Accommodations" land use. This area is intended as the principal location for visitor oriented uses in the Aspen Area. The property's Land Use Plan designation was one of several arguments in f vqr of the project's original PUD approval. Since the 1988 a rov 1 "ma •or changes in community land s PP � 9 Y use policy are embodied� 'n the Aspen Area Community Plan, which recently S received a P&Z recommendation of approval. While the Plan does not contain an major policy shifts for the base area it does include Y 7 P Y , an analysis of remaining lodge buildout in the Aspen Area. The analysis indicates that within the Aspen Base Neighborhood Planningc15 base Z Area, only approximately 72-82 new lodge units and 50-80 visitor 3aNinrc� oriented residential units remain to be built. These totals woo include the units yet to be built within the Aspen Mountain PUD. Since there are so few remaining lodge and residential units to be built within the base area, it is important that future visitor- oriented units be located in the most convenient locations. The 7 1 Blue Spruce site is located across from Rubey Park, along a major oo• �.transportation corridor, within walking distance of the ski lifts �u and Aspen's commercial core. It is a particularly appropriate location for relatively higher intensity visitor use (as is the Grand Aspen site) . Therefore, while transfer of 22 hotel units to the Grand Aspen site would be consistent with community planning, the use of the Blue Spruce site for residential use could be less �h so, particularly if the units are to be sold to individuals who keep them out of the rental pool. �Z Consistent with the purpose of the L/TR zone district, we suggest it be required that the residential units be managed in conjunction with the hotel and rented for use by visitors, as the Code would require if these were lodge, rather than residential condominiums. There is already a corridor over Dean Street connecting the hotel �Vs and Blue Spruce Building, which should facilitate the unified management of the two buildings 1b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 5 The character of existing land uses in the surrounding area is principally visitor accommodations, tourist serving commercial uses, and recreation facilities. The proposed residential use of the Blue Spruce Building would be most consistent with surrounding uses if the units are used for short term accommodations. The First Amended PUD Agreement stipulates that there shall be four accessory retail spaces on the main floor of the Blue Spruce Building, which shall not be combined to create larger spaces. Permitted uses in these spaces are limited to the following and similar uses: -r&4'e L)'54s donof I aAR - D � 6 444ir aAka. do I * Sundry shop * Hotel operator souvenir store * Car rental and travel desk * Beauty sho * Ski and sports activity center * lorist sho * Ski rental and repair shop * GI--shop The purpose of these limits was to avoid the spread of commercial core type uses into the lodge district. The uses were to remain accessory to the hotel operation and not become principal commercial operations attracting clients from throughout Town. To maintain the accessory status of the units, the applicant states that the retail spaces on the entry level of the Blue Spruce Building will be designated as a separate condominium unit, which �p will remain in the same ownership as the rest of the hotel. This ,- At commitment should be formalized as a covenant, suitable for C9�t�'"" recordation, and acceptable in form and content to the City Attorney. _ r C_j 4W PTZ pr' t '�"j Another relevant issue to consider is the impact of reducing the hotel unit count in the Ritz Carlton on its planned character. Throughout the prior reviews of the hotel on Lot 1, the applicant 4q Pub stated the importance of having a unit count of approximately 300 rooms, to insure that a block of rooms would be available within the hotel for conference participants. The applicant now proposes to reduce the size of the hotel to JVNt\ 257 units. A principal purpose behind the original PUD was to have this be one hotel in 1 t Aspen large enough to adequately support conference facilities. 11 The applicant should document that its experience in booking the hotel demonstrates that conference participants can be adequately accommodated within the reduced unit count. V)'M 1c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. (,4✓� The principal future development within the surrounding area will be the redevelopment of the Grand Aspen Hotel. When the First Amended PUD Agreement was drafted in 1988, two key limitations were written for the future development of this site, embodied in Council Resolution 88-11 and the First Amended PUD Agreement. These limitations were: 6 O 5� * Development on Lots 3 an 5 would not exceed 115, 000 sq. ft. * The applicant would neve request additional residential GMQS t allotments to increase the density of Lots 3 and 5. \5 Because the unit count proposed for Lots 3 and 5 is proposed to change, it is appropriate to carry these limitations forward as limitations upon the new development program. id. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. The applicant was awarded sufficient GMQS allotments and replacement credits during the initial approval to address all - - - proposed development within the PUD. In fact, the applicant has actually given back 118 of the 172 lodge development allotments originally granted to the project, only retaining 54 allotments. 2/3/4. Density/Land Use/Dimensional Limits y The proposed amendment should have no impact on any of these o\e4_A° aspects of the proposed PUD, as the residential units are proposed within an approved building, and provided the staff recommendation with respect to limiting Lots 3 and 5 to no more than 115, 000 square feet of development is followed. 5. Off-Street Parking The First Amended PUD Agreement required the applicant to provide a minimum of 220 subsurface parking spaces within Lot 1, along with 10 permanent service vehicle berths or guest loading spaces at street level, in front of the hotel. An insubstantial plat and PUD amendment which eliminated 11 hotel rooms was approved by staff in October, 1992 . This amendment permitted reduction of the parking requirement to 217 subsurface parking spaces and 7 street level spaces, (in order to allow for a fire lane) corresponding to the actual number of parking spaces now installed on Lot 1. The First Amended PUD Agreement also requires the applicant to maintain a total of 129 subgrade and street level parking spaces on the Grand Aspen and Ice Rink. Included in this total were 13 spaces on the north side of Dean Street. However, one condition of the approval of the Aspen Winter Garden in Ordinance 12 , Series of 1992 was the- provision -of a vehicle drop off area on Dean Street, which is expected to eliminate 3 of the spaces. The loss of these spaces and the addition of the drop off area should be indicated in the revised parking commitment, which should read as follows: 7 d� First Amended Proposed Requirement PUD Agreement Revision Lot 1 and 1A Subgrade 220 217 Guest/service loading 10 7 Subtotal, Lots 1 & lA 230 224 Lot 5 and 6 Subgrade 28 28 Surface lots 73 73 Surface, north Dean 13 10 Guest/service loading 6 7 Angle, south Dean 9 9 Subtotal, Lots 5 & 6 129 127 Total, Lots 1, 1A, 5 & 6 359 351 The applicant argues that the parking provided on Lot 1 actually exceeds that which is required for the hotel as built, and the proposed residential units. This conclusion reflects the parking standards developed in a 1984 parking study done for the original PUD, which established parking factors of . 66 spaces per lodge room at 90% occupancy (plus factors for food, beverage and conference space) , 1 space per residential unit for one and two bedroom units and 2 spaces per residential unit for three and four bedroom units. 0 The staff has concluded that the 1984 study has been rendered obsolete by the significant community transportation planning efforts in 1987, resulting in the Transportation Element, and those in 1990 - 1992 , in conjunction with the Aspen Area Community Plan. One conclusion of these efforts is that while the community does not want to build excess off-street parking to attract automobiles, there should be adequate off-street parking to offer realistic \ options to the more limited on-street parking opportunities. Since the hotel parking garage has already been built based on the 1984 study, it would be unreasonable to come back at this time and require the applicant to meet the parking requirement for the hotel units (at 1 space per unit, 257 spaces would be required on Lot 1) . It is reasonable, however, to require parking for the residential bedrooms to be accommodated at 1 space per bedroom, since there is actually an excess of 7 spaces built in the garage, if the factors in the 1984 study are applied. There would have been 12 spaces required using the 1984 study, while 18 spaces are required by the Code. 6 of the 7 excess spaces built in the garage should be designated to fulfill the Code' s residential parking requirement. 0 cx� " f Own � fv� viz � °� � :. z ` _ 14 It is also appropriate to put the applicant on notice that when redevelopment of Lots 3 and 5 occurs, applicable Municipal Code parking standards shall be met, unless the applicant demonstrates from an updated parking study, or through transit-type incentives provided to the community, that parking standards should be varied. 6/7/8/9/10. Open Space/Landscaping/Architecture/Lighting/Clustering The proposed amendments should have no impact on these aspects of the PUD, as the residential units are proposed within an approved building, and the plan for Lots 3 and 5 is still forthcoming. 11. Public Facilities The proposed amendment should have no impact on infrastructural facilities or employee housing requirements, since there is no net change to the number of units in the PUD. The applicant argues, however, that there will be a net reduction in the number of employees generated as a result of the amendment. Since there is no net change in the number of hotel or residential units proposed in the overall PUD, staff finds that there will be net change in employees generated by the proposal. We conclude that the applicant has made two mistakes in applying 1Q the project' s approved employee housing calculation formula. VI First, the applicant requests credit for the housing associated with 203 replacement lodge units, when in fact only 120 such units have been demolished to date (the 155 units at the Grand Aspen Hotel are still standing) . Second, the applicant seeks credit in the formula for the full reduced hotel unit count when, as TV � condition of the recent Insubstantial PUD Amendments, the applic n agreed not to request such credit for the 13 eliminated units. If these two mistakes were corrected, there would be virtually no net A.0 change in employees generated by the Ritz-Carlton. Moreover, it is moot to argue whether the current hotel program theoretically generates fewer employees than suggested by the formula. The hotel's housing obligation should remain as stated in the First Amended PUD agreement, and should only be modified through the audit, for the following reasons. The First Amended PUD Agreement obligates the applicant to provide housing for at least 198 . 5 employees generated by development of Lot 1, and the applicant maintains its commitment to house these employees. The Agreement specifically indicates this number was an inducement offered by the applicant to obtain approval for the PUD, and may exceed the project's technical housing requirement, based on the formula used by the applicant and accepted by the City. Credit for housing the 198 . 5 employees was obtained as follows: 9 floors, leaving the interior finishes of the residential units for a later date. �f. s p roach i-16 ac table--to_ P&Z and City ��U Council'; .t- wi-1l -t n` s state --a further amendment to- -construction -schedule. - tie (, 6� q� w." 5 um The Building Inspector r6bommend's the following conditions related S -to the construction schedule ;amendment: w �\ 2. Subdivision - The applicant proposes to create a separate lot ✓ � et however the L TR minimum lot size of 1 000 of 15, 078 square feet, / , s S sq. ft. per bedroom requires 18, 000 sq. ft. for 18 bedrooms. Since this will create a nonconformity, subdivision is not permitted, pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 A. 3 of the Municipal Code. 3. condominiumization - The applicant requests condominiumization approval for the residential units, pursuant to Section 24-7-1007 A. 1 of the Municipal Code. V a�M The applicant's responses to the standards of Section 24-7-1007 A. 1 ll are as follows: a. There are no existing tenants who must be given written notice of the sale of their unit. kP b. Residential units in the L/TR zone district may be leased tiu without limitation. The applicant represents that these units will C C� . be managed through the hotel or other management entity. C. If the project has already provided affordable housing pursuant to Section 8-106 E. 5, then an affordable housing impact fee is not required to condominiumize the units. Section 8-106 E. 5 is the affordable housing requirement applied to residential units which compete for allotments in the Growth Management Quota System. The units proposed for condominiumization are replacement units, not units which competed for an allotment. The replacement units in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision were, however, required to partially mitigate their affordable impacts. In fact, the applicant's 198 . 5 employee housing obligation includes a 29 employee obligation associated with the replacement units. A review of the methodology used in the original 1985 PUD Agreement indicates, however, that the applicant was only required to provide replacement housing for 16 employees who lived within 5 of the 42 demolished residential units in the PUD, plus hotel 13 employees who were to have been housed in Hans Cantrup' s Aspen Inn Expansion, which was never completed. The remaining 37 previously demolished housing units have never had an housing mitigation attached to their replacement. Therefore, we conclude --t-Se- app scant only has 5 "credits" to use toward the affordable housing impact fee for residential condominiumization. 11 6. The applicant is hereby put on notice that redevelopment of Lots 3 and 5 of t:he PUD will be required to meet applicable Municipal Code parking standards, unless the applicant demonstrates from a current parking study or through transit-type incentives provided to the community, that parking standards should be varied. 7. The applicant shall prepare covenants, suitable for recordation, and acceptable in form and content to the City Attorney, stating that: a. The retail. and other accessory spaces on the entry level of the Blue Spruce Building will be designated as a separate condominium unit, and remain in the same ownership as the rest of the hotel; and b. The condominium residential units will be managed through the Ritz-Carlton Hotel or other suitable management organization, and will be made available for rental to the general tourist market. 8 . The applicant shall, at the time of recordation of the amended plat, pay an affordable housing impact fee of $8, 050 per unit, or shall designate credits for up to 5 of the 6 planned ,units, based on the replacement housing provided for 5 previously demolished units, and pay the fee for all units for which there /is no credit. 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commi FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Dire SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain Subdivision - P 3 and 5. Subdivision of Lot 1, , for Condominiumization of Blue DATE: December 1, 1992 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the appllCaL-LU11, .7 UUJc . the conditions stated at the end of the memo. APPLICANT: Savannah Limited Partnership, represented by Joe Wells and Perry Harvey. LOCATION: The Aspen Mountain Subdivision is located at the base of Aspen Mountain, south of Durant Avenue, between Galena and Monarch. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is being constructed on Lot 1. Lot 3 is the Top of Mill Site. Lot 5 currently contains the Grand Aspen Hotel. ZONING: Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) APPLICANT'S REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a PUD Amendment to transfer all 22 hotel units approved for the second and third floor of the Blue Spruce Building to the planned re-development of the Grand Aspen Hotel. This will leave a total of 257 hotel units within the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and allow for a total of 72 hotel units to be built when the Grand Aspen Hotel is re-developed. In exchange, the applicant requests that 6 of the 47 residential units planned for Lots 3 and 5 be transferred to the Blue Spruce Building. These will be the only residential units built in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. The applicant also requests subdivision approval to create a new Lot lA of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. Lot 1A will contain only that portion of Lot 1 north of Dean Street (the Blue Spruce Building) . The subdivision will enable the applicant to establish a "Common Interest Ownership Community" (formerly known as a condominium) for the proposed residential units in the project. The applicant is reserving its rights under Colorado' s recent Common Interest Ownership Act, but requests condominiumization to create separate fee ownership for the residential units. PROCESS: PUD Amendments area approved pursuant to the terms and provisions of Final PUD Review, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the Final Development Plan. 1 If the proposed change is not consistent with the Final Development Plan, the amendment is subject to both Conceptual and Final review. Final PUD requires a recommendation by P&Z and final action by Council, at which time an amended PUD Agreement is adopted. Subdivision and condominiumization require a recommendation by P&Z and final action by Council, done concurrently with Final PUD. Processing of GMQS amendment and re-scoring of the project is not necessary to implement this proposal. The applicant does not propose any significant changes to approved design features, public facilities, or other commitments made in obtaining the GMQS allotments. The allotments which are being transferred between Lots 1 and 5 have previously been approved for both lots -and -were_ evaluated during the original GMQS competition based primarily on commitments made for the entire PUD, which remain unchanged. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Following is a summary of the comments received by the Planning Office from referral agencies. Complete copies of the original memos may be found in Attachment "A" . Engineering - A condominium map and plat must be submitted, meeting the requirements of Section 24-7-1004 .D of the Municipal Code. When the parking calculation for the residential units is determined, the spaces should be designated on the plat or in the condominium documents. Environmental Health: - Water supply and sewage disposal lines are in place, with adequate capacity to serve the project. - New woodburning fireplaces are prohibited in the metro area. Two gas-log fireplaces allowed for the building are already allocated. Gas appliances are allowed in the residential units, but are not addressed in the application. STAFF COMMENTS: This project requires multiple approvals. Review criteria are identified for each application type. 1. PUD Amendment - As noted above, PUD Amendments are reviewed according to the terms and provisions of Final PUD Review, Section 24-7-903 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The Commission and Council are authorized, when reviewing the amendment "to insure that the development will be compatible with current community conditions" , to apply "new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the original approval" and to take into consideration "changing community circumstances as they affect the project' s original representations and commitments" . For the commission members to adequately review this proposal , it 2 HISTORY OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS Original 1985 PUD 1988 PUD Subsequent Current Proposal Approval Amendment Amendments Overall PUD 447 hotel units 342 hotel units; 329 hotel units; no change (275 replacement 54 residential 54 residential and 172 GMQS) ; 54 units units residential units (42 replacement and 12 GMQS) Lot 1:Ritz- not to exceed 300 292 hotel units; 279 hotel units; 257 hotel units; Carlton hotel units; not 0 residential 0 residential 6 residential to exceed 14 units; 190,000 units; 190, 000 units; 190, 000 residential s.f floor area s.f. floor area s. f. floor area units; 200, 000 s. f. floor area Lot 2 : 3 residential no change no change , no change Summit units; 7,700 s.f. Place floor area Lot 3: Top 33 residential no change 3 no change no change3 Of Mill units; 101, 000 s.f. f loor areal Lot 4: 4 residential no change no change no change Galena units; 12 , 000 Place s.f. floor area Lot 5: not to exceed 190 50 hotel units; no change ' 72 hotel units; Grand Aspen hotel units; not 47 residential 41 residential to exceed 14 units; 115, 000 units; 115, 000 residential s.f. floor area3 s. f. floor area3 units; 150, 000 s.f. f loor areal Notes: 1. Total development on Lots 1 and 5 could not exceed 447 lodge and 14 residential units. 2 . Top of Mill project only received Conceptual PUD approval. 3 . The development shown for Lot 5 is to be distributed between Lot 3 and Lot 5. is first necessary to provide background information as to the PUD' s evolution, summarized in the following table and discussion. History: The Aspen Mountain Subdivision was initially submitted by John Roberts in 1983 for PUD review and to obtain lodge and residential GMQS allotments. Final PUD approval was granted in 1985 for a project containing a total of 447 hotel units (275 replacement and 12 GMQS units) , spread across 5 lots. Development of the 447 hotel units was to occur as "Hotel Phase I" , to contain not more than 300 hotel units and 14 residential units on what has become the Ritz-Carlton site, and "Hotel Phase II" , on the Grand Aspen site, to contain not more than 190 hotel units and 14 residential units, provided the combination of the two phases would not exceed 447 hotel and 14 residential units. The remaining 40 residential units were planned for Summit Place, Top of Mill (which only received Conceptual PUD approval) and Galena Place. Following the acquisition of the property by Hadid Aspen Holdings, a PUD Amendment application was submitted for Lot 1, the Ritz- Carlton, in January, 1988 . During its review by P&Z and City Council, consideration was also given to the development program for Lots 3 and 5. One result of this review process was an offer by the applicant to drop 105 hotel units from the development program, in order to secure approval for a 292 unit hotel on Lot 1. During the review process, the applicant transferred all of the residential units permitted on Lot 1 to Lots 3 and 5 . The principal reason for this transfer was that eliminating their square footage resulted in a significant reduction in the size of the hotel, allowing a break to be made to the building' s mass along Mill Street. The record does not indicate there were any policy discussions which found residential units inappropriate for Lot 1 . The amended PUD which emerged from the 1988 review permitted 292 hotel units and 0 residential units in the Ritz-Carlton, and 50 hotel units and 47 residential units in the re-development of the Grand Aspen/development of Top of Mill property. Since 1988 , two Insubstantial PUD Amendments have been processed by the staff, which have had the effect of eliminating 13 hotel units from the Ritz-Carlton. The applicant did not ask to have these units transferred to other lots within the PUD; instead, they were actually dropped from the total unit count. At the present time, therefore, 279 hotel units are allowed on Lot 1, while 50 hotel units are allowed on Lot 5, for a total of 329 hotel units. The applicant ' s proposal would amend these totals to 257 and 72 hotel units respectively, with the total PUD still containing 329 3 hotel units. The proposal would also transfer 6 residential units to Lot 1, leaving 41 residential units to be built on Lots 3 and 5. The applicant represents there will be no exterior modifications to the Blue Spruce Building due to the change in planned use from hotel to residential units. Review Criteria: The PUD review criteria include several general planning requirements, followed by a number of more specific standards which are most applicable to development of vacant land. The criteria are reviewed below, as applicable to this project. la. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the Aspen Mountain base area for "Recreation/Accommodations" land use. This area is intended as the principal location for visitor oriented uses in the Aspen Area. The property' s Land Use Plan designation was one of several arguments in favor of the project ' s original PUD approval . Since the 1988 approval, major changes in community land use policy are embodied in the Aspen Area Community Plan, which recently contain any major policy shifts for the base area, it does include an analysis of remaining lodge buildout in the Aspen Area. The analysis indicates that within the Aspen Base Neighborhood Planning Area, only approximately 72-82 new lodge units and 50-80 visitor oriented residential units remain to be built. These totals include the units yet to be built within the Aspen Mountain PUD. Since there are so few remaining lodge and residential units to be built within the base area, it is important that future visitor- oriented units be located in the most convenient locations. The Blue Spruce site is located across from Rubey Park, along a major transportation corridor, within walking distance of the ski lifts and Aspen' s commercial core. It is a particularly appropriate location for relatively higher intensity visitor use (as is the Grand Aspen site) . Therefore, while transfer of 22 hotel units to the Grand Aspen site would be consistent with community planning, the use of the Blue Spruce site for residential use could be less so, particularly if the units are to be sold to individuals who keep them out of the rental pool. Consistent with the purpose of the L/TR zone district, we suggest it be required that the residential units be managed in conjunction with the hotel and rented for use by visitors, as the Code would require if these were lodge, rather than residential condominiums. There is already a corridor over Dean Street connecting the hotel and Blue Spruce Building, which should facilitate the unified management of the two buildings. 4 1b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The character of existing land uses in the surrounding area is principally visitor accommodations, tourist serving commercial uses, and recreation facilities. The proposed residential use of the Blue Spruce Building would be most consistent with surrounding uses if the units are used for short term accommodations. The First Amended PUD Agreement stipulates that there shall be four accessory retail spaces on the main floor of the Blue Spruce Building, which shall not be combined to create larger spaces. Permitted uses in these spaces are limited to the following and similar uses: • Sundry shop * Hotel operator souvenir store • Car rental and travel desk * Beauty shop • Ski and sports activity center * Florist shop • Ski rental and repair shop * Gift shop The purpose of these limits was to avoid the spread of commercial core type uses into the lodge district. The uses were to remain accessory to the hotel operation and not become principal commercial operations attracting clients from throughout town. To maintain the accessory status of the units, the applicant states that the retail spaces on the entry level of the Blue Spruce Building will be designated as a separate condominium unit, which will remain in the same ownership as the rest of the hotel . This commitment should be formalized as a covenant, suitable for recordation, and acceptable in form and content to the City Attorney. Another relevant issue to consider is the impact of reducing the hotel unit count in the Ritz-Carlton on its planned character. Throughout the prior reviews of the hotel on Lot 1, the applicant stated the importance of having a unit count of approximately 300 rooms, to insure that a block of rooms would be available within the hotel for conference participants. The applicant now proposes to reduce the size of the hotel to just 257 units. A principal purpose behind the original PUD was to have this be one hotel in Aspen large enough to adequately support conference facilities. The applicant should document that its experience in booking the hotel demonstrates that conference participants can be adequately accommodated within the reduced unit count. lc. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The principal future development within the surrounding area will be the redevelopment of the Grand Aspen Hotel. When the First Amended PUD Agreement was drafted in 1988 , two key limitations were 5 written for the future development of this site, embodied in Council Resolution 88-11 and the First Amended PUD Agreement. These limitations were: * Development on Lots 3 and 5 would not exceed 115, 000 sq. ft. * The applicant would never request additional residential GMQS allotments to increase the density of Lots 3 and 5 . Because the unit count proposed for Lots 3 and 5 is proposed to change, it is appropriate to carry these limitations forward as limitations upon the new development program. id. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent of which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. The applicant was awarded sufficient GMQS allotments and replacement credits during the intial approval to address all proposed development within the PUD. In fact, the applicant has actually given back 118 of the 172 lodge development allotments originally granted to the project, only retaining 54 allotments. 2/3/4. Density/Land Use/Dimensional Limits The proposed amendment should have no impact on any of these aspects of the proposed PUD, as the residential units are proposed within an approved building, and provided the staff recommendation with respect to limiting Lots 3 and 5 to no more than 115, 000 square feet of development is followed. 5. Off-Street Parking The First Amended PUD Agreement required the applicant to provide a minimum of 220 subsurface parking spaces within Lot 1, along with 10 permanent service vehicle berths or guest loading spaces at street level, in front of the hotel. An insubstantial plat and PUD amendment which eliminated 11 hotel rooms was approved by staff in October, 1992 . This amendment permitted reduction of the parking requirement to 217 subsurface parking spaces and 7 street level spaces, (in order to allow for a fire lane) corresponding to the actual number of parking spaces now installed on Lot 1. The First Amended PUD Agreement also requires the applicant to maintain a total of 129 subgrade and street level parking spaces on the Grand Aspen and Ice Rink. Included in this total were 13 spaces on the north side of Dean Street. However, one condition of the approval of the Aspen Winter Garden in Ordinance 12 , Series of 1992 was the provision of a vehicle drop off area on Dean Street, which is expected to eliminate 3 of the spaces. The loss of these spaces and the addition of the drop off area should be indicated in the revised parking commitment, which should read as follows: 6 First Amended Proposed Requirement PUD Agreement Revision Lot 1 and lA Subgrade 220 217 Guest/service loading 10 7 Subtotal, Lots 1 & lA 230 224 Lot 5 and 6 Subgrade 28 28 Surface lots 73 73 Surface, north Dean 13 10 Guest/service loading 6 7 Angle, south Dean 9 9 Subtotal, Lots 5 & 6 129 127 Total, Lots 1, 1A, 5 & 6 359 351 The applicant argues that the parking provided on Lot 1 actually exceeds that which is required for the hotel as built, and the proposed residential units. This conclusion reflects the parking standards developed in a 1984 parking study done for the original PUD, which established parking factors of . 66 spaces per lodge room at 90% occupancy (plus factors for food, beverage and conference space) , 1 space per residential unit for one and two bedroom units and 2 spaces per residential unit for three and four bedroom units. The staff has concluded that the 1984 study has been rendered obsolete by the significant community transportation planning effots in 1987 , resulting in the Transportation Element, and those in 1990 - 1992 , in conjunction with the Aspen Area Community Plan. One conclusion of these efforts is that while the community does not want to build excess off-street parking to attract automobiles, there should be adequate off-street parking to offer realistic options to the more limited on-street parking opportunities. Since the hotel parking garage has already been built based on the 1984 study, it would be unreasonable to come back at this time and require the applicant to meet the parking requirement for the hotel units (at 1 space per unit, 257 spaces would be required on Lot 1) . It is reasonable, however, to require parking for the residential bedrooms to be accommodated at 1 space per bedroom, since there is actually an excess of 7 spaces built in the garage, if the factors in the 1984 study are applied. There would have been 12 spaces required using the 1984 study, while 18 spaces are required by the Code. Six of the 7 excess spaces built in the garage should be 7 designated to fulfill the Code's residential parking requirement. It is also appropriate to put the applicant on notice that when redevelopment of Lots 3 and 5 occurs, applicable Municipal Code parking standards shall be met, unless the applicant demonstrates from an updated parking study, or through transit-type incentives provided to the community, that parking standards should be varied. 6/7/8/9/10. open Space/Landscaping/Architecture/Lighting/ Clustering The proposed amendments should have no impact on these aspects of the PUD, as the residential units are proposed within an approved building, and the plan for Lots 3 and 5 is still forthcoming. 11. Public Facilities The proposed amendment should have no impact on infrastructural facilities or employee housing requirements, since there is no net change to the number of units in the PUD. The applicant argues, however, that there will be a net reduction in the number of employees generated as a result of the amendment. Since there is no net change in the number of hotel or residential units proposed in the overall PUD, staff finds that there will be no net change in employees generated by the proposal. We conclude that the applicant has made two mistakes in applying the project' s approved employee housing calculation formula. First, the applicant requests credit for the housing associated with 203 replacement lodge units, when in fact only 120 such units have been demolished to date (the 155 units at the Grand Aspen Hotel are still standing) . Second, the applicant seeks credit in the formula for the full reduced hotel unit count when, as a condition of the recent Insubstantial PUD Amendments, the applicant agreed not to request such credit for the 13 eliminated units. If these two mistakes were corrected, there would be virtually no net change in employees generated by the Ritz-Carlton. Moreover, it is moot to argue whether the current hotel program theoretically generates fewer employees than suggested by the formula. The hotel ' s housing obligation should remain as stated in the First Amended PUD agreement, and should only be modified through the audit, for the following reasons: The First Amended PUD Agreement obligates the applicant to provide housing for at least 198 . 5 employees generated by development of Lot 1, and the applicant maintains its commitment to house these employees. The Agreement specifically indicates this number was an inducement offered by the applicant to obtain approval for the PUD, and may exceed the project' s technical housing requirement, based on the formula used by the applicant and accepted by the City. 8 Credit for housing the 198 . 5 employees was obtained as follows: Project Employee Housing Credit Alpina Haus Conversion 46. 0 employees Copper Horse Conversion 43 . 0 employees Hunter Longhouse 69 . 0 employees Grand Aspen Conversion 3 . 5 employees Ute City Place 37 . 0 employees Total 198. 5 employees The First Amended PUD Agreement also requires an audit to be performed two years after the hotel has been in operation, to determine whether more employees are working at the hotel than originally anticipated. The PUD Agreement establishes a formula for increased housing production if additional employees are generated, but does not establish a mechanism to give the applicant a credit if fewer employees are generated than have already been provided housing. The net housing obligation for redevelopment of the Grand Aspen Hotel is required by the First Amended PUD Agreement to be established during the approval process for that component of the PUD. That housing requirement should address, at a minimum, the employees generated by the 72 hotel units, and any applicable housing requirements for the 33 replacement residential units. We recommend the housing obligations contained in the First Amended PUD Agreement remain as stated and not be changed by this proposal . 3. Development Schedule The current development schedule for Lots 1, 3 and 5 was set by Ordinance 26, Series of 1991, and then was recently amended for the Ice Rink/Park. This schedule sets the following deadlines: Certificate of occupancy - Ritz-Carlton Hotel 10/1/92 Certificate of occupancy - Ice Rink/Park 10/1/93 Demolition permit - Grand Aspen Hotel 10/1/95 Building permit issuance - Top of Mill 10/1/95 Building permit issuance - Hotel Phase II 10/1/96 Certificate of occupancy - Top of Mill 6/1/97 Certificate of occupancy - Hotel Phase II 6/1/98 9 The applicant' s current plans with respect to the Blue Spruce Building are to finish the first floor retail space within and to construct the stairs and elevator core for the second and third floors, leaving the interior finishes of the residential units for a later date. If this approach is acceptable to P&Z and City Council, it will necessitate a further amendment to the construction schedule. The Building Inspector recommends the following conditions related to the construction schedule amendment: 2 . Subdivision - The applicant proposes to create a separate lot of 15, 078 square feet, however the L/TR minimum lot size of 1, 000 square feet per bedroom requires 18 , 000 square feet for 18 bedrooms. Since this will create a nonconformity, subdivision is not permitted, pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 A. 3 of the Municipal Code. 3 . Condominiumization - The applicant requests condominiumization approval for the residential units, pursuant to Section 24-7-1007 A. 1 of the Municipal Code. The applicant' s responses to the standards of Section 24-7-1007 A. 1 are as follows: a. There are no existing tenants who must be given written notice of the sale of their unit. b. Residential units in the L/TR zone district may be leased without limitation. The applicant represents that these units will be managed through the hotel or other management entity. c. If the project has already provided affordable housing pursuant to Section 8-106 E. 5, then an affordable housing impact fee is not required to condominiumize the units. Section 8-106 E. 5 is the affordable housing requirement applied to residential units which compete for allotments in the Growth Management Quota System. The units proposed for condominiumization are replacement units, not units which competed for an allotment. The replacement units in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision were, however, required to partially mitigate their affordable impacts. In fact, the applicant' s 198 . 5 employee housing obligation includes a 29 employee obligation associated with the replacement units. A review of the methodology used in the original 1985 PUD Agreement indicates, however, that the applicant was only required to provide replacement housing for 16 employees who lived within 5 of the 42 demolished residential units in the PUD, plus hotel 13 employees who were to have been housed in Hans Cantrup' s Aspen Inn Expansion, which was never completed. The remaining 37 previously demolished 10 housing units have never had any affordable housing mitigation attached to their replacement. Therefore, we conclude the applicant only has 5 "credits" to use toward the affordable housing impact fee for residential condominiumization. The 42 replacement units are intended to be used as follows: 6 units in Blue Spruce Building; 3 units in Summit Place; and 33 units in Hotel Phase II . 8 residential units obtained via GMQS allocations are also to be built in Hotel Phase II. The applicant should designate whether to credit 5 of the 6 units proposed for the Blue Spruce Building with an exemption from the affordable housing impact fee and to pay the fee for the remaining unit, or whether the credits will be retained towards the other projects in the PUD. d. The applicant agrees to make the building available for the required fire, health and safety inspection. Since the building is newly constructed, pursuant to City codes, this requirement would appear to be little more than a technicality. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of the PUD Amendment for Lots 1, 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Subdivision of Lot 1 to create a new Lot 1A, and Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization of the Blue Spruce Building, with the following conditions: 1. Following City Council approval, the applicant shall submit a revised final plat which meets the requirements of Section 24-7- 1004 .D of the Municipal Code and which documents all changes approved by this PUD Amendment. The applicant shall designate on the plat 18 spaces within the parking structure which are assigned to the 6 residential units. 2 . Prior to City Council review, the applicant shall submit a revised PUD agreement which documents all changes approved by this PUD Amendment. 3 . The applicant shall document, to the satisfaction of P&Z, that its experience in booking the hotel demonstrates that conference participants can be adequately accommodated within the reduced unit count. 4 . Future development on Lots 3 and 5 shall not exceed 115 , 000 square feet, consistent with the requirements of City Council Resolution 88-11 and the terms of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision First Amended PUD Agreement. 11 5. The applicant shall agree to never request future residential GMQS allotments which would increase the total number of residential units within the PUD beyond the currently approved 42 replacement units and 12 GMQS units. 6. The applicant is hereby put on notice that redevelopment of Lots 3 and 5 of the PUD will be required to meet applicable Municipal Code parking standards, unless the applicant demonstrates from a current parking study or through transit-type incentives provided to the community, that parking standards should be varied. 7 . The applicant shall prepare covenants, suitable for recordation, and acceptable in form and content to the City Attorney, stating that: a. The retail and other accessory spaces on the entry level of the Blue Spruce Building will be designated as a separate condominium unit, and remain in the same ownership as the rest of the hotel; and b. The condominium residential units will be managed through the Ritz-Carlton Hotel or other suitable management organization, and will be made available for rental to the general tourist market. 8 . The applicant shall, at the time of recordation of the amended plat, pay an affordable housing impact fee of $8050 per unit, or shall designate credits for up to 5 of the 6 planned units, based on the replacement housing provided for 5 previously demolished units, and pay the fee for all units for which there is no credit. 12 i SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP February 10, 1992 FFB 1 0 1991 Mr. Jed Caswall City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jed, Thank you for your time on January 29th to review the Aspen Mountain PUD and the issue of the appropriate code to be used as a standard for further review of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (the"PUD"). We have once again reviewed the PUD Agreement and all of our materials kept or prepared in connection with the negotiation and drafting of the PUD Agreement and it remains our firm position that the code in effect prior to May of 1988 is the correct code under which further review of the PUD is to occur. Because the PUD Agreement was negotiated and drafted before you (or for that matter many of the current planning staff members) "came on board" I will, in this letter, attempt to outline the background of the PUD,the reasons why the prior code was grandfathered into the agreement and the language which applies to the review criteria. Also I will list some of those issues in the code which needlessly confuse the amendment if the redrafted code is applied. The PUD is unusual in its composition. When the PUD was first approved and subdivided Lot 3 had received a conceptual approval for 101,000 square feet of FAR and 33 residential units,for an average FAR of 3,060 square feet per unit. Thus, because Lot 3 still had to go through final approval, it was always recognized by all parties that there were further approvals necessary for the full development and buildout of the PUD properties. During the amendment process in 1988,after some rather spirited debate and publicly negotiated give and take,the owner and the City agreed to certain development parameters for Lots 3, 5 and 6 which allowed for a fixed number of hotel rooms, residential units, square feet of floor area and the park--ice rink amenity. Obviously,because we and the City had pre-determined the numerical limits of development and the specific location of the hotel rooms and the residential units,it was the intention of the Owner and the City to review the PUD in accordance with the code in effect at the time of approval. Otherwise, of course, subsequent changes to the code (definitional and otherwise) could render the numbers that were so long in the negotiation virtually meaningless. To evidence the intention of the parties in this respect appropriate language was incorporated into the PUD Agreement. For example, the sixth recital to the PUD Agreement, as well as Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Section O all clearly convey the sense that the parties, in agreeing to certain development parameters, were contracting with reference to very specific review rules. Paragraph 3 of Section O provides: "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. However, inasmuch as review of the planned unit development amendment contemplated herein was initiated prior to May 25, 1988, the effective date of substantial revisions to Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code,all reference herein to the Municipal Code or to particular sections (JOO S1 . SlIil(' 3200 • CO. 81 61 1 • 7? • 1:,\,\ 925-4387 Mr. Jed Caswall Feb. 10, 1992 Page 2 thereof shall be deemed to refer to the Code or, as the case may be, to sections thereof in effect on May 24, 1988, except to the extent that subsequent changes to the Municipal Code or to sections thereof have herein been made expressly applicable to the First Amended PUD or to the performance of Owner's obligations hereunder." This section says two things. First, if there is any reference to the Municipal Code or sections thereof the pre May 24, 1988 code is intended. It does not say that only if there are specific code citations is the pre May 24, 1988 code intended. Second, this section clearly states that if any code changes subsequent to May 24, 1988 have been made expressly applicable to the PUD then those code provisions would apply. This language was added because the new FAR rules (which were eventually incorporated into the new code) had actually been approved prior to our 1988 amendment. When we first made application Alan Richman and I met and agreed that the pre May 1988 code would apply to the PUD except that we would calculate floor areas under the new definition. Paragraph 7 of Section O reinforces the parties' clear intent. It provides: "Each of the obligations, commitments and representations made herein by the Owner and the City,including as to the processing and completion of further review for the components of the Project that have yet to receive final approval, and the parameters of development activity contemplated herein for such Project components, shall survive the execution hereof and the enactment of subsequent legislation initiated by the City in any manner inconsistent with such obligations, commitments, and representations." Finally, nothing in the Section"M" Amendment dated June 11, 1990 varies the parties' intent. Section 6 of that amendment provides; "The provisions of paragraph 5 above notwithstanding, each of the obligations, commitments and representations made in the PUD Agreement by Savanah and the City of Aspen, including the parameters of development activity contemplated in the PUD Agreement for each component of the Project, shall survive this amendment and the enactment of subsequent legislation initiated by the City in any manner inconsistent with such obligations, commitments and representations." Mr. Jed Caswall Feb. 10, 1992 Page 3 Here are just a few of the very real reasons why the older code must be viewed as the appropriate review criteria as we negotiated. 1) OPEN SPACE: The pre May 1988 definition of open space allowed for anything up to ten feet below grade. Because of this the PUD was granted no variations for open space. Further the Lot 6 Park was always to count as open space for Lot 5. Under the new definition much of Lot 6 does not meet the requirements of open space,imperiling the agreement in the PUD that the 115,000 square feet of floor area would be on the southern portion of Lot 5 while the northern portion would become the open space park and rink and be subdivided into Lot 6. Were the new definition applied to the entire PUD the overall open space could be inadequate. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Pre May of 1988 if you amended your GMQS scoring you only had to meet minimum thresholds and maintain the same rank relative to the competition. Now you must have at least the same scores as originally received in each category of the scoring. Because 8 of the 47 residential units are GMQS we must amend our scoring. The PUD clearly anticipates the 47 units but to rescore under the new criteria will make it almost impossible to achieve a passing grade from the City. The new scoring requirements were imposed in order to make amendments more onerous, a clear conflict to the PUD negotiated agreement. 3) ORDINANCE 1: This legislation requires reconstruction on site. Lot 3 contains a duplex. The PUD has employee housing requirements which call for housing 29 people in connection with the existing units on the properties to be reconstructed. This formula included Lot 3. Thus, any enactment of Ordinance 1 would counter the assumptions and agreements which formed the basis of the negotiated PUD parameters. 4) CHAPTER 24 SECTION 5-506--ZONING OF LANDS CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT: Lot 3 has three separate zone districts,L/TR,R-15 (PUD) (L) and C (conservation). Under the pre May 24, 1988 code, Section 24-3.7 (i) allowed a formula for density transfer from residential districts to adjacent lodge districts. The owners of the Aspen Mountain PUD agreed to certain development parameters for Lots 3 and 5 with the understanding that Lot 3 would be a residential development of single family or duplex or townhouse configuration depending upon the land planning process to be undertaken at a date well into the future from the date of the agreement which formed the basis for the First Amended PUD. Chapter 24, Section 5-506 has new restrictions for dimensional requirements and uses on parcels with more than one zone district. Further, the L/TR zone allows single family residences only on lots of 6,000 square feet or less. Under the prior L-2 zoning detached single family residences are allowed. The bottom line is that under the old code the agreed development parameters for Lot 3 and 5 could be realized. Under the current code the agreed parameters cannot be achieved. Undoubtedly, there are other examples but it is very difficult to expose all of them other than in the context of a site specific application for development activity. Because the parties' intent in the PUD Agreement is so clear it does not seem fair to require us, in an effort to get a complete list to you, to have our consultants, in effect, have to develop two proposals; one under one set of rules and the other under Mr. Jed Caswall Feb. 10, 1992 Page 4 a second set. Simply stated, if we are required to operate under the new code and are unable to attain the benefit of the numbers that the parties agreed to in the PUD Agreement, after we have already gone forward and given the City most of what it negotiated for itself, then a real breach of faith (if not the contract) that we all had when the bargain was struck between us is involved. Please consider your position in light of this letter and call me to set up a meeting to discuss our direction. Thank you. Sincerely, y Perry Harvey PH:ks cc: Robert Hughes Diane Moore MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Moore, Planning Director FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services JrNINA SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain PUD Amendment - Response To Questions DATE: November 23 , 1992 Following are specific responses to two administrative questions you have posed to me with regard to the Aspen Mountain PUD. I am providing you responses to these questions in greater detail than I am likely to use in the P&Z memorandum, to enhance your background knowledge of this project's history. Question 1: What was the thinking behind the limitation in the 1988 PUD Amendment Agreement that Lot 1 would contain 0 residential units? Response: I have reviewed the files relating to the 1988 PUD Amendment application to refresh my memory as to the thinking behind this limitation. My findings are as follows. In January, 1988, a PUD Amendment application was submitted for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The application was intended to improve the way the planned hotel would function for the newly chosen operator, the Ritz-Carlton. The application proposed changes to the architecture and massing of the hotel. It also specified the number of rooms which were to be developed. Where the PUD Agreement provided for no more than 300 hotel units and 14 residential units for Lot 1, this application requested 292 units (294 rooms) and 5 residential units. The application was proceeding through P&Z review in February and March, when a deadline for a six month extension of the project's GMQS allotments approached on April 15. We brought the extension request to Council in April, where it was denied. Therefore, on April 15 the applicant obtained an excavation permit for the hotel as originally approved by the City (the 1985 Roberts approval) in order to keep the project alive. A dispute then arose as to whether an excavation or a foundation permit was needed to actually keep the GMQS allotments in place. To address these several disputes, the City Council initiated meetings with Hadid Aspen Holdings in April and May to address the concerns Council members had with the project. The P&Z review was put on hold, since it was the City staff ' s position that the project' s GMQS allotments had expired. The applicant and Council negotiated the project' s design features and unit totals during a series of public meetings. The Council asked the applicant to "voluntarily" reduce the unit count and the square footage of what was then called Hotel Phase I (Ritz-Carlton) and Hotel Phase II (Grand Aspen) . The applicant agreed to reduce the size of the project incrementally, until over several meetings the hotel size emerged to the acceptable size of 292 hotel and 0 residential units, as specified in Council Resolution 88-11. The limitation of 50 hotel units and 47 residential units for Phase II was also established in this Resolution. The applicant transferred all of the residential units to Lots 3 and 5 because eliminating their square footage resulted in a significant reduction in the size of the hotel. I cannot recall any policy discussion which found the residential units to be inappropriate for Lot 1. I find language, however, in Resolution 88-11, prohibiting the applicant from ever requesting additional GMQS allotments for residential units on Lots 3 and 5 beyond those which had been transferred there. It will be necessary to carry forward and update this limitation, to insure that the applicant does not increase the size of the residential project on these lots beyond the remaining 41 replacement and previously allotted GMQS units. It is also interesting to note that another key aspect of the negotiations was to transfer 24 hotel units to the Blue Spruce Building. The Roberts Plan had shown 36 such units in the Blue Spruce Building, but the Hadid application proposed no such units. The transfer of hotel units to this building was done to allow the breakup in the mass of the Mill Street facade, while maintaining the 292 unit hotel count. At the time, the applicant stated the 292 unit count was critical to maintain a sufficient block of rooms to attract conferences. Since this was such an important point in prior applications, I suggest we have the applicant confirm that their experience in booking conferences has been that the 257 unit count is adequate. I would also note that an important concession in Resolution 88-11 was that the project size for Lots 3 and 5 would not exceed 115, 000 sq. ft. The application is silent on this issue, although it obviously proposes to change the number of units to be built. We should require the applicant to once again agree to the 115, 000 sq. ft. limitation for these lots. Question 2 : Is it necessary to re-score the application to permit the transfer of residential units between the lots in the PUD? Response: The attached table summarizes the history of the development approvals granted 'to the Aspen Mountain PUD. The table illustrates the many changes in unit locations which were granted 2 to this project over the years. It can readily be seen how both lodge and residential units have shifted between the various lots. We have required the project to be re-scored on two occasions that I can recall. First was at the conclusion of the original PUD process, because the configuration of the project and many of its commitments had changed significantly since Conceptual PUD review, when the allotments were originally granted. The other re-scoring was done in 1988, when the projects's design and many of its commitments were again changed to accommodate the Ritz-Carlton. The key to both of these instances were the applicant' s proposal to change the look of the building and certain of its physical components, for which representations were made and scores granted. No such changes are proposed at this time, which would necessitate a re-scoring. It is also important to recall that when the allotments were initially granted, they were granted to the entire PUD and assigned to individual lots. This was done because many representations, such as replacing a water line, undergrounding an electrical line or providing a trail connection, could not be isolated to a single lot. The interconnection between the lots is also evidenced by the original limits placed on the number of units on Lot 1 and 5 (not more than 300 lodge units and 14 residential units on Lot 1, not more than 190 lodge units and 14 residential units on Lot 5, but not more than 447 lodge units and 14 residential units in total) . I conclude that re-scoring of this application is not necessary to implement the applicant's requests. 3 HISTORY OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS ' Original 1985 PUD 1988 PUD Subsequent Current Proposal Approval Amendment Amendments Overall PUD 447 hotel units 342 hotel units; 329 hotel units; no change (275 replacement 54 residential 54 residential and 172 GMQS) ; 54 units units residential units (42 replacement and 12 GMQS) Lot 1:Ritz- not to exceed 300 292 hotel units; 279 hotel units; 257 hotel units; Carlton hotel units; not 0 residential 0 residential 6 residential to exceed 14 units; 190, 000 units; 190, 000 units; 190, 000 residential s.f floor area s.f. floor area s. f. floor area units; 200,000 s.f. floor area Lot 2 : 3 residential no change no change no change Summit units; 7,700 s. f. Place floor area Lot 3: Top 33 residential no change3 no change no change3 of Mill units; 101, 000 s.f. floor areal Lot 4: 4 residential no change no change no change Galena units; 12, 000 Place s. f. floor area Lot 5: not to exceed 190 50 hotel units; no change 72 hotel units; Grand Aspen hotel units; not 47 residential 41 residential to exceed 14 units; 115, 000 units; 115, 000 residential s.f. floor area3 s.f. floor area3 units; 150, 000 s. f. floor area Notes: 1. Total development on Lots 1 and 5 could not exceed 447 lodge and 14 residential units. 2 . Top of Mill project only received Conceptual PUD approval. 3 . The development shown for Lot 5 is to be distributed between Lot 3 and Lot 5. HISTORY OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS ' Original 1985 PUD 1988 PUD Subsequent Current Proposal Approval Amendment Amendments Overall PUD 447 hotel units 342 hotel units; 329 hotel units; no change (275 replacement 54 residential 54 residential and 172 GMQS) ; 54 units units residential units (42 replacement and 12 GMQS) Lot 1:Ritz- not to exceed 300 292 hotel units; 279 hotel units; 257 hotel units; Carlton hotel units; not 0 residential 0 residential 6 residential to exceed 14 units; 190, 000 units; 190, 000 units; 190, 000 residential s. f floor area s.f. floor area s. f. floor area units; 200,000 s. f. floor area Lot 2 : 3 residential no change no change no change Summit units; 7, 700 s.f. Place floor area Lot 3: Top 33 residential no change3 no change no change3 Of Mill units; 101,000 s. f. floor areal Lot 4: 4 residential no change no change no change Galena units; 12 , 000 Place s. f. floor area Lot 5: not to exceed 190 50 hotel units; no change 72 hotel units; Grand Aspen hotel units; not 47 residential 41 residential to exceed 14 units; 115, 000 units; 115, 000 residential s. f. floor area3 s. f. floor area3 units; 150,000 s. f. f loor area Notes: 1. Total development on Lots 1 and 5 could not exceed 447 lodge and 14 residential units. 2 . Top of Mill project only received Conceptual PUD approval. 3. The development shown for Lot 5 is to be distributed between Lot 3 and Lot 5. l CITY , PEN 1 t 303- �� ' �� i rney 3 x March 6, 1992 Mr. Perry Harvey Savanah Limited Partnership 600 East Cooper Avenue, Suite 200 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Perry: I am submitting this letter to you in belated response to your correspondence dated February 10th addressing our continuing debate over the application of the old and present Municipal Code to the Aspen Mountain PUD. While I acknowledge that you have presented some reasonable arguments for your position that the former Municipal Code should govern any and all amendments to the existing approvals for the Aspen Mountain PUD, as I have stated previously, it is my judg- ment and opinion that a blanket application of the old code to currently proposed and future amendments to the PUD is (1) not provided for in the existing PUD agreement, (2) is not consistent with sound public -land .use- policy, and (3) is not warranted -under the circumstances of the subject PUD. It is still my view, and the position of the Planning Department, that where specific reference is made in the PUD agreement to the application of the old code, any amendments thereto shall be governed by the old code. Where the agreement is silent, we have to examine the proposed amendment individually and determine which code applies, keeping in mind the approvals as granted in the agreement. If application of the current code defeats a substantive purpose or approval as contained in the agreement, then the old code would most likely be utilized. Again, I think it requires an issue-by-issue analysis. To the extent you wish for the City to commit uncategorically to the application of the old code to all amendments, we simply cannot do it. I hope this letter is helpful in better clarifying the City ' s position. recycled paper GSGOz�J GG�TGu 'l' November 24, 1992 Mr. Dave Tolen Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office Delivered by FAX to 920-5580 Dear Dave: Since there has been some confusion about the revisions to the employee generation figures included in the Ritz-Carlton PUD Amendment application, I thought it would be helpful to restate the figures another way to try to clarify. Under the original approvals granted in 1985 (Roberts), 447 lodge units were approved for construction on Lots 1 and 5 of the PUD.This total included 172 lodge GMQS allocations and 275 replacement lodge units. When this approval was amended as spelled out in the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement, the maximum number of lodge units was reduced to 342 (292 in Phase I, or Low , 50 in Phase II, or Lot 5). This reduction in the total number of lodge units permitted in the PUD had the effect of reducing the lodge GMQS allocations for the project from 172 to 77, since the buildout could be accomplished with these 77 allocations and the 275 replacement units. Nonetheless, when we recalculated the employee generation figures for inclusion in Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement, we retained the original allocation of 172. In the calculations of employee generation from lodge operations, the balance of the Phase I buildout of 292 lodge units was therefore made up of 120 of the replacement lodge units as reflected in Exhibit B. In the 1992 Amended PUD Submission o Lot 1, the ��uildo or lodge units has been further reduced to�(257 in Phase I, or Lot 1, an�in Phase II, or Lot 5). When we recalculated the employee generation figures for the project for inclusion in the new application (page 13), we retained the same format as Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement, but we decided to acknowledge that some of the original lod allocation of 172 could not be utilized because of the reductions in the X buildout of lodge units permitted in the PUD. Theme buildout in the PUD can be achieved with the 275 replacement units and-94�lodge„ QS allocations. Therefor Modge e 257 lodge units in Phase I is made up of replacement units and the GMQS allocations; this is reflected in the chart on the top of page 14 of the application, which deals only with Phase I lodge units. Mr. Dave Tolen page 2 To some extent, these generation calculations are unimportant because of the audit which will ultimately establish the actual employee generation of the project: in addition, the owner's original commitment to house 198.5 has been maintained in the proposed amendment. Please let me know if you still have questions about the calculations, however. Sincerely, Joseph Wells, AICP cc: Dianne Moore Perry Harvey Ferd Belz Under Ordinance 12, Series of 1991, Savanah is obligated to provide housing for two additional employees for the Ice Rink and Park approved for Lot 6, and for a third additional employee if food service is provided. These additional employees will be housed in deed-restricted rooms in the Grand Aspen as provided for in the ordinance. The First Amended PUD Agreement (Section E) requires that the affordable housing obligation for Hotel Phase II (or Lot 5), if any, be established by an amendment process, based on the final development program for Hotel Phase H. Existing development on Lot 5 presently includes a 155 unit full-service hotel with conference, restaurant and bar facilities. In all probability, reconstruction on Lot 5 will result in a dramatic decrease in employee generation. Nonetheless, the amount will be established in a future amendment. The affordable housing obligation for the 8 residential GMQS units in Hotel Phase II will also be established in the amended Submission for Lot 5. The remaining residential units in the PUD, including those to be utilized in the development program for Lot 3 (Top of Mill) are replacement units; the affordable housing obligation associated with all of the replacement residential units, which was established under the original PUD Agreement at 29 to be housed, was reaffirmed under the First Amended PUD Agreement (Exhibit B). In order to establish the revised employee generation for Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summit Place and Replacement Housing resulting from the addition of residential units sought by this amendment request, the same factors used in Exhibit B of the First Amended PUD Agreement have been applied to the existing development and to the remainder of the proposal: , 1 1. Lodg e Operation: V New lodge rooms (229) 229 New 1-BR Suites (26) 26 New 2-BR Suites (2) 4 Total Bedrooms (257 units) 259* Living Rooms_ Q 25% 7 Total Rooms 266 Employees per lodge room .36 Employee generation 95.76 13 Existing lodge rooms being rebuilt (257 units les allocations) X83- j2s Employees perm .20 Employee credit -Aft@-25,o Net new employees -55-16 7C TG GMQS employees housed 60% Employees to be housed 33-19 4Z•�(o * The number of hotel bedrooms is two greater than the number of hotel units because of the second bedroom in the two Ritz-Carlton suites. 2. Accessory Food and Beverage: New restaurant sq.ft. (net) 3,713 New lounge sq.ft. (net) 3,163 New kitchen sq.ft. (net) 4,441 Subtotal, New food &beverage sq.ft. 11,317 Employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 12.8 Employee generation 114.86 Existing F&B and Kitchen sq.ft. 4,900 Employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 9.0 Employee credit 44.1 Net new employees 100.76 GMQS employees housed 60% Employees to be housed 60.46 3. Accessory Retail: New net leaseable retail sq.ft. 5,770 Employee per 1,000 sq.ft. 3.5 Employee generation 20.2 Existing net leasable retail sq.ft. 700 Employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 3.5 Employee credit 2.5 Net new employees 17.7 GMQS employees housed 60% Employees to be housed 10.6 4. Non-Accessory Commercial GMQS,Phase I: New retail 0 Employee per 1,000 sq.ft. 3.5 Employee generation 0 0 14 5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4): Population of unrestricted units 4 3-BRs @ 3.0/du (58%) 12.0 Employees to be housed (42%) 8.7 6. Employee Housing Replacement: Employees to be housed 29.0 Summary of Employees to be Housed: 1. Lodge Operations 33.1 4Q_- .5" 2. Accessory Food & Beverage 60.5 3. Accessory Retail 10.6 4. Non-Accessory Commercial GMQS 0.0 5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4) 8.7 6. Replacement Housing 29.0 Total, Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 4 and Replacement -141.9—>5l•3 Employees to be Housed The revisions to the program proposed in this application for the Ritz-Carlton site result in a net reduction in full-time equivalent employment from 247.5 to 214.6, or 32.9 employees from that approved under the First Amended PUD Agreement. This is consistent with the compromise arrived at with the City (which led to the adoption of the First Amended PUD Agreement) to develop a program for the PUD which would result in significantly reduced hotel rooms and amenities and therefore reduced impacts on the community. At 60% to be housed, the credit to the overall PUD obligation is 19.6 employees to be housed. Although the affordable housing obligation for Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summit Place and Replacement Housing within the PUD is reduced by 19.6 employees to 141.9, Savanah is nonetheless maintaining its prior commitment to house 198.5, as well as to house 60% of the full-time equivalent employees of the Ritz-Carlton in excess of 330.8, if any, to be determined by the audit procedure established in the First Amended PUD Agreement. C. Effect of the proposal on required parking. Under paragraph B(6) of the First Amended PUD Agreement, 220 subgrade spaces are required to be provided on Lot 1 for the approved 294 lodge 15 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION will be held on NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before January 5, Tuesday, COMM Colorado,2nd Floor Meeting Room, C the Aspen Planning & Zoning Aspen, Colorado, to consider an City Hall, 130 S. Galena, 600 E. Cooper application submitted by Savanah Limited requesting approval of an Ave. , Suite 200, Aspen, Colorado, requ amendment to . the First Amended and for Restated the AspenannMountain Development/Subdivision Agreement to re lace 22 lodge rooms Subdivision. The applicant is proposing P approved for Lot 1 with no more than el wing fronting units, on the P second and third levels of the h subdivision (the "Blue Spruce" building) , and is also re eondo further information, contact approval to subdivide Lot 1 into two lots and condominiumization P of the Blue Spruce building. Fo Diane Moore at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galeri« St• . Aspen, Colorado 920-5090 ,—Lacmine Tygre, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission 1992 Aspen Times on December 18, Published_in-the--sP_____________________________________________ City of Aspen Account NOU-25—'92 WED 08:55 ID: TEL NO: , ,##225 P02 Josarth Wells C 7 Plun%A.nd Design November 24, 1992 Mr. Dave Tolen Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office Delivered by FAX to 920-5580 Dear Dave: Since there has been some confusion about the revisions to the employee generation figures included in the Ritz-Carlton PUD Amendment application, I thought it would be helpful to restate the figures another way to try to clarify. Under the original approvals granted in 1985 (Roberts), 4471odge units were approved for construction on Lots 1 and 5 of the PUD.This total included 172 lodge GMQS allocations and 275 replacement lodge units. When this approval was amended as spelled out in the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement, the maximum number of lodge units was reduced to 342 (292 in Phase I, or Lot 1, and 50 in Phase II, or Lot 5). This reduction in the total number of lodge units permitted in the PUD had the effect of reducing the lodge GMQS allocations for the project from 172 to 77, since the buildout could be accomplished with these 77 allocations and the 275 replacement units. Nonetheless, when we recalculated the employee generation figures for inclusion in Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement, we retained the original allocation of 172. In the calculations of employee generation from lodge operations, the balance of the Phase I buildout of 292 lodge units was therefore made up of 120 of the replacement lodge units as reflected in Exhibit S. In the 1992 Amended PUD Submission for Lot 1, the maximum buildout for lodge units has been further reduced to 329 (257 in Phase I, or Lot 1, and 72 in Phase II, or Lot 5). When we recalculated the employee generation figures for the project for inclusion in the new application (page 13) we retained the same format as Exhibit B to the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement, but we decided to acknowledge that some of the original lodge allocation of 172 could not be utilized because of the reductions in the maximum buildout of lode units permitted in the PUD. The maximum buildout in the PUD can be achieved with the 275 replacement units and 54 Iodize GMQS allocations. Therefore, the 257 lodge units in Phase I is made up of-203 replacement units and the 54 lodge GMQS allocations; this is reflected in the chart on the top of page 14 of the application, which deals only with Phase I lodge units. 130 Midland Pule P1W,Number P2 Won&81611 tle ne(303)925.8080 (303)925-8275 - NOU-25-'92 WED 08:56 ID: TEL NO: #225 P03 _ Mr. Dave Tolen Page 2 To some extent, these generation calculations are unimportant because of the audit which will ultimately establish the actual employee generation of the project: in addition, the owner's original commitment to house 198.5 has been maintained in the proposed amendment. Please let me know if you still have questions about the calculations, however. ~Sincerely, seph W s, AICP cr: Dianne Moore Perry Harvey Ferd Belz REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES Incorporated November 23, 1984 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Replacement of Displaced Employee Housing Dear Alan, Submitted herein is information concerning the replacement of employee housing which will be displaced by the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. The information complies with Section 20-22 & .23 of the Aspen Municipal Code and respond to them enteA �Pitkinn Office letter of February 3, 1984, n informa- tion addresses each item raised by the Housing Office letter. 1-A. Melville II Building. The Melville II building (Haerdle Cottage) has been used by Mr. Melville for employee housing for the Mountain Chalet as expressed in his letter in Attachment B. The four bedroom building houses from 8-12 employees in the win- ter and 4-8 employees in the summer. Averaging the high winter occupancy of 12 - employees and the high summer occupancy of 8 employees gives an average of 10 employees on a year-round basis . 1-A. Black Residence. The lower apartment of the laackBlack' s residence houses a married couple (2 employees) Per Mr . letter in Attachment C. 1-B . Townplace Apartments. The 2 Townplace apartments have housed up to 4 management employees per Richard Wilhelm' s letter in Attachment D. 1-C. Off-Site Housing. The only off-site employee housing pro- vided for the Aspen Inn, Continental Inn, and Blue Spruce has been in the Holiday House Lodge. Per Richard Wilhelm' s letter in Attachment D, 7-10 employees have been housed as needed in the 5 deed restricted and 2 free-market garden level units in the Holiday House Lodge. As you know the Hillside Lodge is proposed to be exchanged for the Holiday House Lodge which will result in r a net increase in employee housing as described in item 1-D. .North of.Nell I oildin 11.0.130x 31.19,Aspcn.Colnra('.o 31611 144 Telephone:303)925-.13:50 REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES Incorporated Alan Richman TIovember 23, 1984 Page Two 1-D. Holiday House Lodge and Hillside Lodge Exchange. The Holiday House Lodge is to be exchanged for the Hillside Lodge . The Hillside Lodge has 14 units (14 bedrooms) while the Holiday House has 27 units (33 bedrooms) . The Hillside Lodge houses up to 30 employees in a shared room living arrangement which averages approximately 2 employees per bedroom. If the Holiday House is used in a siir;ilar dormitory manner, it could house up to 66 employees at 2 employees per bedroom.. Using the Housing Authority' s recently adopted dormitory standard of 150 sf per employee applied only to the net living area of the Holiday House (9, 672 sf) would allow for 75 employees . Another example of a simple dormitory configuration for the Holiday House is given below: Holiday House Lodge 21 units - std. lodge unit - 275 sf avg. @ 1 emp ./unit = 21 emp . 5 units - 2 bdrm .ldg .unit - 596 sf avg . @ 3 emp./unit = 15 emp . 1 unit - 2 bdrm. apt. - 917 sf avg. @ 4 emp ./unit = 4 emp . 27 units 40 emp . As demonstrated, the Holiday House Lodge can easily house 40 to 66 employees in a dormitory manner, which is the likely manner the Lodge will be used. Therefore, the exchange of the Hillside Lodge for the Holiday House Lodge will result in no net loss of employee housing to the community but will actually produce a net gain as shown below: Existing With Exchange Hillside Lodge- 30 emp .housed Holiday House- 40-66 emp .housed Holiday House - 10 emp .housed 40 emp .housed I also wish to emphasize the Holiday House Lodge will provide not only more, but also a higher quality of employee g of increased employee privacy and amenities as the swimming pool, pq saunas and lanundry room. 2. Mine Dumps. Ito employees of the existing hotels are housed INat the Mine Dumps on a special basis per Richard Wilhelm' s letter in Attachment D. 3 . 1978 Aspen Inn Expansion. In the 1978 Aspen Inn Expansion GMP application for 36 free-market lodge units in Attachment E, Mr . Cantrup did represent a commitment for 24 employee units housing 35 employees . The Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant feels w REAL ES LTE AFFILIATES Incorporated Mr . Alan Richman November 23, 1984 Page Three this was an unreasonable and as demonstrated unfulfilled commit- ment by Mr. Cantrup and that the present applicant should not be bound by Mr . Cantrup' s action. To meet the intent of Code Section 20-23 (2) the present applicant will commit to house 100% of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units of the 1978 Aspen Inn expansion application or to house 13 employees. (36 lodge rooms- x- . 36--emp./room 13- employees .-) -_The -commitment to house 100% of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units is generous._given that the applicant' s .GMP commitment for new lodge units is to house 60% of the employees generated. In summary, the Aspen Mountain Lodge applicant feels he complies with Section 20-22 & 23 of the Code by commiting to house the following displaced employees: Melville II replacement - 10 employees Black residence replacement - 2 employees Townplace Apts . replacement - 4 employees Hillside-Holiday exchange - 0 no emp. displacement Mine Dumps - 0 no emp. displacement 1978 Aspen Inn expansion - 13 employees 29 employees Once you have reviewed the submitted information, please feel free to give me a call on any questions. Sincerely, ��Jim Curtis JC:cck �\ Enclosures CC: Jim Adamski, Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office , AC HISTORY OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN: PUD! DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS Original 1985 PUD 1988 PUD Subsequent Current Proposal Approval Amendment Amendments Overall PUD 447 hotel units 342 hotel units; 329 hotel units; no change (275 replacement 54 residential 54 residential and 172 GMQS) ; 54 units units residential units (42 replacement and 12 GMQS) Lot 1:Ritz- not to exceed 300 292 hotel units; 279 hotel units; 257 hotel units; Carlton hotel units; not 0 residential 0 residential 6 residential to exceed 14 units; 190, 000 units; 190,000 units; 190, 000 residential s.f floor area s.f. floor area s.f. floor area units; 200, 000 s. f. floor area Lot 2: 3 residential no change no change no change Summit units; 7,700 s.f. Place floor area Lot 3: Top 33 residential no change3 no change no change3 Of Mill units; 101, 000 s. f. floor areal Lot 4: 4 residential no change no change no change Galena units; 12, 000 Place s. f. floor area Lot 5: not to exceed 190 50 hotel units; no change 72 hotel units; Grand Aspen hotel units; not 47 residential 41 residential to exceed 14 units; 115, 000 units; 115,000 residential s. f. floor area3 s.f. floor area3 units; 150, 000 s. f. f loor areal Notes: 1. Total development on Lots 1 and 5 could not exceed 447 lodge and 14 residential units. 2 . Top of Mill project only received Conceptual PUD approval. 3 . The development shown for Lot 5 is to be distributed between Lot 3 and Lot 5. Aspen Mountain Subdivision A) I approved an insubstantial plat (5th Amended Plat) and PUD amendment for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision in October of 1992 which included the following: 1) The elimination of eleven (11) lodge rooms - the development rights to these units will not be transfered to other lots within the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. 2) Parking tabulation - The First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement lists 220 subgrade spaces and 10 guest and service loading spaces. Applicant requested the elimination of 3 spaces in the porte cochere area and the loading dock areas identified on the south side of Dean Street. Applicant also requested the elimination of- 3 -subgrade= spaces due- to the addition of a stairwell within the garage. Thus, the subgrade spaces would total 217 and the parking spaces in the porte cochere area/loading dock area on the south side of Dean Street would total 7 spaces. 3) The applicant agreed, during the insubstantial plat review, not to readdress the employee housing requirement relating to the elimination of the eleven (11) hotel rooms. This will be addressed at the time that the Ritz institutes the employee audit for the hotel, which is required yeaz5from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy f7or the hotel. 2 4) The applicant also proposed to establish a Sports Activity Center for the guests of the hotel in the entry level space of the Blue Spruce building. This use will replace two of the four spaces approved for retail shops with an equipment storage and rental area, and reception desk. One of the remaining retail spaces will open directly onto the Activity Center reception area. The uses are consistent with the uses identified in the PUD Agreement and the revision was approved through the insubstantial plat amendment process. 5) Applicant also requested a minor change to the Dean Street entry to the lower level of the Blue Spruce building and this was also approved. Other minor changes (removing connecting doors, revising roof stair layout, adding mechanical space etc. . . ) within the hotel were identified and approved during the insubstantial plat approval. B) The applicant also submitted another insubstantial plat amendment for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision in November of 1992 and I am currently undergoing the review of this application: 1) Applicant would like to eliminate two (2) additional lodge rooms and convert this space to an accessory beauty salon. This reduces the number of lodge rooms in the hotel to 279 from the 281 units approved under the Fifth Amended Plat. The beauty salon is a permitted accessory use within the PUD Agreement. 2) The total number of dining seats approved within the PUD Agreement is 204 seats. Applicant proposes to add the space designated on the recorded drawings as the "Grille/Bar" to "Grille Dining" area. The change has no effect on employee generation for the food and beverage space because the generation factor agreed upon by the City is the same for dining square footage and lounge square footage. The dining seat layouts on the proposed revised plat confirm that the layouts are in conformance with the limitation on dining seats. t ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE � , .. 2 6199? �r 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Department Zoning Administration Aspen Fire Protection District Building Inspector FROM: Diane Moore, Planning Office RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1 Parcel ID No. 2737-182-85-001/005 DATE: October 15, 1992 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership. Please return your comments to me no later than November 12, 1992. The Design Review Committee will be meeting on November 5, 1992, at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor City Council Chambers. Thank you. rangy► ,+7 t w 7S 13 7 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Diane Moore BC Jed Caswall From: Jed Caswall Postmark: Nov 11,92 10:57 AM Subject: Forwarded: Aspen Mountain Subdivision (Ritz) PUD Amendment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comments: From Jed Caswall: Can your Dept respond on this--we can talk about it on friday. Message: From Rob Thomson: the Ritz is proposing to condominiumize the 2nd and third floor of the Blue Spruce Building. Typically when we condominiumize a building we ask them to show designated parking on the condominium map. Since they will be utilizing the parking structure in the Ritz is it o.k. to designate the parking spaces in the condo documents rather on the plat? The applicant doesn't want to designate specific spaces primarily because parking will be handled by valets. � �rt DA 4) U1/) _-t` roil Vio t _ ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIFIL#WMENTAL HEALTH DEPAR*M' ENT MEMORANDUM To: Diane Moore, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department Date: November 14 , 1992 Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1 Parcel ID No. 2737-182-85-001-005 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant serves the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-2 . 3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers" . The sewer collection lines are in place and can accommodate the proposed changes in this section of the building. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant serves the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system" . The City water distribution mains are in place and can accommodate the flows and demand expected from the proposed changes in this section of the building. AIR QUALITY• The location of the proposed development provides easy access to town by walking, biking, or riding the bus. Parking is to be provided for the six units in the valet parking garage. This amendment and change of use should have little effect on the total air quality impact of the project. This development will have a small effect on air quality. No woodburning fireplaces are allowed in the metro area, and the two 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 896'19 303/920-5070 iecydedpapei Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Amendment/Lot 1 November 14 , 1992 Page 2 gas-log fireplaces are already allocated to the building. Gas appliances for the six units are allowed, however, the application does not address what is planned or proposed. NOISE: There are no obviously be noise generated by the intended change of use of this part of the facility, as construction activities are occurring inside. The applicant should still take appropriate steps to minimize noise leaving the facility and into surrounding neighborhoods. Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. It is important that the applicant become familiar with the regulation and design accordingly. remaining portions thereof. Section 10 : This ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or preceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and Iconcluded under such prior ordinances. Section 11: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the ninth day of March, 1992 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a h g earin of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by 1 the City Council of the City of Aspen on the tenth day of February 1992. Jo Bennett, Mayor Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this /3 day of 1992. John ennett, Mayor X ST' Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk jtdm:aspen.winter. ord. J 10 A ti ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION The Ritz-Carlton, Aspen The Grand Aspen Site and The Park 700 South Galena Summit Place Top of Mill 1992 Amended PUD Submission for Lot 1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION The Ritz-Carlton, Aspen The Grand Aspen Site and The Park 700 South Galena Summit Place Top of Mill Amended PUD/Submission for Lot 1 September 30, 1992 Submitted to: The City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 / 925-2020 Owner: Savanah Limited Partnership C/o Aspen Enterprises International, Inc. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3760 Los Angeles, California 90064 213 / 556-3350 Owner's Representative: Savanah Limited Partnership Attn: Perry Harvey, Development Manager 600 East Cooper Avenue, Suite 200 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-4272 FAX: 303 / 925-4387 Prepared by: Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 925-8080 FAX: 303 925-8275 CONSULTANT TEAM Architects for Lot 1 and Lot 1A Parking & Circulation Heery Architects & Engineers Transportation Development 1250 24th Street, N.W., Suite 350 Associates, Inc. Washington, D.C. 20037 316 Second Avenue South Phone: 202 / 778-6100 Seattle, Washington 98104 FAX: 202 / 872-1933 Phone: 206 / 682-4750 Landscape Architects Title Information Design Workshop, Inc. National Title Research, Inc. 710 E. Durant Avenue 717 17th Street, Suite 1650 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: 303 / 925-8354 Phone: 303 / 295-7300 FAX: 303 / 920-1387 Municipal Services & Utilities Surveying Leonard Rice Consulting Alpine Surveys, Water Engineers, Inc. Licensed Surveyors 2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 1730 Denver, Colorado 80202 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Phone: 303 / 455-9589 Phone: 303 / 925-2688 FAX: 303 / 455-0115 Legal Oates Hughes & Knezevich Attorneys at Law 533 E. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 920-1700 FAX: 303 / 920-1121 ♦ r. l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION I A. Background of the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision 2 B. Current Status of Project Approvals in the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision 4 C Applicable Law 7 H. AMENDED PUD SUBMISSION FOR LOT 1 (Art. 7, Div. 9) 9 III. SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A NEW LOT IA (Art. 7, Div. 10) 18 IV. CONDOMINIUMIZATION (Sec. 7-1007) 21 V. EXHIBITS A. Additional General Application Requirements 1. Disclosure of Ownership 2. Letter of Consent By Applicant's Representative 3. Vicinity Map 4. Revised Plat Drawings B. Recent City Actions Regarding the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision 1. City Council Ordinance No. 12/92 I. INTRODUCTION: This application requests, on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership ("Savanah"), approval of a PUD amendment and related reviews for the Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development/Subdivision (the "PUD") to permit the replacement of 22 lodge rooms approved for Lot 1 with no more than 6 residential units and a maximum residential bedroom count of 18. This residential conversion is proposed for the second and third levels of the hotel wing fronting on Durant Street (the "Blue Spruce Building"). The residential units to be transferred to Lot 1 will be taken from the replacement units currently approved for reconstruction on either Lot 3 or Lot 5; the lodge units will be retained for possible development on Lot 5 in "Hotel Phase II". The application for full PUD Amendment included in Section II is being made because of an interpretation by the Planning Office that the relocation of residential units may not be approved as an insubstantial amendment because of the language in the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision recorded in Book 574 at Page 792, et seq., of the Pitkin County records (the "First Amended PUD Agreement"). The First Amended PUD Agreement states that the Hotel Phase I component "shall be comprised of no residential units"; this language was incorporated because at that time the residential units originally planned for Phase I had been moved to Phase II. This submission for amendment is made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the First Amended PUD Agreement. Additionally, Section III of this application includes a request for subdivision- approval to subdivide Lot 1 into two lots; that portion of the lot to the south of vacated Dean Street will continue to be designated Lot 1 and that portion to the north of Dean will become a new Lot 1A. Subdivision is requested to permit Savanah to establish a "Common Interest Ownership Community" (formerly condominium ownership) for the residential units in the Blue Spruce Building 1 without the necessity of condominiumizing that portion of Lot 1 to the south of Dean. A request for condominiumization of the Blue Spruce Building has been included in Section IV of this application. On January 22, 1985 (P&Z Resolution No. 1, Series of 1985), the Planning and Zoning Commission granted subdivision exception approval for condominiumization of all of the residential units in the PUD. Although the City previously approved condominiumization of the residential units, approval of condominiumization of the Blue Spruce Building is requested so that the entry level retail and accessory space may be retained in the same ownership as the balance of the hotel When the P&Z approved residential condominiumization, it also recommended approval of a requested clarification that, because the site is zoned for tourist use, the 1 residential units should not be subject to the six-month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22. This inconsistency in the code language which was in effect at the t time has since been modified to make it clear that condominium units in the L/TR '+ zone may be rented without restriction. t 1 A. Background of the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision: Because of personnel changes on the Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Planning Office and on City Council, a background of the history of the PUD is being provided in this application. This will hopefully familiarize all parties with past agreements and create a balanced platform from which to begin review of this request. In September of 1983, the then owner of the properties, John H. Roberts, Jr., submitted the original application to the City of Aspen for conceptual approval of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD, consisting of five lots containing 11.7 acres with several different underlying zoning designations. Two years and over 4 seventy meetings later, the City Council granted final approval to the PUD in 2 { � h December of 1985. The approvals were embodied in the Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement-Aspen Mountain Subdivision recorded in Book 500 at Pages 656, et seq. (the "Initial PUD Agreement"). The principal components and provisions of that Agreement included the following: 1, Overall PUD Approvals: The original approval for 447 lodge units within the PUD included approval of 172 lodge GMQS allocations; the project was also credited with 275 replacement lodge units (the Grand Aspen, the Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge). The lodge units were approved for construction on Lots 1 and 5 of the PUD. In addition, the City approved 12 residential GMQS allocations and the replacement of 42 existing residential units. Three of these 54 residential units were approved for construction on Lot 2 (Summit Place) and four of the units were approved for Lot 4 (Galena Place). The remaining 47 residential units were to be constructed on Lots 1, 3 and 5 - up to 14 units on Lots 1 and 5 with the remaining units on Lot 3, subject to final approvals. 2, Lot One (The Ritz-Carlton site): Development on Lot 1 was limited to 200,000 FAR square feet and the total number of lodge units was not to exceed 300; up to 14 residential units were also permitted on Lot 1. A total of 97 lodge unit credits (the Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge) and 10 residential unit credits were associated with Lot 1. s 3, Lot Two (Summit Place): Hans Cantrup had begun construction on what was to be a total of four residential condominiums on this parcel; construction was brought to a halt when the properties went into bankruptcy. The building was left unfinished, with the four units at various stages of completion. PUD approval for this site under the Roberts plan was for a reduced count of three two-bedroom units with an FAR limitation of 7,700 3 4 square feet, to be constructed from the replacement unit total of 42 units. 4. Lot Three (Top of Mill): Consisting of approximately 5.5 acres, this southernmost portion of the PUD received conceptual approval (Resolution 23, Series of 1984) for 33 four-bedroom units with an FAR ceiling of 101,000 square feet. Four existing residential units on this site were credited to the replacement unit total of 42 units for the project. Final approval for the Top of Mill was not part of the original PUD. 5. Lot Four (Galena Place): Residential GMQS approval was granted for four four-bedroom units and 12,000 square feet of FAR space. Three replacement unit credits for previously existing units on the site are a part of the total of 42 residential replacement units in the PUD. 5. Lot Five (Continental Inn/Grand Aspen): Approval was granted for a total of up to 190 lodge units (with the total lodge units for Lots 1 and 5 not to exceed 447) as well as 14 residential units on Lots 1 and 5 (8 of these are GMQS allotments). Maximum FAR for Lot 5 was established at 150,000 square feet. There are 178 lodge unit and 23 residential unit replacement credits associated with Lot 5. B. Current Status of Project Approvals in the Aspen Mountain PUD/ Subdivision: In August of 1987, the PUD site was purchased by Savanah, following foreclosure of the property. Savanah then submitted a modified plan for Lot 1 which was designed to better meet the operator's needs and changes in the Aspen market. During the period 1985 to 1990, the Little Nell Hotel had been opened, the Hotel Jerome had been expanded, the Sardy House was opened and the Aspen Club Lodge was 4 renovated and substantially upgraded. Finally, the operator, Ritz-Carlton, preferred to have about 300 rooms located not in two phases, but in a single building. On October 3, 1988, following several extensions of the development approvals for the PUD by the City Council, the First Amended PUD Agreement was approved, executed and recorded by the City. The First Amended PUD Agreement provides for the following reduced level of development on the five lots in the PUD: 1. Overall PUD Approvals: The total number of lodge rooms on Lots 1 and 5 under the First Amended PUD Agreement were not to exceed 342, a reduction of 105 rooms. This change had the effect of reducing the previously approved lodge GMQS allocation required for the project from 172 to 67. The owner voluntarily relocated the approved residential units from Lot 1 to Lot 5. 2. Lot One (The Ritz-Carlton site): Approval for 190,000 FAR square feet (a reduction from that approved in the Initial PUD Agreement of 10,000 square feet) and 292 lodge rooms (a reduction of 8 from the maximum previously approved for Lot 1, with no residential units). The residential units were moved to Phase H to reduce the size of the Phase I project. 3. Lot Two (Summit Place): Approval was maintained for three two-bedroom units in compliance with all of the restrictions and site improvements required under the amended PUD. As these are considered replacement units, the deadline for beginning construction is related to demolition of the existing units. In August of 1991, because of the deteriorating condition of the partially completed building, and at the request of the City, Savanah demolished the existing units begun during the Cantrup ownership of the property. The excavation was filled and the site was reseeded as an interim measure prior to future construction. 5 4. Lot Three (Top of Mill): The First Amended PUD Agreement anticipates that the Top of Mill project will be master-planned in the future. A PUD/Subdivision Application for Lot 3 will be prepared shortly and submitted by Savanah. The First Amended PUD Agreement limits the residential units on Lots 3 and 5 to a total of 47. Land planning for this site and for Lot 5 will be undertaken under a unified plan to allow for review of the two parcels together, at least in the initial application. 5. Lot Four (Galena Place): The units approved for Galena Place have been completed. This project conforms to the approval as outlined in Section D of the First Amended PUD Agreement. The FAR square footage for Lot 4 is 12,000 square feet; the lot size is 18,000 square feet. According to underlying zoning, a floor area ratio of 1:1 was permitted; therefore, the FAR square footage constructed on Lot 4 is 6,000 square feet less than that allowed by zoning. 6. Lot Five (Continental Inn/Grand Aspen): The First Amended PUD Agreement restricts Lot 5 to no more than 50 hotel rooms in addition to no more than 47 freemarket residential units (39 replacement and 8 GMQS units), which can be distributed between Lots 3 and 5. Maximum FAR square footage for Lot 5 was reduced to 115,000 square feet (plus any additional square footage approved by the City for the Park); this is 35,000 square feet less than that approved originally and 13,685 square feet less than that allowed by underlying zoning. 7. Lot 6 (Ice Rink and Park): Savanah has received approval under Ordinance 12, Series 1992 (see Exhibit B) for an amendment to the First Amended PUD Agreement to construct an Ice Rink and Park on Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain 6 R Subdivision. Construction is now planned for the spring and summer of 1993. Since the signing of the First Amended PUD Agreement, the amendment for the Park and Ice Rink discussed above has been approved and two Insubstantial Amendments for Lot 1 have been filed. In addition to a number of minor design changes, the previously requested Insubstantial Amendments have resulted in the further reduction of the lodge unit count on Lot 1 from 292 units to 279 units, as well as an overall reduction in the maximum lodge unit count within the PUD from 342 units to 329 units. Lot 1 and construction of u r Upon approval of all of the requested amendments for p to 6 residential units on Lot 1A as requested herein, the final lodge unit count on Lot 1 will be 257 units. No more than 72 additional hotel rooms will then be permitted on Lot 5 and no more than 41 additional residential units will be permitted between Lots 3 and 5. These amended approvals would have the effect of limiting the increase in new hotel units within the Aspen Mountain PUD to no more than 54 and no more than 12 new residential units from the total previously (i.e. pre-Roberts) existing on the site, over and above the replacement units. These units are, of course, located in the area designated in the 1973 Aspen Area Land Use Plan as most desirable for high-density development and fall well within the GMQS quotas established for the community. 4 C Applicable Law: Under Section O, General Provisions of the First Amended PUD Agreement, reference is made to the applicable law and review criteria for projects within the PUD which are involved in the amendment process. This language was agreed upon to assure that Savanah would in the future be able to accomplish the development program spelled out in the First Amended PUD Agreement for which it and the City bargained. 7 � y 6 3. Applicable Law. ...inasmuch as review of the Planned Unit Development Amendment contemplated herein was initiated prior to May 25, 1988, the effective date of substantial revision to Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, all reference herein to the Municipal Code or to particular sections i thereof shall be deemed to refer to the Code, or as the case may be, to sections thereof in effect on May 24, 1988, except to the extent that subsequent changes to the Municipal Code or to sections thereof have herein been made expressly applicable to the First Amended PUD..." E 017. Survival. Each of the obligations, commitments and representations made herein by the Owner and the City, including as to the processing and completing of further review of the components of the project that have yet to receive final approval, and the parameters of development 1 activity contemplated herein for such Project components, shall survive the execution hereof and the enactment of subsequent legislation initiated by the City in any manner inconsistent with such obligations, commitments and representations." Because the Ritz-Carlton project has previously received final approval, this submission of amendments to that approval has been prepared and submitted for review and approval under the provisions of the current Aspen Land Use Code. 8 II. AMENDED PUD SUBMISSION FOR LOT 1 (Art. 7, Div. 9): A PUD amendment which is not eligible for review as an Insubstantial Amendment is required to be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final PUD development plan procedure, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan. The current redevelopment plan for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD is embodied in the drawings submitted with the two recent Insubstantial Amendment requests (the Fifth and Sixth Amended Plats). The purpose of this section is to expand upon the further changes proposed for Lot 1 in this application in order to explain their effect on the approved PUD plan. A PUD amendment is required because under the language of the First Amended PUD Agreement, residential units were not approved for Lot 1. It should be noted, however, that under the original PUD approval, residential units were permitted on Lot 1; in fact, a portion of the residential GMQS allocations were envisioned to be built on Lot 1 at one point during the history of the project. Savanah proposes to relocate the twenty-two lodge units approved for the second and third levels of the Blue Spruce Building to Lot 5. These will be replaced with residential reconstruction units numbering no more than six residential units with a maximum bedroom count of eighteen. No significant alteration of the exterior of the Blue Spruce Building and no change in the square footage is proposed to accomplish this revision. Because the employee housing requirement for the reconstruction residential units has previously been included in the overall numbers of employees to be housed, there will be a reduction in employee generation for Lot 1 resulting from this substitution of residential units for lodge rooms in the Blue Spruce Building. Nonetheless, Savanah is maintaining its commitment to house 198.5 employees, as agreed to in the First Amended PUD Agreement. Also, the requirement for an audit after the second full year of 9 operation of Hotel Phase I, which is provided for in theFirst Amended PUD Agreement (page 25), will accurately establish the number of employees working in the hotel and the number to be housed will, as may be applicable, be adjusted. The changes necessary to update the First Amended PUD Agreement to reflect the changes previously approved for the Ice Rink and Park and the changes proposed in this application are being submitted in draft form under separate cover to the Planning Director. Following approval by the City of the programmatic changes proposed in this application, the PUD Agreement can be formally amended to accurately reflect the approvals. Amendments in the First Amended PUD Agreement which are presently anticipated include the following: 1. A revised construction schedule which anticipates that separate building permit applications will be filed for the residential units will be included. At the present time, Savanah plans to construct the stairs and elevator core but the remainder of the space will not be finished. The interior finishes of the residential units will be constructed in the future. 2. Site improvements agreed upon for the PUD which have been completed will be noted as such. 3. The applicable Plat drawings will be amended and re-recorded to reflect approved changes. 4. The employee housing calculations will be amended as approved to reflect the changes resulting from the reduced development program; the commitment to house 198.5 employees will be maintained, however. A. Final PUD development plan contents: In support of this Application, Savanah offers the following: 1. Additional general application information required in Common Procedures, Section 6-202, which is not provided in the narrative is included in Exhibit A. 10 s 2. Architectural plans of the proposed revisions which illustrate a six- unit residential layout are included with the drawings submitted with this application. Other than the shifting of approved lodge and residential units within the PUD, no changes in the approved land uses, densities, natural features, internal traffic circulation patterns, off- street parking and open space areas is proposed. 3. No change in the previously approved variations in the dimensional and off-street parking requirements of the underlying zone districts within the PUD are proposed, although the reduction in the number of lodge units proposed does cause a reduction in the off-street parking requirement and employee generation as described below. 4. The proposed amendments should result in a reduction in the use of public facilities by the guests of the hotel and the owners of the residential units. 5. The proposal has no effect on the previously established development schedule for Lot 1, except that interior finish work for the residential units will be completed at a later date, under separate building permits. 6. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the previously approved final PUD development plan. 7. Architectural drawings indicating the revised floor plans are included with this application. No significant changes to the exterior elevations of the building are proposed. 8. No changes to the approved landscape plan are proposed. 9. No development on steep slopes is proposed. 10. No changes to the approved open space plan is proposed. 11. An amended plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section 7-1004(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a) will be submitted for recordation upon approval. B. Revisions to the Affordable Housing Program The affordable housing program for the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision was first developed by Jim Curtis of Real Estate Affiliates. Based on an extensive analysis of resort hotels, the program included employee generation factors to be applied to all existing and proposed uses to arrive at net employee generation. In addition, a 11 replacement housing program was established for the existing residential units within the site, some of which were tourist units, some owner-occupied and others employee-occupied. During the review of previous PUD and GMQS amendments for Lot 1, the City required a reduction in the generation factors to be applied to the lodge units and food and beverage facilities then existing within the PUD site. Consequently, the employee credit for these existing uses was lowered, thereby effectively increasing the affordable housing obligation for the PUD. Under the terms of the First Amended PUD Agreement (Exhibit "B"), the applicant's affordable housing obligation under the agreed upon factors for Hotel Phase I (the Ritz-Carlton), Galena Place, Summit Place and replacement housing was determined to be 161.5 employees as follows: Hotel Phase I 123.8 Galena Place 8.7 Summit Place 0.0 Replacement 29.0 Total: 161.5 Nonetheless, Savanah agreed to provide off-site housing for 198.5 employees and in addition, agreed to provide housing for 60% of the full-time equivalent employees of the Ritz-Carlton in excess of 330.8, if any, based on an audit to be performed after two years of operation (refer to Section B.4(g), page 25 of the Agreement). Housing provided by the applicant in satisfaction of the Agreement to house 198.5 employees is as follows: Alpina Haus 46.0 Copper Horse 43.0 Ute City Place 37.0 Hunter Longhouse 69.0 Grand Aspen Hotel 3_5 Total: 198.5 12 Under Ordinance 12, Series of 1991, Savanah is obligated to provide housing for two additional employees for the Ice Rink and Park approved for Lot 6, and for a third additional employee if food service is provided. These additional employees will be housed in deed-restricted rooms in the Grand Aspen as provided for in the ordinance. The First Amended PUD Agreement (Section E) requires that the affordable housing obligation for Hotel Phase 11 (or Lot 5), if any, be established by an amendment process, based on the final development program for Hotel Phase II. Existing development on Lot 5 presently includes a 155 unit full-service hotel with conference, restaurant and bar facilities. In all probability, reconstruction on Lot 5 will result in a dramatic decrease in employee generation. Nonetheless, the amount will be established in a future amendment. The affordable housing obligation for the 8 residential GMQS units in Hotel Phase H will also be established in the amended Submission for Lot 5. The remaining residential units in the PUD, including those to be utilized in the development program for Lot 3 (Top of Mill) are replacement units; the affordable housing obligation associated with all of the replacement residential units, which was established under the original PUD Agreement at 29 to be housed, was reaffirmed under the First Amended PUD Agreement (Exhibit B). In order to establish the revised employee generation for Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summit Place and Replacement Housing resulting from the addition of residential units sought by this amendment request, the same factors used in Exhibit B of the First Amended PUD Agreement have been applied to the existing development and to the remainder of the proposal: 1. Lodge Operation: New lodge rooms (229) 229 New 1-BR Suites (26) 26 New 2-BR Suites (2) 4 Total Bedrooms (257 units) 259* Living Rooms Q 25% 7 Total Rooms 266 Employees per lodge room .36 Employee generation 13 95.76 Existing lodge rooms being rebuilt 203 (257 units less 54 allocations) 20 Employees per room 40.60 Employee credit Net new employees 55.16 GMQS employees housed 60% Employees to be housed 33.10 * The number of hotel bedrooms is two greater than the number of hotel units because of the second bedroom in the two Ritz-Carlton suites. 2. Accessory Food and Beverage: 3,713 New restaurant sq.ft. (net) 3,163 New lounge sq.ft. (net) 4,441 New kitchen sq.ft. (net) Subtotal, New food &beverage sq.ft. 11,312 8 Employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 114.86 Employee generation Existing F&B and Kitchen sq.ft. 4,900 Employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 9.0 Employee credit 44.1 Net new employees 100.76 GMQS employees housed 60% Employees to be housed 60.46 3. Accessory Retail: 5,770 New net leaseable retail sq.ft. 3.5 Employee per 1,000 sq.ft. 20 2 Employee generation Existing net leasable retail sq.ft. 700 Employees per 1,000 sq.ft. 3.5 Employee credit 2.5 Net new employees 17.7 GMQS employees housed 60% Employees to be housed 10.6 4. Non-Accessory Commercial GMQS,-Phase I: New retail 0 Employee per 1,000 sq.ft. 0 Employee generation 0 0 14 t 5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4): Population of unrestricted units 4 3-BRs @ 3.0/du (58%) 12.0 Employees to be housed (42%) 8.7 6. Employee Housing Replacement: Employees to be housed 29.0 Summary of Employees to be Housed: 1. Lodge Operations 33.1 2. Accessory Food & Beverage 60.5 3. Accessory Retail 10.6 4. Non-Accessory Commercial GMQS 0.0 5. Residential GMQS (Lot 4) 8.7 6. Replacement Housing 29.0 Total, Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 4 and Replacement 141.9 Employees to be Housed The revisions to the program proposed in this application for the Ritz-Carlton site result in a net reduction in full-time equivalent employment from 247.5 to 214.6, or 32.9 employees from that approved under the First Amended PUD Agreement. This is consistent with the compromise arrived at with the City (which led to the adoption of the First Amended PUD Agreement) to develop a program for the PUD which would result in significantly reduced hotel rooms and amenities and therefore reduced impacts on the community. At 60% to be housed, the credit to the overall PUD obligation is 19.6 employees to be housed. Although the affordable housing obligation for Hotel Phase I, Galena Place, Summit Place and Replacement Housing within the PUD is reduced by 19.6 employees to 141.9, Savanah is nonetheless maintaining its prior commitment to house 198.5, as well as to house 60% of the full-time equivalent employees of the Ritz-Carlton in excess of 330.8, if any, to be determined by the audit procedure established in the First Amended PUD Agreement. C Effect of the proposal on required parking: Under paragraph B(6) of the First Amended PUD Agreement, 220 subgrade spaces are required to be provided on Lot 1 for the approved 294 lodge 15 bedroom facility. While the parking demand for the PUD is based on the series of factors listed below which were developed by Transportation Development Associates ("TDA"), the subgrade parking requirement for the hotel nonetheless equates to a factor of .75 spaces per lodge bedroom. Using the same factors established by TDA, the subgrade parking requirement for the 259 lodge bedroom facility proposed in this application is 210 spaces. A total of 217 subgrade spaces have actually been built in the hotel parking structure. The revised parking requirement for all the lots in the PUD is documented on Table 2, on page 17. On-Site Parking Required, Lot 1 (and proposed Lot 1A) (The Ritz-Carlton Site) 1. 257 lodge keys w. 259 lodge bedrooms x.66x.90* = 153.8 2. 6 3-BR residential units x 2** = 12.0 3. 6,876 s.f. of food &beverage/19,240 s.f. x30*** = 10.7 4. 17,829 s.f./20,000 s.f. of conf space x29**** _ 25.9 5. Employee spaces***** = 7_0 Subgrade req'mt: 209.4 (210) Provided: 217 spaces 6. Truck(2) & guest(5) loading ****** 8.0 Supply Factors used by TDA: * Lodge: .66 spaces per lodge bedroom Q peak occupancy of 90%. ** Residential: 1 space per unit for one- & two-bedroom units. 2 spaces per unit for three- & four-bedroom units. Interpolated from original 447 lodge room program: Food & Beverage: 6,876 s.f./19,240 s.f. x30 spaces (includes restaurant & lounge s.f. but excludes kitchens) **** Conference: 17,829 s.f./20,000 s.f. x29 spaces (excluding pre-function space) ***** Employee spaces remain the same ******Loss of two spaces on vacated Dean Street due at the request of City staff. (Based on March 30, 1984 TDA Parking Study,Table 5, pg. 8. See Appendix A of Preliminary PUD Submission for the Lodge) 16 i Table 2 Revised Parking Requirement, Aspen Mountain PUD First Amended & "Phase 1"* On-Site Restated PUD Current Parking Commitment Agreement Proposal 1. Lot 1 and proposed Lot 1A Subgrade (30 spaces set aside for employees) 220 217 Guest & service loading (Porte cochere, loading dock & south side of Dean Street) 10 7** Subtotal, Lot 1: 230 224 2. Lot 5 and Lot 6 (Approximate siting)*** Subgrade 28 28 Surface lot west side of Grand Aspen 55 55 Surface lot east side of Grand Aspen 18 18 Surface parking north side of Dean 13 13 Guest & service loading 6 6 Angle parking, south side of Dean 9 ______ 9 Total On-site - Lots 1, IA, 5 &6 359 353 3. Summit Place 6 6 4. Galena Place 16 16 5. Top of Mill Premature Premature 6. Hotel Phase II Premature Premature * The Ritz-Carlton, Grand Aspen, Ice Rink, Galena Place & Summit Place ** Elimination of 2 spaces on Dean assumed as requested by the City Staff. *** Lot 5 requirement is restated from First Amended PUD Agreement; the parking requirement has, however, been modified by final approval of the Ice Rink. 17 III. SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A NEW LOT 1A (Art. 7, Div.10): Subdivision approval is requested to create a new Lot 1A on the northern portion of Lot 1 as previously subdivided. This northerly portion comprises what was the site of the Blue Spruce Lodge. This parcel is approximately 15,078 square feet in size and N� is bordered by Durant, vacated Dean, Mill and Monarch Streets. Subdivision is requested to permit Savanah to establish individual ownership for the residential t, units in the_Blue Spruce Building without the necessity of including the Ritz- Carlton hotel ( i.e. that portion of the lot to the south of Dean). No revisions to the street system or utility system are proposed. The only reason for the subdivision request is to create a practical vehicle for individual ownership of the residential units without implicating the hotel in that ownership and vice versa. A. Review Standards Subdivision approval is usually requested prior to and in order to accommodate subsequent development of the property. In this case, the development of the site has previously been accomplished and the proposed use is consistent with prior approvals. The project remains in conformance with the review standards for subdivision, which include the following: 1. General requirements: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The ro osed subdivision is consistent with the character of P P existing land uses in the area, which is generally made up of projects on smaller, not larger, tracts. C. The proposed subdivision has no adverse effect on the future development of surrounding areas. 18 d. Other sections of this application address other applicable requirements of the City land-use regulations. 2. Suitability of the land for subdivision: a. The land is not unsuitable for subdivision because of natural hazards. No such hazards have been identified as affecting the site. . i b. The subdivision does not result in spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies or premature extension of public facilities or unnecessary public costs. 3. Improvements: s:. a. Required improvements are in place except that additional monumentation will be added following approval. b. Plans and specifications have previously been filed and approved by the City. C. Savanah will make arrangements with individual utilities regarding any reimbursement of the developer's costs as a result of any oversizing of utilities. 4. Design Standards: a. No changes in approved street layout or design are anticipated. b. No additional easements are needed or proposed as a result of w� the proposal. 19 s: C. The affordable housing requirements of the project have previously been established (see discussion beginning on page 11). B. Application Contents: 1. The general application information of Sec. 6-202 is included in Exhibit A. 2.. A vicinity map of the project is included in Exhibit A. 3. A reduction of the plat illustrating the proposed additional lot is included in Exhibit A. 4. Amendments to the First Amended PUD Agreement will be submitted following review of the proposal by the Planning and Zoning Commission. g P i t G 20 Y R IV. CONDOMINIUMIZATION (Sec. 7-1007) . Although the City previously approved condominiumization of the residential units, approval of condominiumization is requested at this time so that the entry level retail and accessory space in the Blue Spruce Building may be retained in the same ownership as the balance of the hotel. The retail and other accessory spaces on the entry level of the Blue Spruce Building will be designated as Condominium Unit One. Savanah commits that the ownership of Condominium Unit One will remain in the same ownership as the hotel improvements on Lot 1. The residential condominium units on Lot 1A will be managed by the Ritz-Carlton staff or other management organization. In addition to the other requirements of Subdivision, when application is made for subdivision of a parcel of land to be used for condominium development, the application must also comply with the following requirements during the review of the development application. 1. Condominiumization of residential units. a. Purchase rights of existing tenants is not applicable to this application. b. A minimum lease period for the residential units which are to be condominiumized is not applicable in the L/TR zone district. Residential dwelling units in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district may be leased without limitation. C. An affordable housing impact fee is not applicable to the condominiumization of the residential units in the PUD, because affordable housing has been provided pursuant to Section 8-106(E)(5). Projects which provide affordable housing are exempt from the impact fee. 21 d. The building proposed for condominiumization is available for inspection by the Building Department. * In light of the recent changes in Colorado Law supplementing the state's Condominium Ownership Act with the uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, the notion of local regulation of what is familiarly known as the Condominiumization process may be superceded. Savanah, of course, reserves its rights under the new law, but wishes now to go forward with its plan to create separate fee ownership for the residential units; the issue of the City's right to regulate the process can be left for later. Additionally, technically the term "condominium" has been rendered obsolete under the new law. Savanah will continue to employ it in the context of this application, since all are familiar with it as a legal concept. F �s F p'. 22 V.EXHIBITS { } a EXHIBIT A. Additional General Application Requirements 1. Disclosure of Ownership 2. Letter of Consent By Applicant's Representative 3. Vicinity Map 4. Revised Plat Drawings � 09i09i91 58 002 EXHIBIT AM OWNERSHIP i ENCUMBRANCE REPORT CASE NO. ASPEN RITE CARLTON An examination of the records of PITRIN County, Colorado an maintained in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of said County, for the period ending SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 at 8:00 A.M. on the property described as: LOT 1 FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. has disclosed the following information: 1. The last named grantee, and apparent record owner, of the above-described real property is: SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. 2. i The f0110w1ng mortgages and/or Deeds of Trust purport to affect said real property: A. DEED OF TRUST FROM SAVAIRAH LIMITED PARTu3sR8HIp TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF pIgrwTip COUNTY FOR THE USE OF ASPEN FIN"CINGS, LTD. TO BECURa A PRINCIPAL SUM OF ;70f000f000.00f RECORDED NOVEMBER 101 1909 IN BOOK 607 AT PAGE 176. 3. Other information requested, if any: NONE NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE NOR IMPLIED AS TO THE VALIDITY OR SUFFICIENCY OF ANY DOCUMENTS, NOR SAVE ANY DOCUMENTS BEEN EXAMINED FOR EXCEPTIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER COVENANTS OR CONDITIONS AFFECTING TITLE. IF INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED BY REFERENCE TO STREET ADDRESSF NO REPRESENTATION Ia MADE THAT SAID REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IS THE SAME AS SAID ADDRESS. LIABILITY HEREUNDER IS LIMITED TO CHARGES PAID FOR THIS IWORKATI ON. HATIONAL TITLE, INC. AGMn FOR FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO. 717 Seventeenth Street, quite 1650 Denver, Colorado 60202 (303) 295-7 0 BYs EXHIBIT A(2) SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP September 30, 1992 Diane Moore Director of Planning City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Moore, Savanah Limited Partnership (Savanah) is making application for an amendment to the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement for thc: Aspen Mountain Subdivision. The amendment is to permit the replacement of 22 lodge.rooms approved for Lot 1 with no more than six residential units and a maximum bedroom count of ' eighteen. Additionally we are requesting a subdivision approval to create a new lot Gmsisting of the Blue-Spruce building in order to allow the sale of the residential units as condorauuums. For the purpose of processing these requests Mr. Ferdinand Betz III and Mr. Perry I-1mvey will be representing Savanah Limited Partnership. Sincerely yours, BY: ASPEN ARISES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Managing General Partner By: m njamin President FUX-F:\USERBIAEUAURMWP\OMAA1MOORM.IMT 600 E. Cooper Avenue, Ste. 200,Aspen, Co 81611,303/925-4272, Fax 303/925-4387 EXHIBIT AN :1 L :a 1 'L 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t - 1 1 I I p, 10 �z �. I ASPEN CLUB ® d t °EMPLOYEE .ASPEN MOUNTAIN P.U.D. HOUSING • °°�. Q ' D o°o ° i v ism (a�0 y0� Do ,e'p� Q® ° o °S Q ® oo�d7 0 c � � ° 6 0 4P6 - o � ° °,_ Do �° �lD 15 m •m ° o °. D C7 7JD 0 o D e m' 00° Qom•-. a+] •��%tl C, o° ,_Ic? f ,ro pD�� L6.70 a 0 .� O a n ••o D ..�3. - � � � •° Ab �7 yc� °m °Q D° 127 m�®. � }' p�.';b,l.• � o,DD o ao 0 oar oo ao D v D..D© oop � � o 8 o D 4 fl SL°" d� D°D 'ri�7y°j4 o-= FFICE •D8 04 aGl Oa aD U ° �° d f ^ 3 7f'�/"E°W •� '..Q ,e �orU '��°a o e0 7�IQ 1�°O d E �JJ/)n, I S DO O QO P O � ^7 O MUSIC ° °a TENT ° V ASPEN • l 'z2 MEADOWS O F tOK� Itll'F? , ASPEN MOUNTAIN "'.`: DNfUL1w"T° Dlw�IIG"O VICINITY MAP The Lodge-Galena-Top Of Mill rtinrl—� American Century Corporation 11 'W . � k r. � , y A EXHIBIT AW \: • . \: \ I i �$ \ . | (2 2 , | gig fillE � A4Rel= §Rnm B !! | mr-e . \ � •H�. § j29? : ! | 2 � ■ ---- .. , - | | | � | | . | ( . � \ � , � | . 40,6t 13 w-4 IDOL OAWA V � •e. r••u F - _ nom, w z - ......._.................._..................................._.._...._.. �'wrn'�t�r� � s.�ui�+�'i� NOI1V 7MV1 nDOY U3Ve .f,.i,G'wr 'ro♦n .�w w.�u'.i Y __ ,te,a.w•,,. r. .7M s SEVENTH AMENDED PLAT ®� ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sx>ror(ro.P,GO[MM1nQI AXV,ASNSM.thR',ir,t. '• x ' i •naa_uT.elcl Nx no.+•ro rr4>O[r)rceP1L. i ST HdA,l>.[uA'RwTC 4rl>M�> l._..________ .• • ,n wnvv.. I ' LOT 4 � > >.fi'OYn Ilii Y GALENA STREET ti i ♦ i EXHIBIT B. Recent City Actions Regarding the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision 1. City Council Ordinance No. 12/92 EXHIBIT 130) ORDINANCE # 12 (Series of 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE ASPEN WINTER GARDEN AMENDMENTS TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR LOTS A THROUGH I, BLOCK 91, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, the Aspen Winter Garden property has been designated Park (P) with PUD overlay on -the Official Zone District Map; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Winter Garden Conceptual PUD Development Plan received Conceptual approval with conditions from the Aspen City Council in July of 1990; and WHEREAS, the Savanah Limited_Partnership submitted to the Planning Office on September 25, 1991, a Final PUD Development Plan application for the development of an Ice Rink and Park on Lot 6, and requests for Subdivision, Growth Management Exemption for Essential Public Facilities, Waiver of park dedication fees, Waiver of water tap fees, Conditional Use for the skate rental and maintenance building, and Special Review for parking in the Park zone; and WHEREAS, the development application submission has been made in accordance with The First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision (PUD Agreement) which requires that Lot 6 of the property become an Ice Rink and Park; and 1 v � i WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering Department, Water Department, Parks Department, Environmental Health Department, Ice Garden, and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, there is nothing inconsistent between the foregoing described review standards and the type and level of development activity contemplated in the PUD Agreement for the Ice Rink and Park; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application in consideration of the review standards for: final PUD development plan (Section 24-7-903) , Subdivision (Section 24-7-1004) , Growth Management Quota System (Article 8 of Chapter 24) , Special Review J (Section 24-7-404) , Conditional Uses (Section 24-7-301) , and the comments received from referral agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on January 7, 1992, after which it recommended approval with conditions for the Aspen Winter Garden final PUD development plan, Subdivision, Growth Management Exemption for Essential Public Facilities, and approved with conditions Conditional Use, and Special Review for Parking in the Park Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council may grant approvals to final PUD development plan (Section 24-7-903) , Subdivision (Section 24-7- 1004) Growth Management Exemption for Essential Public Facilities (Article 8 of Chapter 24) , and amendment to the PUD Agreement; and 2 V , { WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the applicant' s request for waiver of the water tap fees does not meet the standards established by Ordinance #90-8 , Series of 1990 , whereby tap fees are only waived for 100% employee housing as approved by the City Council and administered by the Aspen/Pitkin County, Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, the PUD Agreement specifically states that Lot 6 shall not be assessed a Park Dedication Fee; and ,*-HEREAS, the City Council, having considered the Planning and zoning Commission' s recommendations for the Aspen Winter Garden, does wish to grant the approvals with conditions. st NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: The City Council finds that the final PUD development plan for the Aspen Winter Garden (ice rink/park) is consistent with the conceptual PUD development plan. Section 2 : The City Council finds that the development meets the standards from Section 24-7-903 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which are not inconsistent with the development plan for the property approved by the PUD Agreement, and does hereby grant final PUD development plan approval with the following conditions: 1. Upon submission of a finalized landscape plan, a detailed description of the proposed irrigation system should be included as well as descriptions and specifications on landscape maintenance plans. 3 2 . If the three spruce trees located at the mid block of the parcel (near Durant Avenue) are removed, they shall be replaced with four (4) 12 ' to 16 ' spruce trees onsite. 3 . The two cottonwood trees located on the corner of Durant Avenue and Galena Street may be removed from the property and replaced with three (3) 12 ' to 16 ' spruce trees onsite. 4 . A "drop off" area shall be designated on the north side of vacated Dean Street and depicted on the final development plan. 5. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the ice rink, the off-street parking spaces located on the north side of vacated Dean Street shall be designated with signage as parking for the Ice Rink/Park users only. Nine (9) parking spaces shall be provided on the north side of vacated Dean Street. 6. Consistent with the original PUD approvals, the open space on Lot 6 shall be utilized and credited to support the open space requirements for the development activity on Lot 5 including any open space in excess of two (2) feet below the existing grade of the adjacent street. 7 . In that Lot 6 (ice rink/park) has been restricted as a community activity center and public ice skating rink pursuant to a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant recorded on 6/29/90 (Book 624 , Page 52) , all special events to be conducted on Lot 6 that exclude the public shall be subject to the city special event approval procedure. Any service of liquor, wine, or beer shall be by special events permit only. 4 8 . The ice rink/park shall be open during the hours of 10 am - 10 pm, seven (7) days per week, throughout the year, unless otherwise approved by the City.' During the winter months commencing on Thanksgiving and continuing through December, January, February, and March, the ice rink shall have no less than eight (8) hours of public skating per day, weather permitting. 9 . The trash access area shall be depicted on the final PUD development plan. 10. An evaluation of the ventilation system for the Ice Rink should be conducted to insure that fumes will not reach unhealthy levels. 11. The applicant should readdress the landscape plan as it relates to the evergreen planting located at the west end of the parcel. 12. The architect should consider the hazards of snow slides from the roof in the roof design. 13 . It is the intent of the operator and the city that the local public use of the ice rink/park shall be encouraged and that the facility be accessible to the local public at reasonable times at reasonable rates. There shall be no special pricing treatment for the individual guests of the Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel over the general public unless approved by the City. Pricing alternatives shall include discounted local passes, group discounts, children' s rate, value sessions, and use packages. Group/business and reserved use of the skating rink will be supplemental and ancillary to public use. The operator shall submit to the City an annual operating plan consisting of a summary of the prior year' s usage by price category and month and use projections with pricing for 5 the coming winter skating season, on or before September 1 of each year. The operator shall be available to meet with the city to review operations and pricing upon the City ' s request. 14 . The food service area for the ice rink/park shall be limited to the concession area which is depicted on the final development plan, except in the case of special events. The concession area shall provide seating for twenty-five (25) people or less. 15. The concession area shall undergo conditional use review prior to operation of the concession area. If conditional use approval is not granted, then the concession area may not be utilized on the site for food service. 16. The ice rink cooling system shall be designed by a professional ?� engineer. 17. In the event that the City should, by February 12 , 1993 , require Savanah to landscape the right-of-way areas along Durant Avenue and Mill Street adjacent to the ice rink/park, then Savanah shall be obligated to landscape the area(s) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director and shall maintain the landscaping in this area. The City and savanah should insure that the landscape plan does not impact existing utilities along Durant Avenue and Mill Street. Costs associated with the relocation or maintenance or repair of any utilities (e.g. water, sewer lines or buried cable) shall be borne by the City. The landscaping along Durant Avenue should extend approximately eight (8) feet from the existing face of the curb and approximately fifteen (15) feet from the existing face of the curb on Mill Street. The sidewalks along 6 Durant Avenue and Mill Street should remain in their present location as depicted on the final development plan. 18 . The operator should utilize CFC-22 in the refrigeration system for the ice rink. Section 3 : Having found that the development meets the standards contained in Division 10 of the Land Use Code, City Council grants approval of Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The curb line along the northern boundary (adjacent to Durant Avenue) shall be maintained at its existing location, unless a curb extension is approved by the city engineer. 2. The plat amendment shall include and indicate the electric transformer easement as needed by the City Electric Department. 3 . The applicant shall consult city engineering for design considerations regarding development within public rights-of way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights-of-way from the city streets and engineering department. 4 . The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way. 5. The sidewalk adjacent to Durant Avenue shall be eight (8) feet in width. 6. The applicant shall relocate and underground all electrical, telephone and cable television lines along vacated Dean Street between Galena Street and Mill Street. The applicant shall also construct new curb and gutter along the entire Lot 6 boundary on Dean Street, a new sidewalk along the property boundary on Galena 7 Street, and a new sidewalk along the boundary on Durant Avenue and Mill Street. 7 . The applicant shall provide a guarantee for one hundred (100) percent of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements in the approved landscape plan as estimated by the city engineer, except that twenty five (25) percent shall be retained by the City until the improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years. 8 . The applicant shall provide a guarantee for one hundred (100) percent of the current estimated cost of public improvements within the public right-of-way to accomodate the development as estimated by the city engineer. Section 4: The City Council finds that the development meets the i standards of- Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code and does hereby grant Growth Management System Exemption for Essential Public Facilities with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is required to mitigate for 2 employees in connection with the ice rink and 1 employee in connection with the concession area. The applicant shall deed restrict three rooms in the Grand Aspen Hotel according to the Category 1 Price and Income Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. At the time of redevelopment of the Grand Aspen Hotel, the applicant shall provide comparable deed restricted replacement housing for the 3 employees. 2 . Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file an appropriate Deed Restriction with the Pitkin County 8 clerk and Recorder for the housing mitigation described above and the Deed Restriction language shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Housing Authority. section 5: All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Section 6: The City Council finds that the . PUD Agreement specifically- states that Lot 6 (Ice Rink and Park) shall not be assessed a Park Dedication Fee and no fee shall be required. Section 7: The City Council finds that the applicant's water tap 1 fee waiver request does not meet the standards for a waiver under J ordinance 90-8 (Series of 1990) , and does hereby deny a waiver of water tap fees. Section 8: Within 180 days of approval by City Council, the PUD Agreement, Final Development Plan and Amended Subdivision Plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure to do so will render any approvals invalid unless an extension to recordation is granted by City Council. The final development plan shall consist of final drawings depicting the site plan, landscape plan, utility plan and building elevations. Section 9 : If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the 9