Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Little Nell.21A85 .,?-"' ----'!., r-;' -. & MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Aspen Planning and Zoning Bill Kane January 21, 1986 Response to Planning Office Scoring of Little Nell GMP Application In response to the Planning Office's scoring of our GMP application, I have the fOllowing comments to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the application. Comments are organized by category and reflect the Planning Office scoring compared to our anticipated score. 1) STORM DRAINAGE A comprehesive storm water run-off plan for the proposed Little Nell base area has been developed. Not only does this plan define the drainage area of the anticipated run-off, and determine the detention storage requirements of the anticipated storm run-off to the existing storm sewer system, but the proposal enables us to. accommodate a worst case scenario for the drainage on theslt.e. This involves a 100% of the Vallejo Gulch water flowing to the Little Nell base site. Even in this worst case scenario, we have provided for the construction of adequate detention, facilities to delay the flow ~f storm water to the City's storm sewer system. Our plan clearly improves the present situation, and therefore, we should receive two points as originally indicated by the City Engineer. '1'he installation of a storm water system such as our anticipates the negative impact that a 100 year storm would have on the City system. While the actual final plan cannot be completed at this time because of additional mapping and the need for a grading plan, our commitments justify a 2.. We have provided for more design and commitment than the GMP process calls for. Planning Office Score = 1 Requested Score = 2 2. FIRE DEPARTMENT The application is criticized for not providing a 12" line to servic~ the proposed new hydrant in Spring St. We were told by the Fire Department that a 6" line should be built. We were never advised,pf the need for a 12" line. The only reference to a 12" line is a Jim Markalunas memo to Alan Richman of December 23, 1986. We were never advised of ~ ~ ,-,. this recommendation. We thought we were in full compliance with ~ wishes of the A.V.F.D. and in fact have agreed to add a 12" line from Hunter to Galena at the Water Department's request which is clearly a system upgrade. Planning Office Score = 1.5 Requested Score = 2 3. ARCHITECTURAL_~~SIGN Our application is significantly downgraded due to: a) Drawings are too schematic b) Shading of Durant St. c) Shading of Spring St. The detail of design exceeds that required by the GMP process. More importantly, the sUbmission requirements for SPA and GMP were carefully reviewed in a pre- application conference. We were never led to believe that the detail proposed was inadequate for GMP review purposes. This is a patently unfair comment. (If too schematic the application should not have been complete). The shading of Durant St. is not a significant problem in that with the set back of the building, the majority of the street receives the noonday sun which will contribute to snowmelt. The impacts are far less than North of Nell due to the set back and sloped roof. Spring Street is not shaded at all during noon hours even on the winter solstice, Dec. 21. The building will not significantly affect snowmelt on Spring St. The building with its street front set backs as well as set backs of the upper stories, especially around Hunter Street, along with sloped roofs and dormers al~eady being praised for its improvements over the North of Nell and Aspen Square "block" look. This building clearly surpasses the "existing neighborhood developments" in those areas in which it is to be graded - namely "size, height, location and building materials." Planning Office Score = 1.5 (Below Standard) Requested Score = 2.5 (Standard - Excellent) ~ -. 4. SITE DESIGN The application is downgraded due to: a) th~ Aspen Skiing Co. failure to pay for entirety of )Hunter and Dean Stre~t malls b) skier drop-off design ASC will pay for 100% of Hunter and the eastern 120' of Dean or roughly 65% of the aCC~SS devoted to malls. ASC should not be required to design and pay for the western end of Dean Street due to its proprietary use by the Tippler and North of Nell. ASC has volunteered to participate in the city sponsored street improvement distr ict. to improve Dean Street. . The district is a much more appropriate political and legal forum for the design of the western (Zone B) end of Dean St. The Skiing Company is not "leaving the cost to neighbors. any more than the city is leaving the cost to neighbors with the formation of an improvement district. In addition, the Skiing Co. is paying a pro rata share in addition to the'lOO% cost for the balance of the streets. All businesses will benefit from the upgrading of the area. The parking and drop-off is specifically designed to avoid back-up and traffic interruption. We were also advised by the City Council that drop-off parking could substitute for open space. Also no set-back is requir~d in the CC zone. No sunounding buildings. Erovided open space on the street. Considering the present site design/uses, we believe the design to be a significant improvement due to 1) relocation of the maintenance facility off the site, 2) significantly improved and expanded pedestrian/skier acCess and milling space on the site, 3) utilities all underground, 4) bike and pedestrian paths. Clearly when one reads the criteria for site design one must realize the applicant meets or exceeds all of those criteria. Planning Office Score = 1 (Major Design Flaw) Requested Score = 2.5 (Standard - Excellent) 5. PARKING AND CIRCULATION The application is downgraded due to: a) inadequate parking (unusually low demand rates) , ,-" ~ b) removal of p'ublic pai:lb.ng c) traffic p'r obI eIhs. due to dr6p~&ff qeEjiglJ u(anfSe1 used as an aig,ument to d'o\i'ngraae the project u ~ "s ITE DESIGN") d) problems created ISy tltclli desfgn for Ti~pl:e r'~n The parking delltaridiatHoswere prepared by TDAof Seattle, WaShington.' These riur!l'bers' c6rre~pond to the numbers that were accepted bi: t;he COmInllhity ~11 the l\:speri, Mountain Lodge (.7 spaces pe.t lodc;JerqClm). we ,do nots~e. how, the Planning Off'ice w,641d accept'those figures for ,thei Aspen Mountain Lodge, andfirid; oursdeficierlt. The retail' and restaurant pukin9ratids'l>lel:e,evalllate.~ a::; ::;ki accessories in the' CC Zone dist'dct.' ,..In the CC Zone district, there illllo o,ff":St~'~e:t parking rEH:atiired based on long established pla'hnirig r'easong.' The plans for tne\'iest'enCl' of Dean Stre.et are not part of the application (see' Lanas'6a<pe" D'e'::;ign Platt) and should' not b'e a' basis for' dowrig't:ading\' Drop-off issue'should b~'iuse'd': in either section "b" or "d" but not both.,' It. is unfair to't1ike points away under multiple. categor ies' due to one; issue'; We aCknowledgethe"'sk:iet' drop:"'off in front of the build~ng, while mostl;( 01'1 o~r. pro~eFty, . is p9t the perfect solution. However, we"do noJ:;.belJ.eve either the DurC!nt: Street. circulation, tbe'parld:nsproposed for' the project or." the service vehicle aeces!,! ai'e;'a1= all jnade(juate and in, fact' theY',ate big improvement::s~,At 'the V(~ry' least the "quallty or improvement to desi9n" isacceptabie if not excellent. Planning Office Sc:gte=l(Major Flaw) Requested Score='2 (Acceptable) 6. AMENI'l"IES,'PROVIDED 'FOR GrrESTS (refers to Section 3b) If there ,'is any ateai'inwhich full points should be ,given itisbere. It is ?leat ,'from the plans the Little Nell baseatea bar wil'(be.rel5'Uilt in about the same location wi,thbettet'fad'i'1:ities and views. A look at the plans leads 'one. to the'ectS't!c6nclusion that there will be s ignificant'improvement 'artd'addi t ioristo the dining facilities, restaurants:, bars "and banquet facilities. Plarih:in~ Off icescoil!"~ ':2 )Acc~ptable) Requested.ScO re"io"J '(ExcEfr'l'ent)' . ,1"'"'\ r-, 7. BONUS POINTS We request that bonus points be granted to the project due to the following. a) relocation of currently inappropriate land use b) improvement of skier and pedestrian arrival experience to Aspen Mountain due to the off-site construction of Hunter Street c) Improvement of skier services 1) Ticketing 2) Ski Schoo,l 3) Restrooms 4) Formalized drop-off 5) Lift service to upper mountain 6) Improved pool service d) excellent building des19n e) reconstruction and improvment of utilities to include water, sewer, drainage, electric, fire protection ...--- " ~~-"~~~, - --' I - - D~[g@rn D~rn/m '" I, JAN I 3 1986;! II ,i ij J V CRA'W"FORD PETROLEUM. COMPANY 3401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD . LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90803 TELEPHONE 433-7484 AREA CODE 213 January 9, 1986 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 I ~I Re: Problems with Pedestrian Mallon Dean Street and Funding of Same Gentlemen: I own condominiums in the Tipple Inn, 505 Dean Street. I have reviewed the Aspen Skiing Company's SPA plan, its application for encroachment into Dean street and Peter Forsch's December 18, 1985 modification letter to Alan Richmond, and attended'ithe Aspen Lodge Improvement District Task Force meeting on December 27th. I will be out of state on January 21 and request that copies of this letter be distributed to each Commissioner prior to that meeting. At the aforesaid Task Force meeting, I expressed concern with the ASC plan and renderings, showing the Tipple Inn's private property as well as access to same, along Dean Street, completely "malled- over". Peter Forsch said he had sent a letter to Alan Richmond which solved this (December 18) but was unwilling to make any changes in the ASC plan at this time. His letter is appreciated but does not address the complete problem. The Tipple Inn's parking along the north side of our building is on our private property and is the only parking~vailable to Tipple Inn residents, as parking on the south side of the building is shared on a complicated basis with the Tippler/Copper Kettle, Tipple Wood subdivision and Tipple Lodge. We must park perpendicular to Dean Street in order to accommodate the necessary number of cars, necessitating driving in on Dean Street, with a different turning radius for each parking space. Furthermore, Dean Street is utilized for access to our dumpster for trash removal and potential fire and emergency vehicle use. The Tippler/Copper Kettle also uses Dean .. , Aspen Planning & Zoni~, Commission January 9, 1986 Page 2 ,-" Street for their deliveries and trash removal from their dumpster and has informed me they cannot move this operation to the south side of their building, but I will let Sirus address this. To prohibit ingress and egress to our private property would be tantamount to inverse condemnation and would leave the Tipple Inn owners no recourse but to take appropriate legal action to pro- tect our rights. I request that the plan be corrected immediately in a manner acceptable to the Tipple Inn Board of Governors, and suggest: 1) one lane pedestrian mall on the north side of Dean Street; 2) full width mall but with trees, etc. spaced such that condo occupants and necessary vehicles still have access; 3) if all else fails, a shorter mall---the west end of same terminating at the Tippler/Copper Kettle delivery entrance. At the aforesaid Task Force meeting, I asked the ASC representa- tive who was going to pay for the proposed pedestrian mall on Dean Street, and was surprised to learn that the ASC does not plan to do so, considering it is something desired by the community in general and the commercial sector. This appears to be contrary to its plan application wherein it views Dean Street as an entrance way to its property and as "a pedestrian access and drop-off for Aspen Mountain". In further conversation with Jeffrey Winston, President of Winston Associates, hired by the City at the Task Force meeting, he enumerated the various alternatives for funding, most of which included a heavy alloca- tion to the property fronting the improvement, which means that the North of Nell and Tipple Inn owners would be paying the lion's share of the Dean Street mall. In most improvement districts, the improvements fronting a property greatly benefit that property, but here this is not true. The Tipple Inn owners will be faced with increased pedestrian traffic in front of their property and the resulting noise, littering and possible vandalism cannot be construed as desirable. I anticipate great resistance from the Tipple Inn owners to paying a disproportionate share of the cost and urge that the expense of the pedestrian mall be borne by those requesting and benefiting from same. JBC:fm cc: Alan Richmond, Peter Forsche, Jay Hammond, Gideon Kaufman, Lee Miller, J. D. Muller ."^ _ -.;.-. !",/ _e !"""'\ t""'\, ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE. AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER. BOX 1248 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 . PHONE 303/925-1220 September 16, 1985 City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Council Members, Attached for your review prior to our meeting on September 23rd, are the following: 1. The application for S.P.A. Conceptual Plan Approval as sub- mitted to P & z. 2. A background piece that explains the submission, the issues and our goals. 3. A press release, fact sheet, illustrative site plan, and rendering. Together, I believe they explain the goals and intentions of the Aspen Skiing Company for the Little Nell base. We look forward to a productive series of meetings to determine the future of the base of Aspen Mountain. P:::tL~ Peter Forsch Project Manager PF:dm / ASPEN MOUNTAIN . BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN . SNOWMASS . BRECKENRIDGE r-.. r-.. BACKGROUND 2i years ago the Aspen Skiing Company began planning for a hotel at the base of Little Nell. That hotel was conceived principly using some economic parameters and, as initially planned, was too big for the site. Sensing neighborhood and community objections, that plan was never submitted and the whole concept lay dormant for a couple of years while we assessed the possibilities for that area especially in light of the capital infusion that is taking place up on the mountain. The current project before Council has been designed from the outside in. That is, we looked at the area; the surrounding uses and size of buildings; community needs, desires. perceptions and views. The result was a building that fit the site. From there we worked on the functions within that building. Even though other projects have recently received approvals we feel there remains a need for a small, luxury hotel in conjunction with a whole base area redevelopment. In addition to the hotel, the goals for the base include: 1. Moving the maintenance facility out of the base and up the hill. 2. Cleaning up the entire Little Nell site by rebuilding the base facilities and adding to those facilities such new or improved services as ski school and guest service offices, public restrooms, public lockers and ski storage. 3. Provide for ski area administration, ticket, and adjustment offices. 4. Create a grand entrance plaza that is an appropriate arrival experience to the mountain. 5. Create/maintain the base area vitality and excitement with improved food and beverage service. 6. Build either a detachable quad chairlift or a gondola to eliminate congestion and create better access to the mountain for all levels of skiers. The Aspen Skiing Company can bring to this project its considerable resources to insure a timely and quality development not subject to the financing uncertainties. " -. CITY OF ASPEN LAND uSE PROCESS ,-", The application to the City for conceptual approval and S. P .A. boundary change is unique because of the adoption of a new Specially Planned Area (S.P.A.) ordinance. S.P.A. is an overlay zoning applicable only to three sites in Aspen (Little Nell base, Rio Grande property, and the Aspen Meadows property). All these sites are deemed sensitive and critical to the community. The S.P.A. conceptual plan review process affords the community the opportunity, through its City Council and the P & Z. to review the submission to determine if it should be given the go-ahead to proceed to the next steps in the process which is precise plan and G. M. P. allocation. We are now seeking conceptual approval. This step in the process is to determine whether there is anything in this submission that should not be conceptually approved. or any impacts that cannot be mitigated. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this application, and, at its meeting on September 3. 1985, recommended to the City Counci I that it approve the conceptual plan subject to certain conditions that P & Z also recommends the City Council adopt. We expect City Council to review thoroughly P & Z's recommendations and add to, delete or amend them. With these conditions attached, City Council will then decide whether to approve or deny the conceptual plan as submitted. CONCEPTUAL PLAN - WHAT WE PROPOSE At the September 23rd Council meeting we will have a formal slide presentation of our plans, however, I have attached a copy of our press release, fact sheet, illustrative site plan and rendering for your information. The hotel will occupy most of the eastern part of the site with ground floor commercial and skier services fronting Durant Street and wrapping around the building to the west fronting what will be the Hunter and Dean Street pedestrian plazas. The area under the lift terminal will be part of the commercial/skier services/ ski area administrative spaces. - 2- - i""'. i"'" Our application al~v asks for a boundary adjustme. ,to the S.P.A. overlay to include the flat area at the base of the hill. This is an order to create a unified parcel for planning and development purposes that can be taken through the land use processes as one piece, and which will contain the total base area proposed for redevelopment including the lift terminals at the base. Technically, the purpose of the hearing scheduled for September 23, 1985, is for City Council to determine whether the conceptual plan as submitted complies with the requirements set forth in the newly adopted S. P .A. ordinance that allows approval for a conceptual plan. Basically, this is a planning determination as to whether the uses and structures, from a conceptual standpoint, proposed for the site are appropriate. We are confident that most everyone would agree that the nature of the uses and structures we propose are extremely appropriate for the site, and in keeping with its historic usage. There is, however, another element that will be considered at this hearing. While it is not technically a part of this stage of the S. P .A. review process. it is most critical to our ability to proceed with our plans for the area. For this project to be built, we have to receive a G.M.P. quota allocation under the G.M.P. lodge competition for the number of units proposed for the hotel. We will be asking the City to borrow from future quotas so that we may have our quota all at once and know we will be able to build the project. This is the critical issue because the City Council must determine and give us some feedback on the public policy question of whether it wants to grant future year allocations. The Growth management Plan (B .M. P.) was developed in the mid 70's to control the boomtown type growth that could be so harmful to our valley and resort. To date, it has worked relatively well, as we have not experienced the rapid. sometime shoddy overdevelopment that has occurred in other communities. However, one of the drawbacks is that because of the highly controlled and limited development, especially in the lodging sector. there has - 3 - ,...." r--. been little competition 01" incentive to upgrade lodging ,,,,alities . With an annual quota of 35 units per year. unless the developer plans a very small project, the developer has had to come back in year after year to compete for enough units to begin a project. This simply does not work from a development or economic perspective. The City Council realized this, and in 1983, awarded future year allocations to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project which in essence awarded the quotas for the years 1983 through 1987. In determining that the quota through 1987 was utilized, the City decided that even though the developers of the Aspen Mountain Lodge were going to eliminate two lodges. containing a total of 1111 units, from the lodging inventory by deed restricting them for us as employee housing, this number of units was not credited back to the lodge inventory. The Planning Office had recommended that the lodge units lost from the lodging pool should have been credited to available lodge quota. If this were done, there would be quota available right now in 1985. Even if we must assume that the City Council will continue to adhere to this position and, therefore, quota will not be available until 1987. awarding quotas for these future years would be appropriate under the circumstances of our proposed project. We anticipate 1987 as the most optimistic date for groundbreaking for the Little Nell hotel, and a two year construction period. This means the doors would open some time in 1989. The hotel has 96 rooms. Thus, if we utilize a quota of 35 units per year for 1987, 1988, and 1989 there is a total of 105 units available which is more than we need for a 96-room hotel. The awarding of the quota is consistent with when that growth will come on line. But no matter how the quota is computed. and whether it is future quota to 1987, 1989 or 1991; the fort of the matter is that there are significant community benefits to this project. We feel that the City Council would not be borrowing from the City's future, but instead insuring its future. - lj - ~ ^ SUMMARY This overview is not able to cover all of the technical issues, details and other opinions involved with our proposed Little Nell project. I hope, a fair representation of the basic facts and issues. - 5 - myriad It is, -' I""'. ,......, " ~ ASPEN AMERJCA"S "'. SKI RESORT SNOWMASS .. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY INTRODUCES PLANS FOR BASE REDEVELOPMENT ASPEN SKIING COMPANY Post Office Box t 248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303/925-1220 Aspen Skiing Company has initiated planning for redevelopment of facilities at Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain. The redevelopment is one of the most significant in-town projects the Company has embarked upon in its history due to the impact it will have on the visitor to the Aspen community. Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain serves as a gateway for skiers and summer visitors and with the proposed improvement will showcase the quality of both the resort and the mountain through careful and innovative planning and integration of land use elements. Aspen Mountain Buttermilk Mountain Snowmass Proposed for the site is a 96 room luxury hotel, restaurant and commercial space and improved skier services facilities. In addition to the overall base area improvement one of the more significant details of the redevelopment include relocation of heavy equipment and grooming vehicle maintenance shop to an on-mountain location. This will reduce noise and unsightly operations in the heart of the tourist environment. Considerable landscaping to create attractive and functional pedestrian access to lifts and base area activities are planned for Hunter, Dean and Durant Street areas. Additionally, Aspen Skiing Company plans to build either a detachable quad (four passenger) chairlift or six passenger gondola on the Little Nell site to upgrade and increase lift capacity out of the area. Easier and more attractive access to retail and commercial shops will result from careful design that will facilitate pedestrian traffic flow. Among the services that will be located in the base area are lockers and ski storage, ski rentals and repairs, ski school and skier services offices, special events areas, and public restrooms. The popular Little Nell restaurant and deck area will be expanded and vastly improved. The hotel at Little Nell is conceived to be the ultimate in accommodations and service, ranking it among the best in North America. Aspen Skiing Company plans to take advantage of the expertise and experience its owners bring to the project in designing the hotel and its operation with the highest quality guest experience in mind. NEWS RELEASE The entire base area redevelopment and hotel will ultimately enhance both the efficiency and image of the area and reduce impacts on land use while creating an attractive, modern, high quality gateway to the premier resort in the United States. . , I"". .'-'. LITTLE NELL BASE AREA AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT Location: Description: Proposed uses: Architect: Site Planners: Legal Council: Project Manager: Proposed start date: Proposed construction period: Fact Sheet Little Nell at the Base of Aspen Mountain, Specially Planned Area (S.P.A.) Commercial Core zoning. 4 story building at the base of Little Nell, Aspen Mountain which will include a hotel and hotel accessory spaces along with commercial, food and beverage, and ski area operations facilities. - 77,718 sq. ft. hote.1 and common space - 15,668 sq. ft. hotel subgrade space - 16.078 sq. ft. commercial (replacing existing 13,396 sq. ft. commercial) - 9,976 sq. ft. ski area facilities - 77 subgrade parking spaces Improvement will require relocation of maintenance shop to an on-mountain site. Hotel lodging in 96 luxury rooms Commercial retail space Restaurant and deck space Skier facilities ski school skier services offices food and beverage special events accommodations child care center lockers and ski storage rentals and repair public restrooms Larry Yaw, Hagman Yaw Architects Ltd. Design Workshop Inc. Gideon Kaufman Peter Forsch, Aspen Skiing Company Optimum - Spring 1987 20 month construction ",...." ,-" I ~"! iO. . j ~~ .~ I . ~ ~ - . j - ~~ ~Eo 3" -, J:W!=- . ::.Jw! ~ !mEw f , , -':'--i rIll tm ~ ~ llD, llD ~ :(B"'" e-"""~ .. i..... \_, . , , - ," . - -. .::~~~~~--"- ~~_. :...0'_----~--~_-,.__= ",.__:~ ",_ " ~: ~~~~'~~~';-~~=-'~fi -,3 _.'.': , ~.~~~~ ..-- --. '''." ~/ ' '\~~~~~- --?.--C'~~ _ ";~ ~~'~ '''-- - ~~', ~ ~. "'~~~II~T."1~~--;;:,,~~~,:,- """~"I~~' .'~" ',~ "', , ,'_ ~~~, "'\~"~'~~"~~~~""""" "0, '1;" ~~,\:\\' "\'\~~~ ~'" , ~ ~ ~ '\~:\~~ \3;~\~ '" ~ "~l,*~\<<\\\, " .. ~\\ \\\\\ 1:'<'\ \:,\ \, r, :>< .i>. ';\Y ',' \\,' , lOT \';\"\ ;"':'';\ '\.> w tt) > ~Z ; a: " tt) !-it . ~~ . ;; ~cn ~ "L! --1 i j '., S ,'.I., ~JF '-.... , rw ',';;l:, ~.I,',', , ~\~ 81,::1,," " ~ , 11 / . r"' ^ .....,,'"' ~ "" ^ . 8RADFORD PUBLISHING CO.. DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS th~ site rezoned.0n ~he event that The Little Annie Ski C~ ~ - '----------..-/ tion, fails to obtain a buiding permit 'or begin construction or alternatively if the corporation loses its lease on the property by \ \ \ \ I I voluntary or involuntary action the property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" shall be rezoned to the R-15/PUD zone district auto- I i I I ! City ) , / mati cally and without a further act by the City Council of the of Aspen. Section 4 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por- tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti- tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 " N-IJ be held on this ordinance on the /"/" That a public hearing day of UyJ;' ,~l J , 1980, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fif- teen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once within a newspaper of general circulation within the City. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meet- iny held on the /Oo/-lJ day of YJ;~ , 1980. j/1J~ H. Michael Behrendt Mayor Pro Tem ~=f"i '~ 1 '"'llru<"AS, ~Planning and Zoning Cor:uw""\;, , ion has co '. n 1........... . .. 'nSl'_1:t~J. ~ zonin\J amendment and has recommended to the City Council that t:,,, property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto should be r~zo~<:'J RR-PUD and that the property described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto should be rezoned R-6-PUD; NOW, TIlEREj,'ORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen shall be amended such that from and after the effective date of this ordin- ance the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto shall be zoned RR-PUD, and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen' Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be amended). Section 2 That the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen shall be amended such that from and after the effective date of this ordin- ance the property described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto shall be zoned R-6-PUD, and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be amended). Section 3- This zoning amendment is conditioned upon the applicant, The Little Annie Ski Corporation, commencing, on or before December 31, 1983, the construction of a ski area with a base lift facility on " .,.....", r-, ~, CERTIFICATE OF MAILING J hereby certify that on this ~ day of , 198~; a true and correct copy of the attached Notic of Public Hearing was deoosited in the United States mail. first-class oostaae nrenai d. to the- adjacent property owners as indicated on the attac11ed-list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. "--r;;(/h ~/ ~ )~~~~Ii) N~t5:lrel1i ~ " . ,-, ,.-,. FUBLIC NOTICE RE: LITTLE NELL CONCEPl'UAL SPA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado on September 23, 1985 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.H., in Aspen City Council Chambers, 130 S. Gal e na St reet, Aspen, Col ora do to consider an a ppl i cation submitted by the Aspen Skiing Company. The applicant requests Conceptual SPA approval for the re-development of The 'Little Nell Base Area. The SPA plan includes a 96 room hotel, reconstruction of the commercial soace at the base area, ski area administrative spaces, skier suppo~t services, and new base lifts. Also included in the application is a reconfiguration of the SPA overlay boundary on the base area. For further information, contact the Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado ext. 225. Aspen/Pitkin Planning 81611 (303) 925-2020, sLRUJ,.i.gm L. StirUll.9 Mayor, City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Published in the Aspen Times on September 5, 1985 City of Aspen Account. .~ ~ .-,.- CERTIFICATE OF MAILING .,ll hereby certify that on this -'" ~ day of 198~, a true and correct copy of tile attached Notice Hearing was deposited in the United states mail, fir -class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the aforementioned public notice. J.n~EvJ;-- - ,. 1"'-. ~ , . ~... PUBLIC NOnCE RE: LITTLE NELL SPA BOUNDARY CHAm E NOfICE IS HEREBY GlVEN that a public hearing will be held on August 20, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider a proposal by the Aspen Skiing Company to expand the area at the base of the Little Nell Ski Run which is designated with an SPA overlay. The SPA area is proposed to be extended Over approximately one (1) acre of land zoned C- Conservation. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 225. s/Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission =============~=========================:==================:===== Published in the Aspen Times on August 1, 1985. City of Aspen Account. , I""', !~ .~ .. 1 'ftl . Pitkin County Title, Inc. hereby certifies that a search of the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, reveals that the names and addresses of the owners of real property' within three hundred (300) feet of the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto are as follows, to wit: A ,,/ H:J _,'1- ssoc1at1On ,J 1 (Jn/T;:) 1. North of Nell Condominium 555 E. Durant St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 2. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 43 3. Aspen Square Condominium Association ~D~ 617 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 4. Aspen Alps Condominium Association vf~ 700 Ute AVe. Aspen, Colorado 81611 (:n ~ ltJr..) -Is. City Market. Inc. P.O. Box 729 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 1,\:L v{,. Mall Condominium Association Durant Colorado /S3<ml-k Durant 710 E. Aspen, 81611 Condominium Association /:26 (;~ 4-$ 7. Chateau Chaumont 731 E. Durant Aspen, Colorado 81611 ../8. Ajax Mountain Associates, c/o Stephen J. Marcus Box 1709 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lodge Condominium Association ~ Galena Colorado 81611 Ltd., a Colorado LImited Partnership 9. Tipple 747 S. Aspen. V<o. Aspen Skiing Company Box 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ~,~ 11. Woodstone Assoc., a Colorado General Partnership 709 E. Durant Aspen, Colorado 81611 4, 12. Ss Ronald M. Popeil 1292 Monte Cielo Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 -'11s:,; 13. Kettle Corporation Box 8080 Aspen, Colorado 81612 o o " ~ .""" /-" '14, George T. Anderman and El~cn A. Donaldson < 5U6 Denver Center Bldg. 1776 Lincoln St. I4\.IJ>ll Denver, Colorado 80203 .nt,1.)$ 15. William Joseph Yarbrough fl1001 1010 Wilder Ave. Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 j 16. Aspen Grove Associates P.O. Box 3421 Aspen, Colorado 81612 J 17. Stein Eriksen Box 1245 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ~18. Perry Pollock P.O. Box 950 Aspen, Colorado 81612 /It,,,,,, 19. William C. Randall 2625 Towndale Ct. Minneapolis, Minnesota (lo'1 {l 55431 ~ 20. John H. Roberts, Jr. 114 West .Collllllerce 3rd Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 ~~~S 21. Aspen Mountain Joint Venture, a Colorado Joint Venture c/o Holland & Hart 600 East Main St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 22. Tipple Inn Condominium Association 23. Chateau Dumont Condominium Association 24. Durant Galena Condominium Association 25. Park Trust 26. Aspen Alps West Condominium Association C. ,,,-..' .... r" ~ " EXHIBIT "A" A parcel of land situated in the City of Aspen, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Block 102 in said City of Aspen; th~nce S 75009'11" E 220.00 feet along the North line of said Block 102 to a point 10.00 feet East of the Northwest corner of Lot H of said Block 102; thence S 14050'49" W 263.26 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of Lot 21 of the Ute Addition to said City of Aspen: thence N 38035'40" W 53.53 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 21: thence S 45021'00" W 124.28 feet along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 21 to a point on Line 1-9 of the original Aspen Townsite: thence N 39057'22" W 231.18 feet along said Line 1-9; thence S 14050'49" W 66.78 feet: thence N 75009'11" W 143.00 feet; thence N 14050'49" E 112.00 feet: thence S 75009'11" E 82.76 feet: thence N 14050'49" E 10.00 feet to a point on the South line of Dean Avenue: thence S 75009'11" E 60.24 feet along said South line to a point on the West line of vacated Hunter Street: thence N 14050'49" E 50.00 feet along said West line: thence S 75009'11" E 37.50 feet to a point on the center line of said vacated Hunter Street: thence N 14050'49" E 100.00 feet along said center line: thence S 75009'11" E 37.50 feet to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING: A tract of land more particularly described as follows: The Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacated Hunter Street, Westerly of and adjacent to Block 102, City and Townsite of Aspen, )CONTlNUED NEXT PAGE) \. .. """,.... /"", i~, < between the Southerly line of Durant Avenue and the Northerly line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street va- cated by the City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947, recorded in the Public records of Pitkin County on March 17, 1959 under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at Page 101. """"1"""\ PRBSERlM.'ION NOlES: MULTI-YEAR ALLOCATION ISSUE Note: The five planners in the Planning Office met to discuss the Planning Office's position on this project. There was unanimous agreement that the redevelopment of Little Nell is a good idea but that the timing of the hotel project is contrary to the concept of the GMP and should be denied. We felt that the project could be approved within the system but should not and that if we do, we should face facts and eliminate the lodge quota system. 1. I don't think it is appropriate to turn this issue into a numbers game, and yet this is what I think will happen if we follow the direction identified by Al at the last meeting. 2. The issue of whether or not to go further into the future with allocations shouldn't be decided on the basis of whether indivi- dual residential or lodge owners have removed units from the tourist inventory. The issue shouldn't be decided on whether the applicants are requesting units from the 1987 quota or the 1989 quota and when the facility is projected to open relative to those years. 3. In the opinion of the Planning Office, the real issue we are deciding has to do with what is the basic reason for having a growth management system and how does this proj ect affect that rationale. 4. As noted in the GMPP, "growth management would be a meaningless exercise in the manipulation of sterile numbers if some higher goal were not in mind." The goal of the plan was system balance -- to avoid the boom and bust cycles that take us across maj or thresholds where the government has to intervene to make up service deficiencies in a time frame in which it cannot respond. 5. The real reason for setting quotas is to establish a growth phasing mechanism which insures that proj ects do not happen at the same time which would profoundly change the community before the public sector can intervene and respond to the service problems the growth has caused. 6. Despite this philosophy, we know that there are problems in this community right now which we are not yet solving. Rather than present an endless list, we can simply look at a couple of the biggest: o Highway entrance to town; o Parking -- intercept lots vs. downtown structures; o Air quality; and I"'" .~ o Bus terminal. 7. Accelerating our growth rate will do nothing to solve these problems. This application certainly doesn't provide solutions in any of these areas. yet will clearly accelerate the need to solve the problems. Furthermore, if we haven't answe red the se problems in an era of moderate growth, it will likely be even more complex to find solutions after a boom. 8. The decision to implement a phasing mechanism represented a conscious choice by the community that growth or approval of new development would not be the method to solve the community's problems. Since that time, we have found that growth can solve some of our problems, particularly the renovation of facilities which have fallen into disrepair. This project certainly offers us the chance to repair our mountain base, just as the Aspen Mountain POD allowed' us to fix our lodge district and the Hotel Jerome our historical hotel. 9. The question the community must decide is whether in the name of this renovation or renaissance as it has been called by some, we also want to grow as quickly as the market seems to want, and what this will mean to all of us. Many in town seem to have forgotten what it is like to live in a boom growth period and have been lulled into a false sense of security about growth. This summer we have seen several large reconstruction proj ects downtown. These projects will be dwarfed by the potential impacts of the PUD, Jerome Addition and Little Nell proposal. 10. You have just approved the largest tourist project in the history of the town and we are in the process of occupying the largest residential complex in our history, and we have yet to experience the impacts of either. If you don't take this opportunity to pause and see what this proj ect will do, when will you pause? What will you say to the proponents of the Aspen Meadows develop- ment who are watching this process and who are sure to follow on its heels? 11. The GMPP recogniz ed the interdependent and cyclical nature of growth, how lodge growth begets commercial and ski area develop- ment, which influence residential development, and so on. Do you really believe that once this project is built, the current cycle will end? Or will you have only compressed the time frame for bringing on the next cycle of growth, further affecting our environment and leaving the government even further behind in its response to that growth? 12. One of the arguments I have heard is that since this proj ect is r-. ,~. coming on line in 1988 and will be using the 1987-89 quota, it is essentially right on target. The thing to remember is that while in the early years of the quota system no lodging was built, we used that trend to justify excess allocations to commercial projects and the construction of Castle Ridge and Centennial. You should remember that overall, the City of Aspen and its surrounding area have grown at the rate expected by the quotas, despite having virtually no lodge growth. Therefore, it is suspect to use the lack of lodge growth as a justification for accelerating its rate today. 13. GMPP noted that "growth is composed of a variety of elements with connections that are only poorly understood." Since we recognize that we can't accurately predict the effects of growth on the town, we have chosen to grow at a regulated rate so that the mistakes we make will not be compounded. Having three major proj ects going on downtown, the Aspen Mountain Lodge, the Hotel Jerome and now, the Little Nell Hotel will not give us the chance to monitor what the effect of that growth rate will be. It also means that we will be adding to congestion and to our problems in that portion of town with the most problems already. Finally, it means that we may move ahead so quickly with new projects that we don't have the time to identify the solutions which we are foregoing on these sites (Le., a pUblic/private parking struc- ture at Little Nell). 14. Some have argued that when a proj ect like this is proposed, the system has to bend to it because of the opportunities it presents to improve the town. We do not want to be the villain, but we do continue to see value in the concept of phased growth. When we were presented with the opportunity to improve the heart of our lodge district, the system accommodated that project. To have the next proj ect follow so closely seems to us to be the wrong timing. We know that our GMP is intended to provide for growth., but it doesn't yet address the ultimate size of the community. Until we can feel comfortable that GMP is taking us to some end point, we have to see an acceleration of the growth rate as taking us closer to the time when the town is built out and rezonings for increased density are required. Therefore, we feel it is reasonable to approach build-out at a managed rate so we can learn how to cope with this end state problem. Furthermore, we hope at some point to be able to implement a decreasing growth rate so that we don't keep developing a construction)development industry which will be a lobbyist for future growth a,d infini- tum. 15. I can make all types of numbers-oriented arguments about why we shouldn't approve the hotel at this time. I can identify the ,'-"'. ~, projects coming on line and the 350 rebuilt and 300 new units of which they are comprised. I can talk about how we changed the lodge quota from 18 to 35 units in 1982, in part to deal with the attrition of lodge units of the early lJ970s, and how this discounts the argument posed by AI. I can point to the fact that with the Blue Spruce and Aspen Inn having been closed for some time, the real impact of the new lodge on the town will be 285 and not 172 new units. I can refer you to the pending develop- ment at Aspen Highlands, where 180 units are already approved at the Highlands Inn, and 300 more are being proposed by the Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation. 16. Despite all of this data, I just don I t think any of it is what this issue is really about. The issue is really one of rate of change, the effects of that change and the ability of the town to accommodate it. You have in your hands the tool to insure that the decisions of this community for the past 15 years to control its rate of growth are respected and retained. I think you should use it and not give away the future any more quickly than necessary. The quotas are the only way we have to address the quality of life issues which are of such importance to this town, and once we give this tool away, we no longer have control over what has made Aspen the special place it is. SUIUlARY c.1-. The basic questions which P&Z should answer in reaping its decision are as follows: 1. Does the government have the ability to solve community problems (especially transportation and air quality) at an accelerated rate to address an accelerated growth rate? 2. How do you properly handle the nex big development proposal (Aspen Meadows) when you have just, ' r ot s ~? u\"""\,\~ I>< 1'-,,<-,u_.Q';,~ \4>", ",-y" ,,'" M.......... O--.o-\-A> '? 3. What is the effect of this proj ect on growth in other sectfg-ft~, such as commercial and ski area development? What w ill be the effect of the other maj Or proj ects now underway (Centennial, Aspen Mountain POD) on these sectors and future grQwth cycles? 0 Lv_\\ ,\ Px... ~ S"'~ <;;......." -\-o""'~ I>"'-"''-''>''~ \se. -.J~I\.y" "'1Lle.-, "",,-u~'-1L? 4. Can you still have a growth management system when you have major projects that are exempt from the system (Centennial and Hotel Jerome) and others which get allocations that take us so far into the future that we no longer are truly phasing growth (Aspen Mountain PUD, Little Nell)? AR.5 ~ .-, 130 asp SPEN CITY reet 611 ;;. >:. ':~ MEMORANDUM n .~llT , U ro t\\D ro @~.r:(!:, DATE: July 11, 1985 TO: Planning Office FROM: City Attorney RE: Little Nell SPA Conceptual Submission Since this is an application for "conceptual" SPA approval, we do not have significant comments at this time. However, with regard to the representation set forth on Page 4, Paragraph 3, pertaining to the Hunter and Dean Street access, you should be advised that the City's easements on the Stan Johnson property are being chal- lenged in the context of a quiet title action brought by Stan Johnson. You may review the complaint in my office at your con- venience. PJT/mc 5C cc: Barry Edwards ~. , Recorded 3:35 PH ~~rch 26, 1979 Reception # ~jL~~," '. Loretta Banner Recoi""""'r ~~ ..365 PACE'352 EASEMENT AGREEMENT ~HIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ~~ day of '- ~~ ' 1979, between THE CITY OF APjfN' COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to ~s "Grantor"), and THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter l'<eferred to as "Grantee"). RECITALS 1. Grantors are the owners of the following described real estate in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: A tract of land, comprlslng 0.14 acres, Qore or less, more particularly described as follows: ?he Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacated Hunter Street, westerly of and adjacent to Block 102, City and Townsite of Aspen, between the southerly line of Durant Avenue and the northerly line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street vacated by City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947 recorded in the pUblic records of Pitkin County on March 17, 1959, under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at Page 101. . THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived hereby, and other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed by the parties as follows: A G R E E MEN T 1. Grantors do hereby grant and convey to Grantee a perpetual non-exclusive easement for purposes of ingress and egress over and across Grantor's property to and from Durant Avenue and Aspen Mountain, the right to park vehicles upon the parking area existing on Grantor's property and the right to inst~ll and maintain ski corrals and related facilities utilized in connection with Grantee's skiing operations; PROVIDED, rtOWEVER, that Grantee's right to utilization and enjoyment of the above-described easement shall be restricted so as not to interfere with Grantor's right of utilization and enjoyment contained in that deed recorded in Book 192, Page 296, in the records of the Pitkin County, Colorado, and reserved in Ordinance #53, Series of 1947, of the City of Aspen, Colorado. . , """ , , ~, _365 PAcr353 2. There 1s reserved to Grantor the right to utilization and enjoyment of the above-described easement provided the same shall not interfere or be inconsistent with the rights herein granted. 3. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, all of the provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Grantee. Dated:~~/ 11'~r / By Stacy Mayor ,dl.y ~ ATTEST: ~~I~ City Cle K THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION ~ated: March 21. 1979 .,..<~~'~C ;; ~.". ", '. .' ,'. ; t:!iTTEST.. ..: ., By / Its "", 1.--:' ./" /7 :;"'?".;t:-.::"~-----. Vice'President-General Manager , t:I::: i, -2- I , , , ' , , .,1 . ,.,...., ,.,...., , -365 rAcr354 STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss.: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before "- /l}arrtL- me this ;;7 day of , 1979 by Stacy Standley III, as Mayor of THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, and by Kathryn " S. Koch, as City Clerk of THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. /',)' \\ ~fl,:.;<:-,..--.. ~ ,,.,;-, r.> . , ~ \~ UIJ'l/ji' :: /"-.;-~-~- : . ':.Jl ,.. ~ "," f r' I \ ',' ":." -;.... L.)I,... " ".... . --, (, c " . ""'" f Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expireS: f' " ", f.:: ' ,~ .{ c;'}':',.:.:o:" ;:. .., " H' , UP~/j'r~~ Notary lic STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN) ss.: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21st day of March , 1979 by Tom Richardson Assistant as Vice President and Luetta Whitson as SecretarYfof THE Treasurer . .~fED ~K;rING CORPORATION. .:.7~..::'..n,.".~ ::. Witness my hand and official seal. (..-. , ., .. ":'" '0 T/\10)_... 0 .. : ,\ ': My commission expires: october 27, 1979 . 'C; -;..~ ,;.. : sr. _ -; '. !) I ,c:-"' ~ ..,. ..~. ". I I!:"") ~ \oJ : 0 '..' "'. ""' V I.- .."<:). -r.-" '. ~'. . . . . ~_~ ::', ~. ,~'}~:;.:"': .,". . ~~,~~~~~ Notary Public ' '- R~cord~d at 2: 51 PM Dec 29, 197,......) ^ . . ... , .' Loretta Banner Recoraer Recept'i on No. ',)i n ') i~:7 ',^,,~:V,J: .,~ .~J "~~'j9?,,c~~t!3~ '"STATE t""""h,,,,1I FEfi, ' . , y;,.: " ,<DEe 2<1 PAlO . ;-"',i' :.' ~,:,,,,,,,.,..q,,: . ,"","',. ,",.' 1971 ':{~ j' -;'1 I,', , ,I . SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this 29th day of December, 'l~~' . ,:f" t+c between DON HORWITZ of the first part and the CITY OF ASPEN'f~ COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the second part. 'q" WIT N E SSE T H: ---------- , ;~ ,':'", ~ ....;. .- . " ',-",- '. .. " . That the said party of the first part, for anq~in,J. .. consideration of the sum of TEN and no/lOO DOLLARS ($10.00) \f\.ol.c<-'.~~ <!\.--o v-> 0v--.lr:: w>G f~~ ~ '1,,SQ 00 0'<' w"-:...,...... ~I\.$ "......- (.f>....... r "v.:: V,\ ~ " ....f\-o{'oo\e.\\ ,....Q- and other good and valuable consideration to the said party of the first part, in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns forever, all the following described ~ot or parcel of land, siutate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to-wit: A tract of land, comprising 0.14 acres, more or less, more particularly described as follows: The Easterly one-half (El/2) of vacated Hunter Street, westerly of and adjacent to Block 102, City and Townsite of Aspen, between the southerly line of Durant Avenue and the northerly line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly one-half (El/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street vacated by City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947 recorded in the public records of Pitkin County on March 17, 1959 under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at Page 101. Together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereu~to belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances; , , ( \ ~/ . "') ~,.- ~o~aiO f&;tSC7. ". " . . TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances, unto the CITY OF ASPEN, the said party of the second part, its successors and assIgns forever. And the said party of the first part, for himself, and his heirs and assigns covenants and agrees to and with the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, by, through or under the said party of the first part, to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND, except general taxes for 1978, due and payable January 1, 1979, and subject to united States Patent reservations of record, reservations and exceptions as set forth in Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947, recorded March 17, 1959, in Book 187 at page 101 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, easement recorded in Book 192 at page 296 of said records and the interests of the Aspen Skiing Corporation, a Colorado corporation, with respect to (i) access over and across the above described real property facilities utilized in connectio~ with its skiing operations as "''-.. the same have existed on a portion of said real property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party of the first part has caused this Special Warranty Deed to be executed the day and year first above written. '')-.. -2- --., , () ~ (' " '~ .. ~ ,...... "" .-.(.n ~OK""Ou f4[ :.J~O . STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2~~day of December, 1978, by Don Horwitz. Witness my hand and official seal. cU f t!:ce~" Notary Public ..11......." . .........t' ."'" ~I ,) .).,..... .. .' ,).-l.....,....'. ", ,.' .~.. ............ ..... . / .... ',O' ~~~ '.~ : '.' ...,. '7 '., '. :" J....'" ,,)1 t~).. ....>.: :"'1: "'("; ~):G .~ '., 0' ,- ~, :r.' I, ',1/ ":\' ! '~,,~ .. ,.. v 1("' \, ..' . ,(,,,. ". J.,. . ". r> '" ,. .... f.J :" "'" ~ 's";':,"\';.. \',' "" ...' ~ .,.' ...,.,.",.......1..'. My commission expires: i". _.. ...;,..~:.;.;ll :xpirc:;: Jane 3,19~.1 .,', The foregoing gift of real property is hereby ,,,r'\:.j'.f.. ac:cE:\p'ted for and on behalf of the City ."I"III'//lill,., .' A~..." ,0' .} '-Ir .'''' 'I,,, . "'" u, , .,' ()' ,,,...... '<f:-', ;:'''. ....' .....~..~ L /r.'l;!fTES,:r\ '1 ::-.. :}5.J..A 1-.:..1...-4: :: ~ l/"i"~ ' ..... "'. ._~; rx- . \ . ....... t.' ,'I '... """ ~\"~''^ ,,^ 1(" .' ,- __ok ''''K ,t.;nryn ,s. och ,: ,~.<lit.y:,.c:lE}.r~ J) --J ~C~ ~B~~~ ,--j ~', . Stacy Standley, III Mayor ( . VV __ L I ",..-.- -3- -- ^ MEMORANDUM '1'0: Ci ty Attorney City Engineer Aspen Water Dept. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: RE: Little Nell SPA Conceptual Submission DATE: July 5, 1985 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review is the Little Nell SPA Conceptual Submis- sion submi tted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client the Aspen Skiing Company. This application is being processed under the new SPA regulations established by the recently adopted Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1985. We suggest that you familiarize yourselves with this ordinance, particularly Section 24-7 (3) which addresses the processing of conceptual SPA applications. A conceptual SPA submission is princi- pally processed for the purpose of identifying whether or not the use is appropriate in the proposed location. This type of a submission is much more general than a conceptual subdivision or PUD applicatipn, and will be followed later by the Precise Plan and GMP submission, if the concept is approved. The proposal consists of a 96 room hotel, with commercial, office and ski area support facilities, at the base of Aspen Mountain where Little Nell's currently exists. This application is scheduled to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 6, 1985. Please return your referral comments to this office no later than July 19, 1985. If you have any question or problems, please contact this offi~e. Thank you. TNIa vT,., A \,ooiF',...,.,.; I'!' .1-1 _ e C~or05~S 7""rll S ('Jtea~e:A.'tv A"-~ PfIl ~~~e',... ,A-",. C) H"'S rt-le ,A- t:. I? w -" re aA,."q..c..c "'v -rt.:) HA-f'-:J"-e '(HI S I~Cjf> I"'","~r /-J.AS ,H/? CAPA<...." .,-0 I.JA....,.,4lJ?: A t').^tl'/oJ_"",- p...o....s Flt-Q,., Il-11s ('a"''''''el> f>~"S'''''CI N~~~ "A~PIZA- c~ /'-rfJ..,~rt;l.?~ SA""-tl'A-"'~~_ i"':J/Jrn'4",- ~A-""'>,\.c;r:' -e.. '" / r ~ ~ ElaH IT A CONDITIONS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Parking/Transit/Circulation The following conditions are intended to address the mitigation of parking/transit/circulation impacts created by the 1,300 skiers-at-one-time capacity increase of Aspen Mountain, and not to address lodge/commercial development at r,i ttle Nell. The incremental impacts of lodge/commercial base area development at Little Nell should be addressed by the City of Aspen upon receipt of an application for base area development. Similarly, the ASC should not be asked by the City of Aspen to mitigate parking/- transit/circulation impacts resulting from the capacity increase because those impacts have been addressed by Pitkin County. -A. B. E. ASC will work cooperatively' with the community to reasonably accommodate transit at the base of Lift #lA. C. ASC shall agree to maintain the existing parking lot (of at least 30 automobile parking spaces) located on l\spen street within the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit related uses. The agreement shall be in the for.m of a recoroco covcnant on the property to the b':n"f it: of pItkIn County and the City of Aspen. ASC shall continue the taxi-limo-automobile drop-off facility at Little NelL ASC shall institute a tel-limo-automobile drop-off facility at Lift lA Idthinthe tim~ frame of the three yeiH improvement ...."^....r~~ for :-'=........on "'O'~""I.a..-l'" ~.......,~. ....., .1_~'''' . j,. .......'-= ..- D. It has been found during the Pitkin County land use review process that ASC must provide an additional 46 off-street, skier automobile parking Gpaces to mitigate the effects of the 1,300 daily skiers-at-one-time skiing capacity increase on Aspen !lountain. This requirement may be met by providing on-site autOmobile parking, off-site automobile parking, cash contributions to the City of Aspen as deGcribed herein or a combination of the above. If future studies undertaken or approved by the City of Aspen, and/or Pitkin County indicate that the proposed skiing area expansion (1,300 skiers at one time) generates a need for fewer than 46 off- street skier automobile parking spaces, the ASC's automobile parking requirement or contribution to alternative progr ms hereunder will be decreased accordingly. Under no circum- stances lvill the automobile parking requirement of Pitkin County be increased unless N3 C proposes addi tional daily capacity increases on p.spen l'lountain in the future. 1. ASC may, at its discretion, provide thc required off- street automobile parking on-site, at the base of Little Nell, subject to appropriate land use approvals by the Ci ty of Aspen. 2. In lieu of providinq off-street skier automobile parking, as required by. this ASM1P, upon the request of the City of p.spen, :he ASC will pay for the, pro-rata share of canstr ucti: 46 off-st reet, a utomo bile par king spaces Idthin an dutomobile parking structure or structures. Such an off-street, automobile, parking structure may be developed solely by the public sector, the private sector or by a joint pUblic/private venture. 3. In the event that the City of Aspen and/or Pitki n County, and/or Roaring Fork Transit Authority seeks to 3 " :...--.-------.-. ---,-,,------ I / / " f'" // ,/ develop or participate in an intercept parking program, an upgraded mass transit program or combination of the above, the city of' Aspen and/or Pitkin County, and/or the Roaring Fork Transit Authority may request a contribution to such a program from the MC in lieu of providing the forementioned 46 skier off-street, parking spaces. If requested, I'13C will promptly make such a contribution in an amount no less than $460,000 (based upon $10,000 per off-street automobile parking spaces) and no more than $690,000 (based upon $15,000 per off-street automobile parking spaces). II. Visual Vulnerability In the event that a gondola is constructed on Aspen 1>1ountain, the gondola cars will be stored on top of the mountain rather than at the base. Plans presented to the Commission during the planning process for the base of Lift 4A or the gondola l~il1 be included in the appendix of the ~last Plan. The base of the proposed ~ lift structure lvill be design! and built generally in accordance ~,ith the plans. III. Aspen Mountain Road ASC shall obtain encroachment permits for use of Aspen ~10untain Road as per Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications. IV. Revisions to Master Plan The MC shall revise the draft of the 11aster Plan to reflect minor changes made in the revie\., process and Tom Blake, Board Chairperson shall be authorized to review and approve the revised plan prior to signing the resolution of approval. Such changes include without limitation the following: a. lo<lithdrawal of the fiSC's request for the generic night-time and summer use of restaurants. V. United States Forest Service Approval The County approval of the AMSAI1P is subject to approval of the Plan by the United States Forest Service as documented in A!1SAHP Environmental Assessment Decision Notice. 4 ~~:1lWPi: ~ / ~ " /' ./ EXH IB IT .B RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN ~IASTER PLAN I. Geologic Hazards The Board recommends that the ,Aspen Skiing Company continue to study geologic ,hazards on Aspen Hountain as recommended by the Colorado Geologic Survey Office and mitigate impacts as necessary. II. Access to Bell Mountain Lift 1. The Board recommends that, if possible, there should continue to be direct lift access from the base of Little Nell to the Bell Hountain Lift (Lift 5). In the event that the ASC chooses not to construct a midway station on Little Nell to serve Bell ~lountain, the Board proposes that the ASC be given the following option: a. Lift *4 or a simila~ lift system ~Iill remain a part of Aspen Hountain. The lift Hill be designed primarily to serve racing events ski school or other activities on Li ttle Nell and as a back up system in the event that alternative lift systems breakdown. .' b. Lift #4 Idll not be operated during the two initial hours of mountain operations except in the event of: o Special racing events on Aspen Hountain such as World Cup or Nastar racing. o Breakdown of Alternative lift system. 5 ~,"'MI i:..~,!",'jlt:.,..._.. ,J ;_ ' 11 ] ,eattil!il!,;",cli.,tl;W'lTl :' [1I!!__"'t0"~'lH_ " e" .-. MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann FROM: Alan Richman RE: Available Lodge QUI a DATE: December 29, 1983 Introduction At your direction, I have performed a detailed review of the status of the Lodge Development Quota since its inception. I have found a basic, error in the calculation methodology which changes the number of units currently available. In sum, the status is as follows: Quota Allowed 1977-1981 1982-1983 Total 18 units per year 35 units per year = 90 units = 70 units 160 units Allocations Awarded 1978 - 1981 - 1982 Aspen Inn Lodge at Aspen Carriage House Total 36 units 31 units 26 units 93 ,units Quota currently available 160-93 = 67 units (32'previous plus 35 current) Following is a detailed review of the above summary Mountain Chalet - 8 Lodge units, 8 employee units. The aboVe total of 44 lodge units and 32 employee units was authorized to be deducted from the Lodge quota for the next several years'. In fact, the quota was used for 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 4 units of 1981 The next pertinent action with respect to the lodge quota was the expiration in 1980 of the 16 units allocated to the Mountain Chalet. As a result of this action, the quota available' in 1980 was 12 units. It is important to note that Ron stock, the City Attorney at that time, erroneously wrote you a memo identifying the quota as 30 units in 1980. This error is the source of the continuing mistake in the calculation of the lodge quota, which has persisted to this 'time. No applications for lodge allotments were made in either 1979 or 1980. Two lodge applications were received by the Planning office in 1981, these being The Lodge at Aspen and the Aspen Inn. During the course of reviewing these applications, City Council decided that ~, r I the deduction of 24 employee units at the Aspen Inn by the former Council was a mistake. These 24 units were added back to the lodge quota. The 24 units, plus the 18 available in that year, plus the 12 from the prior year, meant that the total available was 54 units. A 31 unit quota was allocated to The Lodge At Aspen during that year, leaving 23 ,units unallocated. Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, changed the lodge quota to 35 units per year. Therefore, the total number of lodge units available in 1982 was 58. The only applicant last year, The Carriage House, successfully applied for a 26 unit allocation. Therefore, 32 lodge units remain from prior years. When we add these units to the 35 available in 1983, there are 67 units available for allocation. Conclusion This memorandum corrects a ma', ,Jematical error first made by Ron Stock in his memo to you dated April 10, 1980,which has been compounded in my memos to the file dated July 21, 1981, September 15, 1982 and' August 9, 1983. The mistake lies in the fact that we have been calling the competition by the year subsequent to the one in 'which it is actually held. From now on, it should be obvious that the 1983 competition takes place in 1983, the 1984 in 1984 and so on. This error has no effect on the residential or commercial quotas, since these have not been carried,over as were the lodge quotas. The error also has not advers,ely affected any applicant, since an adequate number of units has been available to cover the awards we have made, and no applicant has been turned down for lack of allotments. Hopefully, this analysis should clear the record for any action to be taken with respect to the 1983 allocation to The Lodge at Aspen. " ~ ~ DERIVATION OF MULTI-YEAR QUOTA ALLOCATION Aspen Mountain Lodge UNITS 1. Proposed number of lodge units in the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Existing lodge units verified to date. 447 2. =--23.1 214 3. Additional existing lodge units to be verified.l -=----42 172 4. New lodge units for which an allocation is required. 5. Unallocated looge units from prior years' quotas. _ 32 140 6. 1983 L-l. L-2, CC and CL lodge quota. =---3 5 105 7. 1984 L-l, L-2, CC and CL lodge quota. 3:i. 70 8. 1985 L-l, L-2, CC and CL lodge guota.2 _)5 35 9. 1986 L-l, L-2, CC and CL lodge quota.2 3:i. o IThe thirty-six (36) lodge units awarded to the Aspen Inn in 1978 which are presently under construction plus six (6) additional llnits in the Aspen Inn basement. subject to settlement of the Cantrup litiga- tion, final PUD approval and the transfer of title to the Aspen Inn site to the applcants. 2Upon deed-restriction and conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to employee housing, forty-four (44) units will be c~edited to the L- 1, ~-2, CC and CL lodge quota thereby effectively eliminating the need for the 1986 quota allocati and reducing the 1985 allocation to 26 units. 1~~\ ~ ~ A. v~...... ~ ,-"A-s ~"te- Il",,\ CO....J ~ ,.. \J_~ ~' .'" ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann FROM: Alan Richman RE: Lodging Inventory Analysis DATE: December 8, 1983 I have reviewed and updated the data included in our Short-Term Accommodations Report (April, 1982) so as to respond to various questions posed by the Planning Commission in recent weeks. Follow- ing is a summary of my approach and findings. I reviewed the entire list of short term accommodations in the Aspen Metro Area from the prior survey and identified approximately 54 facilities which could be considered to be traditional lodging faci- lities. The remaining accommodations include condominium complexes and single-family or duplex houses. I found that the 54 lodges contain approximately 1727 units, including 1380 lodge rooms (no kitchen), 259 lodge apartments (lor more rooms with kitchen) and 88 dorm units. The condominium complexes and houses contain 1041 units, for a total short term accommodations in- ventory in the Aspen Metro Area of 2768 units. The total pillow count in these units is approximately 10,750. I focused on the 1727 units in lodges as being most pertinent to any questions with respect to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. First, I categorized these units as to whether they were rented at economy, moerate or expensive rates. ,I based this analysis on information pro- vided by ARA, supplemented by calls to individual lodges, when necessary. I was able to obtain information from lodges accounting for 1684 total units. Following is the breakdown among these facilities. Economy = 291 un;ts = 17% Moderate = 773 c LtS = 46% Expensive = 620 ,dts = 37% The, facili ties wi thin the Aspen Mount,ain Lodge project represent a considerable propottion of the inventory. The Continental Inn includes 172 units, or almost 28% of all expensive units in the Aspen Metro Area.. The Aspen Inn includes 65 units, or about 8.5% of all the moderately priced units in the inventory. The Alpina Haus, Blue Spruce and copper Horse collectively include 86 units, or almost 30% of all economy units in the inventory. The total lodge inventory includes only 88 dorm units. Of these, 14 are found in the Copper Horse and 7 in the Continental Inn for a total of 21 dorm units within the project, almost 25% of the entire inventory. Other lodges with dorm units are as follows: Snowflake Lodge 2 dorms Mountain Chalet 3 dorms Holland House 8 dorms Highlands Inn 9 dorms Endeavor Lodge 8 dorms St. Moritz .12 dorms Little Red Ski Haus 5 dorms Boomerang Lodge 1 dorm Snow Queen Lodge 4 dorms Heatherbed Lodge 15 dorms All of the dorm units are located in lodges rated as economy or moderate. ~ --or .~ ~ Another important question we can answer from our inventory is what percentage of our lodge units have been or are about to be recon- structed. I find that within tbe past 5 years, the following lodges have been totally reconstructec Woods tone Inn Red Roof Inn Applejack Inn Aspen Ski Lodge Ullr Lodge Prospector Lodge Hotel Lenado Coachlight Chalet TOTAL The 285 units which have already been of the traditional lodge inventory or short term accommodations inventory. . 92 units 50 units 35 units 33 units 24 units 23 units 17 units 11 units 285 units upgraded represent 16.5% (1/6) just over 10% of the total Projects currently under review would considerably augment the number of units we have upgraded. These projects are as follows: , PROJECT UNITS TO BE REBUILT Aspen Mountain Lodge 269 Highlands Inn 37 Holiday Inn 120 Hotel Jerome 3'1 Carriage House Endeavor Lodge 4 TOTAL 475 NEW UNITS TOTAL 211 480 132 169 -0- 120 67 106 20 26 -0- 4 430 905 Should these projects be constructed, the 475 units which would be upgraded would con'stitute an additional .27.5% of the traditional lodge inventory. The total number of units which the community would have upgraded in about a decade would be 760 units or 44% of the lodge inventory. The 760 units also represent slightly more than 1/4 of the total Metro Area short term accommodations inventory. We should also take into account the degree to which projects now being considered would increase the inventory. The 430 new units plus the 31 units allocated to the Lodge at Aspen in 1982 would increase the inventory of lodge rooms by 33% (1/3) and the entire accommodations inventory by 16.5% (1/6). At that point, 1190 of our lodge rooms would be new or recently rebuilt" fully 65% of the 1810 total lodge units and 37% of the total accommodations inventory. Obviously, this analysis does not take into account any attrition of facilities which may take place during this time, nor any other addi- tions which may take place among lodges, condominiums and houses. AS a last point, it is worth noting that with the exception of the Continental Inn and Holiday Inn, all of the units within projects we ar'e now considering fall in \e economy or moderate price ranges. I 'would expect that fo ,owing the reconstruction of these facilities, the ,total profile o. Aspen's Lodging might shift more. toward the expensive end of the price spectrum. However, on~7 aga~n, it is very difficult to estimate whether any existing unit:;; w~ll drop into the lower price categories as a result of the growth ~n the lodge inventory. ~ I"", '-', MEMORANDUM TO: THRO: Aspen City Council Hal Schilling, City Manager Alan Richman. Planning and Development Director ~ FROM: RE: Dates for 1985 GMP Submissions DATE: July 8, 1985 ===================================================================== SUMMARY: Council should choose among the alternatives listed below regarding the dates for 1985 GMPsubmission~. BACKGROUND: The Municipal Code provides the following annual dates for the submission of applications for growth management allocations: August 1 - Commercial October 1 - Lodge December I - Residential The Planning Office has been approached by representatives of the Little Nell and Aspen Meadows projects seeking changes in these dates for 1985 only. The Little Nell representatives would like to see both the commercial and lodge dates changed to December 1, while the Aspen Meadows representatives have asked that the dates for all categories be changed to March 1 of 1986. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: 'The recently adopted SPA Ordinance (#20 of 1985) provides that submissions for growth management allocations on sites with an SPA overlay must be made in conjunction with precise plan submissions. Due to the length of the process of adopting Ordinance 20, applicants do not have adequate time to process their conceptual submissions pdorto the annual submission dates. Therefore, unless the dates are changed for 1985, these proj ects will be delayed until the fall of 1986 for their precise plan/GMP review. Since this issue surfaced, the Planning Office has been contacted by another individual in the CC/C-l zone who may apply for a commercial allotment on August 1. Therefore, any change contemplated for this date could adversely affect the plans of at least one other property owner. ALTERNATIV ES : following: 1. Move the dates for the CC/C-l commercial competition and the Choices available to the City Council include the - 1""'\ ~ lodge competition for all zones except the L-3 zone district to December 1. 2. Move the dates for the CC/C-l commercial competition, the lodge competition for all zones except the L-3 and the residential competition to March 1. 3. Waive the requirement that GMP allotment applications must be accompanied by a precise plan for 1 ands wi thin an S'PA overlay. 4. No action. Factors to be considered by Council in taking any action should include the following: 1. We have already placed a notice in the paper that we are accepting applications for the August 1 date, since we routinely provide such notice 30 days in advance of the due date for applications. 2. Changing the dates will certainly add to the confusion of our application process, particularly if we change them only for certain zones. 3. It 'could be argued that waiving the requirement for concur- rent submission of GMP and precise plan applications is warranted for this year only, since this provision has only recently been placed 'into the Code. However, all of the benefits associated with this rule (particularly the need to review the precise plan before deciding .on a multi-year growth allacation) would then be lost for the two most important parcels with an SPA overlay. 4. If we do not change the dates for this year, we will lose valuable time in dealing with two critical parcelS in the City. On the other hand, since Council has already allo- cated lodge units into the future, this delay may only help to bring us into better conformance with our planned rate of growth. ' RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office has no preference whatsoever with respect to this issue. We are prepared to process this year's applications under any alternative which Council may choose. AR.28 2 ~':- ....,.,-"...,...-".....~~.~,.,...,-"~,...........,.:,':~,'l"',.....,,.......,. '~,...".,....,.,,-':."'''''''.'''"'.~~'''''.>'~!!'>'''''''''''':'~,.,''''-'':'_~, ,,,":., '...,:" ."...~..... ~'.......,.-~"..., ,,'.~~---'- " ~, ~. Doremus &WeLlS an association of land planners :J June 24, 1985 Alan Richman Director ,Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena ~sren, CO 81612 Dear Alan: ~8 you know, through the settlement of the Cantrup bankruptcy, ,Tohn Roberts' joint venture has acquired the Aspen Meadows parcel i.n the West End. On behalf of the owners, we have for some time been following the City's consideration of new regulations for sites designated with an SPA overlay. It has been anticipated that following adoption, the owner can begin the process of developing a proposal for the Meadows site that will incldue all of the affected parties, even though the new regulations obviously do not resolve all of the outstanding land-use issues regarding the site. ~ One unresolved issue is the manner in which growth management procedures will be applied to the proposal. As we have discuss- ed, in the past the question of whether the Institute would be required to obtain a GMP allotment in order to proceed with development at the Meadows was left unresolved. It is clear, however, that the City allowed the Institute to proceed through the approval process nearly to final approval without requiring the filing of a GMP application and this may be an indication that the City at the t~le was leaning toward an exemption under certain conditions. , i In the event that the City requires the current owners to obtain GMP allotments, it certainly is not possible to complete the Conceptual SPA step of the new regulation and then file a GMP submission by the current deadline for GI'IP. We therefore agree that it will be necessary to extend the GMP submission deadlines. 608 ODS! hy:r~<1n d\ ~y~\!C U aspen, CclordcJO e 1611 [.1 tC!E~r)!ione: 303 925-68G6 . q_._--,_._----,._.,----:--~' ,~ \~.' . Alan Richman J,une 24, 1985 Page Two We disagree that an extension to December 1 is adequate however, in li~lt of the requirement under the new regulation that the Precise SPA Plan, which requires a level of detail similar to Preliminary PUD and Subdivision, be filed with the GMP submission. I We believe tilat a period of at least 6 to 7 months will be required, to prepare and process a Conceptual SPA Plan and that the preparation of a GNP/Precise Plan will require an additional 10 to 12 ~eeks. Therefore, we do not believe that an adequate Precise Plan for the Meadows could be filed prior to MarCh 1 of next year. i We request, then, that the City either extend the GMP submission deadlines for all categories to March lor, in the alternative, grant applicants for SPA sites the option of filing GMP Submis- sions separate from tile Precise Plan. Thank you for your consideration. <~in,',ce, r;i' /~~-:lk&- ,/oseph Vie lIs , Arcp l.._ JW/b ce. Aspen City Council John Roberts Hobert Callaway Alan Novak ~like Holbrook Art Daily , ----6 6Uf) c::;~..;t ,;\-, '._,', a:~f'\C':1, Ci'!C\; lcn81611 :-:;O:~ ;.!:):)--b(5()(~; "<'...c..."_,......."..,P,.."....P.,.,. -'_._--_.,--~,~.'...,._.- .~~"..,--- ""'" i~ LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO a1611 GIDEON l. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN July 3, 1985 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 HAND-DELIVERED Mr. Alan Richman, AICP Planning and Development Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Skiing Company -- Application for S.P.A. Conceptual Plan Approval Dear Alan: Enclosed please find the following: 1. Four copies of revised Application for S.P.A. Conceptual Plan Approval for the Aspen Skiing Company that has been revised in response to your June 26, 1985, letter to us. 2. One redlined to application. purposes. copy of the revised Application that has been indicate the changes we have made to the This copy is for you for your reference 3. Copy of Transamerica Title Insurance Company, Owner's Title Insurance Policy No. 7301704, dated September 18, 1981, which verifies that the Aspen Skiing Company owns the entire area for which it seeks S.P.A. designation. Pursuant to the zoning code, the Aspen Skiing Company is therefore legally entitled to apply for S.P.A. designation on all areas shown in the enclosed title policy to be under its ownership. If you have any questions on the enclosed, please let us know. Thank you for your help and cooperation in these matters. Sincerely, UFMAN, By DGE/bw Enclosures cc: Peter Forsch ~ .~U)~ c;v\>-,~~\'o~ ~ ASPEN SKDNG COMPANY 0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE. AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER. BOX 1248 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81612. PHONE 303/925-1220 APPLICATION FOR S.P.A. CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY Members of the Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Skiing Company/Application for Conceptual Plan Approval for Specially Planned Area at Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain Dear Planning Commission Members: The Aspen Skiing Company hereby submits this Application for its Conceptual Plan for the Specially Planned Area (S.P.A.) at Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain. The attached drawings, maps, and plans are submitted herewith in accordance with the newly enacted Ordinace 20, Series of 1985 which repealed and re-enacted Article VII, Chapter 24, o,f the Municipal Code pertaining to Specially Planned Areas. Attached please find: 1. a vicinity and existing conditions map, 2. a Conceptual S.P.A. Plan, and 3. cross sections. The vicinity map submitted herewith depicts the property which is the subject of this Conceptual Plan Appliction. The uses in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property are mixed and varied including short-term residential, long-term residential, lodging, commercial, and office uses. A. INTRODUCTION In February of 1983. the Aspen Skiing Company submitted an application for an adjustment to the boundary for this Specially Planned Area. The application met with controversy due to the large amount of area submitted for S.P.A. designation and the then unclear S.P.A. language and adoption ASPEN MOUNTAIN . BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN . SNOWMASS . BRECKENRIDGE 1""'\ 1""'\ Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 2 procedures. As a result of this previous application, the provisions of the Municipal Code pertaining to Specially Planned Areas have been repealed and re-enacted. Furthermore, the Aspen Skiing Company, sensi ti ve to the community needs and input from the Planning Office, the Planning Commission, and the City Council has completely rethought and redesigned its concept for development in the area. The result is this current submission which is fully 50% smaller than what was contemplated in 1983. This submission constitutes the Aspen Skiing Company's statement of intent and conceptual description of the type of development which is proposed to take place on the subject property. This Conceptual Plan should be considered in context with and as part of the Aspen Skiing Company's overall plan for the improvement of ski terrain and lifts on Aspen Mountain, and its intent to improve the skier access to and experience on Aspen Mountain for residents and tourists alike. With this Conceptual Plan Application, pursuant to Section 24-7.2 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Skiing Company seeks an adjustment to the boundary of its property already designated with an S.P.A. pursuant to the procedures and requirements for amendments to the zoning map described in Article XII of the Municipal Code and as part of this Conceptual Plan submission. The unique characteristics of the property to be encompassed within the S.P.A. designation justify its designation with an S.P.A. overlay and comply with the intents and purposes of the Specially Planned Area concept. The purpose of a Specially Planned Area is to "provide design flexibility for parcels which require innovative ,consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address their historic significance, there is a potential for community benefit from the parcel's development and the parcel has unique attributes." The City has always felt that the Little Nell area at the base of Aspen Mountain has all these unique characteristics. Further, consistent with the purposes of a Specially Planned Area, the S.P.A. designation will allow the integration of mixed use projects on a single parcel of land through the encouragement of innovativ'e design practices. The S.P.A. will allow the establishment of a precise plan which provides a detailed land use plan for the entire parcel in question, and establishes a mechanism by which the subject property upon which there has historically been a variety of uses, can be planned and developed in a manner which provides the greatest public benefit. This is all consistent with the purpose of a Specially Planned Area as is set forth in ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 80X 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925,1220 ,,-.. ~. Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 3 Section 24-7.1 (b) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Municipal Code. B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION In general, the Aspen Skiing Company's Conceptual Plan consists of the following elements: 1. Construction of a 96 room hotel containing a total of 77,718 sq. ft. of rooms and circulation areas, including hotel accessory space plus 15,668 sq. ft. subgrade. 2. 16,078 sq. ft. of commercial space of which approximately 13,396 sq. ft. is already existing on the site. 3. 9,976 sq. ft. of improved and expanded ski area facilities. '-4. 77 subgrade parking spaces;, The floor area calculations do not include those spaces excluded from F.A.R calculations by the zoning code. Thus the use categories proposed for the parcel are as follows: 1. Hotel - Lodging 2. Commercial 3. Ski Facilities 4. Parking C. INTENT AND PURPOSE The construction of the facilities proposed by this Conceptual Plan will provide significant improvements for ski operations at Aspen Mountain to the benefit of local and visitor alike, and will greatly enhance the tourist accomodations available at the base of Aspen Mountain. The Plan accomplishes the following: 1. The relocation of grooming vehicle maintenance and parking to an on-mountain location removes unsightly, noisy, and heavy equipment functions which currently exist incompatibly at the base of the mountain in the heart of the tourist environment. The snow cat shop and all of its clutter will be removed from the base which will significantly improve the area, creating a visually more attractive site and eliminating an annoying source of noise to the neighborhood which currently exists. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 80X 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925,1220 r-. ---. Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 4 2. The plan also relocates and consolidates restaurant snow cat service functions. These will be provided from a new building, with a new loading dock consolidating these activities, which places them in a location less offensive and less noisy to all neighbors in the vicinity. 3. Hunter and Dean Street access will be landscaped and significantly improved to provide attractive and easy pedestrian and, skier access to the lifts and other base area activities. 4. The base area plan upgrades service on and up the mountain by the construction of either a detachable quad chair lift or a six place gondola. In either case, lift service will be provided on Litle Nell to serve special events, ski instructions and secondary access to the number 5 lift. This will be accomplished via a midway unloading station or a relocated number 4 lift. '^, 5; T,hec'plan makes available ,to this'''conununitY',;the highest quality hotel accomodations. As conceived this will be the finest hotel in Aspen and one of the best in the state. The Aspen Skiing Company and its owners will bring to this project and the conununity the financial wherewithall and development expertise needed to make the project a success. The redevelopment also makes available renovated and improved conunercial space for the provision of quality ski-oriented retail services at the base of Aspen Mountain solving some of the current problems of unsightliness, overcrowding, and poor skier and pedestrian access to the current retail spaces. Further, it will create a much improved public base area with improved and expanded base lodge facilities. The base area facilities will provide a full range of services to the skiing public, including lockers and ski storage facilities, public restrooms, ski school and skier service offices, ski rental and repair, food and beverage service, all of which represent a major and significant improvement over existing conditions and services. 6. The construction of a first-class luxury hotel will create an extremely attractive, social focal point to serve as a symbol of quality emphasizing that Aspen Mountain is the premier ski experience in North America. Its varied and challenging terrain has given Aspen Mountain a reputation as a unique and quality ski experience. The purpose of this plan is to deliver base facilities that compliment the mountain and make the statement and reaffirmation of the high quality for which Aspen became famous. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925,1220 I"". I"". Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 5 The hotel aims to provide excellent services to both guests and local residents. The hotel will include restaurant space and an expanded, improved deck to replace the popular Little Nell deck area. The quality of development envisioned for the new hotel will allow for better after ski activities than currently exist at the Little Nell building. The Little Nell area as presently constituted detracts from the quality image of Aspen Mountain and Aspen in general. The existing building is decrepit with numerous structural and roofing problems. The entrance to the mountain, currently occupied by on grade automobile drop off parking, presents an unsightly and constricting entrance to the mountain. By this plan the Aspen Skiing Company seeks to create a much improved and more visually pleasing gateway-entrance to the base of North America's finest ski mountain. D. ADJUSTMENT, OF S, P .1'1,. BOUNDARY As part of this Conceptual Plan Submission, the Aspen Skiing Company seeks to adjust the boundary of the property designated S.P.A. to include more land within the S.P.A. designation to accomodate the total base activity. Adjusting the boundary to include this additional area is justified by the unique characteristics of the parcel and because the City feels this property fulfills the intents and purposes of the S.P.A. designation Further, we offer the following support of our request for adjusting the S.P.A. boundary. 1. The structure, which will occupy the expanded site includes a full mixture of uses to include lodging, commercial, ski area facilities, and parking. 2. Parking and ski area facilities are permitted as conditional uses in the conservation zone; the re-drawing of the S.P.A. boundary line allows the opportunity to develop a more flexible site plan and allows for a unified, coordinated review of the Aspen Skiing Company I s entire plan for development in the area. After tho~ough study and investigation of the site, it is clear that numerous ski area administration functions and skier support activities logically belong in the proposed building. Putting these sorts of uses in the building instead of having higher intensity CC uses that would be permitted in the CC zone reduces impacts and a less intense land use is achieved. 3. The re-drawing of this boundary line constitutes a minor amendment to the current zoning map. The re-drawing of ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 80X 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220 I"" ~ , Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 6 this line respects natural topography and represents a sincere attempt to keep new building structures at the existing base of Aspen Mountain. This Conceptual Plan does not propose to construct buildings on the mountain side or to do anything which would further constrict or interfere with the skiing experience on Aspen Mountain. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this application. The members of the development team listed on the attached sheet are available to discuss any questions you might have on this application. Respectfully submitted, ::j7~c9~ Peter Forsch, Project Manager ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220 r-. - '. . "_.. Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 7 DEVELOPMENT TEAM Peter Forsch, Project Manager Aspen Skiing Company P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO Larry Yaw, Architect Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO Bill Kane, Planner Design Workshop, Inc. 710 E. Durant Aspen, CO Gideon I. Kaufman, Attorney Law Offices of Gideon 1. Kaufman, P.C. 315 E. Hyman Aspen, CO plan approval/DOC8 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY . ,80X 1248 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925-1220 I;"S'RM NO. C-SO~t').l tl'O~ USE: ~'.~iH C:OL.oRADO t: . I' " (. I'!' ^ - V-FOR:.t po:" '970 (AMENDED 10"".70) SCHEDULE A Date of Policy September 18.. 1981 at 8:00 A.M. Polic)' No. 7,301,704 , ' Sheet 1 of 101 AnlOunt ofInsurallce,$ 53,000,000.00 1. Name of Insured: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership 2. The estate or interest ill the land described herein and which is covered b)' this policy is: SET FORTH ON SHEETS ATTACHED HERETO GROUP I II III IV V VI VII 'LOCATION Buttermilk Parcels Snowmass Parcels Aspen Parcels Summit Parcels 1-4, 7-13, and 12(A) Summit Parcel 14 Summit Parcels 15 and 15(A) , Summit Parcel 16 i j 'j 1 , 1 -1 ~ l ,l 11 , ..j 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY,. a Colorado general partnership NOTE: This Policy consists of properties located in Pitkin County and in Summit County. Parcels in both Schedule A and Sched~ ule B have been referred to using group references as follows: \) )j ,l(j S C H E D U LEA-Continued LEGAL DESCRIPTION --Continued-- GROUP III ASPEN PARCEL I: fPlt:'U,ktll-k,,~\ r",(u,L A parcel of land situated in the City of Aspen, being more fully described as follows: " Beginning at the Northwest corner of Block 102 in said City of Aspen; thence S 75009'11" E 220.00 feet along the North line of said Block 102 to a point 10.00 feet East of the Northwest corner of . Lot H of said Block 102; , , thence S 14050' 49" W 263.2'6 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of Lot 21 of the Ute Addition to said City of Aspen; thence N 38035' 40" W 53. 5:r feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence S 45021'00" W 124.28 feet along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 21 to a point on Line 1-9 of the original Aspen Townsite; thence N 39057'22" W 231.18 feet along said Line 1-9; thence S 14050'49" W 66.78 feet; thence N 75009'11" W 143.00 feet; thence N 14050'49" E 112.00 feet; thence S 75009'11" E 82.76 feet; thence N 14050'49" E 10.00 feet to a point on the South line of Dean Avenue; thence S 75009'11" E 60.24 feet along said South line to a point on the West line of vacated Hunter Street; thence N 14050'49" E 50.00 feet along said West line; thence S 75009'11" E 37.50 feet to a point on the center line of said vacated Hunter Street; thence N 14050'49" E 100.00 feet along said center line; thence S 75009'11" E 37.50 feet to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING: A tract of land more particularly described as follows: The Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacated Hunter Street, Westerly of and adjacent to Block 102, City and Townsite of Aspen, continued on next sheet ,:: "~-'.~'~---'",,^,,",_. ",",,~"''':',.:_,;,.,..,:,.,~-...~;.h.",,-.-:,......,-:::. =- '-"-::;"-.'..,-,-"",:"'...",,,~ ... ""..,'-:':'-;;;" ----"~.." ""~--'-'---,..- ::;,'; 'li<. ~ , '.t ~ ... ..-. ,-., . S C H ED U LEA-Continued LEGAL DESCRIPTION --Continued-- GROUP III' ASPEN PARCEL I: (contin~~d) ,', between the Southerly line of Durant Avenue and the Northerly line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision. Said tract being the Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street va- cated by the City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947, recorded in the Public records of Pitkin County on March 17, 1959 under Reception No. 107787 in Book 181 at Page 101. ;;: ~ l' J ~ ,;) ~ .ii_ ,.---- S C H E D U LEA-Continued LEGAL DESCRIPTION --Continued-- GROUP III ASPEN PARCEL J: ~ri~__~~k_JIleJLfq(~\ A tract of land more particularly described as follows: The Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of vacated Hunter Street, Westerly of and adjacent to Block 102, City and Townsite of Aspen, between the Southerly line of Durant Avenue and the Northerly line of Lot 22, Ute Subdivision, said tract being the Easterly one-half (E 1/2) of all that portion of said Hunter Street , vacated by City of Aspen Ordinance No. B-53, Series of 1947, recorded March 17, 1959 under Reception No. 107787, in Book 181 at Page 101. .~1' ""~-._,._-"..,_.,-,-,_.. ._~-;~ , i ,J '-_'N_'._"~"~""""",-cc~'~'_'_'-"'-~'~'"_'_,~~,_"",,-,,,_~,_,C_. '" ("'"\ .~ '- Aspen/Pit 130 s iog Office June 26, 1985 Gideon Kaufman, Esq. 3l~E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Gideon, I have reviewed your conceptual SPA submission for the Little Nell property and have discussed the project with Jay Hammond and Glenn Horn, to obtain their advice. While the submission is substantially the same as that we reviewed last month, upon closer examination we feel that it is not sufficient. I, therefore, ask you, to respond to the following items before I certify it as complete, assign it a public review date and send it to the referral agencies. 1. I do not think you have addressed the conceptual requirem~nt to show the design approaches to be employed. Are portions of the building subgrade, or is it entirely above grade? What is the basic look of the building? What materials will be used, and what massing techniques employed? What areas will be landscaped and which paved? 2. It would be helpful to have a drawing which shows the various levels internal to the building, the uses which will occupy each level, and the approximate height from grade of these levels. I would also like to have a better under- standing of where the service vehicle and parking access points are for the facility. 3. You should specifically identify any variations from the CC standards which you will be requesting. You should also demonstrate the thinking that went into providing 77 spaces for 196 lodge rooms, commercial space and administrative offices. " . ,-", .-, '- Gideon Kaufman June 26, 1985 Page 2 4. It is unclear from the drawings how members of the public will be accessing the various services at the base area, including the lockers, rest,rooms, and other facilities you mention. Please provide additional drawings illustrating pedestrian flows. Please also demonstrate your right to use the access point off Durant Street. 5. I would prefer it if you bisected the area shown as the proposed SPA boundary so that the one in which the hotel is located is designated CC/SPA, while that containing the lifts is C/SPA. If you disagree, you should indicate your intent to vary the use tables for the CC zone district. It is alsO not clear that the snow cat service function can operate in the CC zone without a variance, and you may also want to show this portion of the facility in the Conserva- tion zone. 6. You mention that the maintenance facility is to be relocated onto the mountain. As this was not part of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan, please indicate where this facility will be located and when the Plan will be amended to address this issue. 7. You should demonstrate that you have evaluated the feasi- bility of your proposal through a cursory review of the availability of roads, utilities and other facilities to serve the project. Any conflicts with existing, utility locations (especially water) should be noted, and an indication made of how the conflict can be resolved (1. e., what do you propose to do with the City's pumphouse?). 8. You must provide us a list of owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed SPA boundary. 9. You must demonstrate ownership of the entire area within the SPA boundaries. If multiple owners are involved, a letter of consent to the application from each owner must be provided. 10. A check in the amount of $2730 must be provided. Should you have any questions about'these requests, I will be happy to meet with you to discuss the form of your response. Please be aware that I recognize that conceptual SPA is intended to be a very general process, similar to making a basic zoning decision about what uses belong on a piece of property. However, yours is one of the most critical parcels within the City and will generate significant attention before any action is taken. I think it is wise to have a quality submission for review to avoid any charges that we have adopted an ineffective ordinance. .', '- . ~ " Gideon Kaufm,an June 26, 1985 Page 3 1'"', 1'"'. You, will also note that I have not asked you for any additional elevation studies at this time. My understanding from our meeting on June 25th is that these studies are being done on the DWI computer, will be available for my viewing in advance of any review I will undertake, and will be available at the public meetings. Please confirm this fact in your written response to me. Sincerely, AR:jlr:AR.L3 cc: Jay Hammond Glenn Horn " OFFICE Alan Richman, AICP Planning and Development Director , ~ """ " Aspen/Pit 130 s ing Office May 3, 1985 Gideon Kaufman 315 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Gideon: This letter is wri tten in response to your letter of Apr il 22, 1985 concerning the development of base facilities in the vicinity of Little Nell. I have discussed this matter with Paul Taddune and following are our responses to your questions. / Your first question concerned the timing of GMP submissions for commercial and lodge projects. As you know, the Code requires submission of commercial quota applications on August 1 and lodge quota applications on October 1. We would prefer to review both aspects of the project at once for the efficiencies this will bring to the process and, more importantly, for the improved understanding of the project and its impacts which will emerge from such a comprehensive review. We are reluctant, at this time, to recommend a change to the submission date for commercial quota applications simply to benefit a single project. We think it is inequitable to other applicants in the commercial zones to alter the date when no code amendments are planned which would affect submissions. However, if the SPA Code Amendment process were to grind to a halt this month, we would be much more open to this suggestion. Furthermore, if it turns out that yours is the only project submitted for an allotment in the CC/C-l zone district competition, we would be quite prepared to recommend to P&Z that your project not be reviewed until the lodge submitted is made in October. 1'<\ Your second question concerns the effect of change of use on the City's lodge quota. As you correctly note, it you remove units from the lodging inventory and deed restric~ them as employee housing, the Code requires that the lodge quota be correspondingly adjusted upwards. However, there is no provision in the Code whatsoever that these units are reserved for the party whose action made the units available. Staff is not prepared to support such an amendment, but if you wish to pursue this idea, you should submit a privately initiated Code amendment by August 15 of this year. I also remind you that Council has not yet disposed of the issue of adding the Alpina Haus or Copper Horse units back to the lodge quota upon their deed restriction, nor has it decided that these units will be removed from the residential quota upon this conversion. If this issue is finally resolved, there will be an additional 50-55 units in the lodge quota for all applicants in coming years. J ~ c' ,...""" '-' '1. 1\OV" _ -!""'. ^ Gideon Kaufman May 3, 1985 Page 2 Your third question concerns the concept of a multi-year lodge allocation to the project. As you know, the allocation to the Aspen Mountain Lodge takes all units available through the 1986 competition. Therefore, were your project to compete successfully, it would be requesting an allocation from the 1987 quota (unless the Aspen Mountain Lodge forfeits its allocation or the above described change in use credit is completed). As we read the Code, there is nothing to prevent you from requesting the allocation of future units in a mUlti-year configuration. Obviously, the burden will be on the applicant to demonstrate the reasonablness of the request, the community benefit which will result and how the project fits within the overall plans and policies of the communi ty. I hope these comments are of assistance to you. Pleases let me or Paul know if we can otherwise help you during the pre-application stage of the process. Sincerely, Alan Ri chman Acting Planning Director AR; ne c r- ,f""'\ D\wjg>l~ I II 2 319ll) ili II to <i":;. LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN April 22, 1985 HAND DELIVERY Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: SPA/GMP at Little Nell Dear Alan: I write this letter pursuant to our meeting of Thursday, April 11, 1985, with Bill Kane, Peter Forsch and Paul Taddune. I would like to briefly summarize the meeting and set forth the questions we would like answered, in writing, in the near future. The first item discussed was the timetable for adoption of the SPA Ordinance. It was decided that although you would be out of town on April 22nd it was desirable to begin the process and therefore schedule first reading of the SPA Ordinance for the City Council meeting on April 22nd. A public hearing and discussion of the Ordinance would be scheduled for May 13th. We determined that a study session with the City Council prior to that May 13th public hearing was imperative -- preferably sometime between the 8th and the 13th of May. This timetable allows for a public discussion of the Ordinance with you present at which time the Ordinance could be adopted. Your input and attendance at the May 13, 1985, City Council meeting will be very helpful for public discussion because you really understand the Ordinance and its changes and can provide invaluable guidance to the Council during the public discussion of these issues. Because the first reading of the Ordinance will not be a public hearing, we all agreed it is not necessary for you to attend that meeting. As was pointed out in the meeting we have been waiting for the adoption of this Ordinance since last fall and as an accommodation to the City and the Cantrup Trustee we allowed the matter to be tabled for six months pending the resolution of the Cantrup bankruptcy. That has now been resolved and the adoption of the SPA must now move forward as expeditiously as possible. TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925"8166 - ~ Alan Richman April 22, 1985 Page 2 Once the new SPA Ordinance is passed we will present our conceptual SPA plan and SPA boundary adjustment request for the Little Nell property. Obviously, a timely approval of the conceptual SPA is critical because of the rapidly approaching deadlines for GMP applications. Your questioning of the political wisdom of having the City and public discuss the commercial aspect of the hotel proposed for the Little Nell area prior to the actual Lodge GMP hearing is very well taken. We would therefore ask that the Planning Office recommend either undertaking a joint review of the commercial and lodge applications during the Lodge GMP hearings in November or the changing of this year's submission deadline for the commercial GMP to a later date. Ample justification exists either to push back the commercial GMP filing deadline or to undertake both the lodge and commercial reviews simultaneously in light of the time constraints surrounding the adoption of the SPA and also in light of the Planning Office's current staffing situation. The Planning Office is presently understaffed and if new personnel in City case work were hired it would be beneficial for them to have additional time to become acclimated to their positions and to the City GMP Process. During the conceptual SPA process it will be important to discuss the transfer of density concept which would be employed by the Aspen Skiing Company. We would like to remove existing lodge rooms owned by the Aspen Skiing Company from the lodge market and convert them to permanent employee housing. This action is presently recognized under the City Code in the "Change in Use" provisions and adds the removed units back into the lodge GMP quota. We would like to get the Planning Office support for as-suring that the quota would be immediately replaced and that the extra quota would be reserved for one year for the party whose action made it available for the quota. Having this option available is essential to the Aspen Skiing Company's ability to construct the hotel without having to require too many years' GMP allocations. The Aspen Skiing Company development plan may need multi year and/or future year lodge allocations -- how can this be accomplished? Due to the complexity of the development and our desire to incorporate the hotel into the master plan for renovations at the base of Little Nell, a multi year or future allocation becomes important. Since an SPA precise plan approval can only be given for those portions of a project which have received GMP aopproval how can these approvals be harmonized with our project or will it it require a variation by Aspen City Council. r-- .-.., ~ Alan Richman April 22, 1985 Page 3 As we explained at the meeting we intend to minimize the SPA expansion into the conservation area. This hopefully will mitigate the unfounded concerns of many of the neighbors that our project will go all the way up Little Nell. It is our intention to keep as much of the project to the toe of the mountain as possible thereby mitigating reasonable concerns. In sum, we would like your written response to the following: 1. Will the Planning Office either recommend a joint lodge and commercial GMP review during the lodge GMP reveiw process or recommend changing the deadline for applications for the commercial GMP to a later date? 2. Will the Planning Office recommend allowing transfer of density for lodge units converted to employee uni ts in accordance with the Aspen Skiing Company's plan outlined above? 3. How can we proceed to receive multi-year or future-year allocations so that our complete precise plan can be approved this year. I speak for Peter, Bill and myself in thanking you and Paul for a very helpful meeting that aired a lot of issues and concerns that we had as we embarked upon this project. If there are any additional areas that I have left out that you would like to cover in your answering letter I would look forward to it, otherwise I hope that you would be able to respond to this letter pending your discussions with Paul as expeditiously as possible. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By GK/kl cc: Peter Forsch Bill Kane Paul Taddune, Esq.