HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Little Nell SPA.1986
I
~
,-- -,~-
-/,c,
\
\
\.
,~
'l"
/'\
^
~
\
\~
(i
March 26, 1986
Aspen City Council
130 So. Galena Street
A.spen, CO 81611
design workshop, inc.
710 e. durant
aspen, colorado 81611
3031925-8354
The following materials are hereby formally submitted for
inclusion in your public hearing record dated March 26,1986
o Little Nell GMP!SPA submission dated December, 1985.
o Supplemental drawing index submitted December, 1985.
o Memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning and Development
Director, to Aspen City Council, dated September 17, 1985.
o Ordinance of the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, extending
the boundary of the SPA overlay across a portion of the
Little Nell base area.
o Resolution. No. 85-18 of the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Co~~ission recommending conceptual approval of the Little
Nell Base Redevelopment SPA.
o Memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning Office, to Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, dated January 21, 1986.
o City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission evaluation L-1,
L-2 GMI? score sheets dated January '21, 1986.
o Memorandum from Ja.y Hammond, Public Services Director, to
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Dix.ector, dated
January 6, 1986.
o Memorandum from Thomas S. Dunlop, Director, Environmental
Health Department, to Alan Richman, Planning Office, dated
December 14, 1985.
o Memorendum from Jim Nilson, Chief Building Official, to Alan
Richman, Planning Director, dated January 6, 1986.
o Memorandum from Bill Ness, Parks Department, to Alan
Richman, Planning Department, dated January 9, 1986.
o Memorandum from Jim Markalunas to Alan Richman, Planning
Office, dated Decewber 23, 1985.
community development
land planning
landscape architecture
...."
....
I \
..-,
o Memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning and Development
Director, to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, dated
January 23, 1986.
o Memorandum from Jay Hammond, City Engineering, to Alan
Richman, Planning and Development Director, dated January
20, 1986.
o Memorandum from Tom Newland, Planning Engineer, to Alan
Richman, Planning and Development Director, dated January
24, 1986.
o Letter from Jeffrey L. Hynes, Colorado Geological Su~~ey, to
Alan Richman, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, dated January 6,
1986.
o Memorandum from Jay Hammond, City Engineering, to Alan
Richman, Planning and Development Director, dated March 3,
1986.
o Memorandum from A.J. Zabbia, Jr., Rea, Cassens, and
Associates, Inc., to Jay Ha~nond, City Engineering, dated
February 20, 1986.
o Little Nell GMP/SPA Precise Plan submission, Executive
Summary, dated March 14, 1986.
o Memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning and Development
Director, to Aspen City Council, dated March 19, 1986.
o Resolution #86-3 of th$Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
recommending Precise Plan approval of the Little Nell base
redevelopment SPA
o Letter from Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director,
to Fred Smith, Planning Director, Aspen Skiing Co.,. dated
March 18, 1986.
o Resolution #2 (series of 1986) a resolution forwarding the
1985 City of. Aspen L-1/L-2/CC/CL and other zone district
growth management score for the Little Nell base
redevelopment lodge GMP application.
o Four photographs of a computer simulation of the proposed
gondola building dated March 24, 1986.
.
...
I \
o Index of Drawings
SPA Illustrative Site
Schematic Site Plan -
Schematic Site Plan -
Drop-off Option I
prop-off Option II
Drop-off Option III
Drop-off Option IV
Drop-off Option V
Hotel Drop-off A.
Hotel Drop-off B
Proposed Skier Drop-off
Lift Terminal Plan
Lift Terminal Section
Section at Durant Street
West Wing Floor Plan
West Wing 0 Level Plan
Section at Durant St.-View Planes
Section at Hotel Plaza
West Wing Building Section
Building Sections AA and BB
West and North Elevations at West Wing
Gondola Building Profile
Plan.
Phase One
Completion
Phase
\
,~
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
^
r-~
.J;(/tf,_ /:;"(1".;;,,-
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen City Council
Hal Schilling, City Manage~
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director ~~
Little Nell Review Schedule
TO:
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
March 19, 1986
================:====================================================
Attached for your review is the Planning Office's analysis of the
Little Nell Precise Plan. This comprehensive memo is the only one
which we intend to produce for this stage of the review, and therefore
should be brought to each of the following meetings (along with the
applicant's executive summary which was provided to yoU-earlier).
DATE TIME LOCATION
Wednesday, March 19 5:00-7:00 PM Council Chambers
Monday, March 24 Regular Meeting Community Center
Wednesday, March 26 5:00-7:00 PM Council Chambers
Monday, March 31 4:00-6:00 PM Council Chambers
Tuesday, April I 5:00-7:00 PM Council Chambers
Please call me if you have any questions about the sChedule or the
attached memo.
AR.l
.
1""'"\
.,......,
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen City Council /:~
Hal Schilling, City Manage~
Alan Richman, Planning and Development
Little Nell Precise Plan
~)
Director '\ \-"
TO:
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
March 19, 1986
===============================================================
APPLICANT: Aspen Skiing Company
ZONING/LOT SIZE: The base area of Little Nell is presently zoned
CC/SPA and C. Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1985, ...lIIhich received
first reading approval from Council at the conceptual stage, will
place an SPA OVerlay on that portion of the base area zoned C.
Final action on that ordinance should only be taken when Council
is ready to take final action on the P reci se PI an. T he a rea
zoned CC/SPA comprises 43,124 s.f., while the area zoned C
requested for inclusion within the SPA OVerlay comprises 45,738
s.f., for a total lot size of 88,862 s.~.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: At this stage of the review process, the
following land use reviews are before the City Council:
1. Final action on SPA Precise Plan;
2. Final action on Ordinance 53, .Series of 1985;
3. Final action on change in use GMP exemption to convert
the HOliday House from lodging to employee housing;
4. Final action on encroachment (vendor's agreement) into
Dean Street; and
5. Allotment of lodge units to the project (multi-year
allotment requested; allotment for additional comme r-
cial space not yet submitted, but anticipated on August
I, 1986).
Final actions taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission
included the following:
1. Grant of Conditional Use Permit for hotel in CC zone
and ski lifts in the C zone district; and
2. Grant of mountain viewplane and 8040 greenline ap-
provals.
.-'
-.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: In order to provide Council with an
organized sequence in which to consider this application, we
suggest that issues be taken in the following order:
A. Analysis of proj eCl:' s compliance with conditions of concep-
t ual approval:
1. Architecture, site design and lift configuration.
2. Access, circulation and parking.
3. Geologic hazards, drainage, grading, utilities and
employee housing.
4. Miscellaneous issues which have been resolved.
B. Evaluation of consistency with precise plan reYiew criteria.
C. Specification of zoning regulations to apply to the parcel,
variations permitted, constr.uction schedule and mitigation
of construction impacts.
D. Growth Management allotments.
E. SPA Overlay Rezoning (Ordinance 53, Series of 1985).
Our review of these issues fOllows, and should be used alongside
the executive summary provided to Council by the applicant which
provides the graphics to illustrate the points contained herein.
A. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. Council Resolution
No. 85-33 set 2S conditions of approval of the applicant' s
conceptual plan. These conditions set the framework within
which the applicant and the P&~ have been working to develop
a precise plan in keeping with the site's unique location
and function. Therefore, our analysis of the applicant's
compliance with these conditions forms an integral part of
our evaluation o~ the suitability of the precise plan
itself .
1. Conditions Concerning Architecture, Site Design and
Lift Configuration. The issues to be discussed in this
section are open space (Condition No.1), skier drop
off (Condition No.7), visual impact (Condition No.4),
shadows (Condition No. IS), pedestrian gateway (Condi-
tion No. 19), encroachments (Condition No. 23), lift
building design (Condition No. 12), lift service
(Condition No~ 13), snow shedding (Condition No. 16)
and FAR (Condition No.2).
"I. The applicant shall amend the site plan to provide
2
~
~
._.:l_
open space along the length of the Durant Street
frontage of the hotel, so as to create a courtyard
of at least 10 feet in depth. The open space
requirement shall be considered in coordination
with rather than in addition to the area to be set
aside for the on-site drop-off facility required
in condition *7 below."
During the conceptual review, we raised a concern that
the open space on the site, being at the rear of the
building, did not meet the requirement of Section 24-
3.7 (d) that open space be open to the st reet. By the
conclusion of that stage of the review we suggested
that the open space along Spring Street could be
justi~ied as technically meeting this requirement.
Therefore, when the condition was rewritten, reference
to the technical requirement was dropped in favor of a
simple statement that open space be ~rovided along
Durant to create a courtyard effect.
When Condition No. I was written, we had in mind that
the skier drop-off area could be set in the mi dst of
open space, and that the two areas need not result in a
total requirement for 20 or more feet of set back.
However, we did not anticipate that the drop-off area
would be designed to occupy the entire frontage, and
would essentially be used instead of providing open
space, as it was in the original design provided to the
Planning Commission at the Precise Plan stage.
The original Precise Plan reviewed by p&Z showed the
building mOiled back the minimum of 10 feet which had
been required by Council, with the skier drop-off
thereby extending partly into the Durant Avenue right-
Of-way. This aspect of the Plan received relatively
low scores from P&Z in the GMP process, and caused the
applicant to re-think the project's design.
The revised plan, which was accepted by P&Z, was for
the building to be moved back another 10 feet on the
site, with the fOllowing results:
o The skier drop-off is accommodated fully within
the applicant I s property.
o Views. to the mountain have been improved.
o Shadow effects on Durant Avenue have been reduced.
o Four hotel units and a limited amount of accessory
space have been eliminated from the project.
3
~
.~\
The major trade-offs for these several benefits are:
o The image of the hotel on Durant Avenue is still
influenced by the presence of the parking area.
To mitigate this problem, the applicant proposes
to continue the Hunter Street paving program into
the drop-off area, and to do plantings in front of
the hotel and along the drop-off lane.
c The building no longer sits along Durant, but
instead is placed well back from the street. To
maxim.ize pedestrian activity in the downtown, and
to be consistent w.ith the character ~f our
victorian town, it is normally considered prefer-
able to have storefronts directly on the street.
BUildings such as Ajax Mountain and City Plaza are
examples of how "dead" open space is not prefer-
able to on-street building frontage.... The appli-
cant demonst rated to the Planning Commission that
the arcade in front of the building could serve
the function of an active street front and would
draw people walking in either direction along
Durant or from the Hunter Street Plaza into this
walkway.
o There are potential conflicts from the drop-off
onto Durant Avenue, which are discussed in detail
below.
Given the overlapping benefits which accrue from moving
the building back to its proposed location, we feel
that the proposal is a reasonable solution. We support
the applicant's argument that the mall area through
Hunter Street, and extending from the deck of the hotel
to the deck at the Tippler is the best location to have
peop~e gather, given its sun exposure, mountainside
views and the skiing/socializing and shopping activi-
ties which are planned there. Once it is accepted that
a hotel is an appropriate use for the site, as was done
by Council at the conceptual level, we feel that the
orientation of the hotel and the pedestrian spaces has
been properly planned.
"7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to
indicate an auto-taxi-limo drop-off facility
of adequate siz e for. the needs of the ski
area, which is in addition to any drop-off
area for hotel guests. As the Council is
concerned about maintaining adequate traffic
flows on Durant Avenue, it is expected that
the applicant will address the proper
location for. this facility within the
4
I"""".
t""\
project's property boundary."
(/
In conj unction with pushing the bu ilding back an
additional IO feet, the applicant presented several
alternative designs for the skier drop-off area. The
P&Z originally chose an alternative which totallY
separated the traffic circulation in the drop-off area
from that for the hotel. This solution pushed the
entrance to the hotel off the Durant/Spring corner,
ont,o Spring Street and created an impractical series of
turning movements out of the drop-off area and into the
hotel. A revised plan, which was presented to and
accepted by the P&Z subject to final approval by the
City Engineer has the fOllowing key features:
o The drop-off function is contained within the
applicant's property, and provides 9-10 spaces.
o The planting island between the drop-off and the
street is intended to buffer the vi~of the hotel
frontage. A sidewalk has also beenpro~ided in
the island to enhance pedestrian movement.
o Parallel. parking for four cars will be permitted
alongside the island. The edge of this parking is
at the edge of the angle parking which now occurs
at the North of Nell and Aspen Club Lodge Build-
ings.
The City Engineer has serious concerns about the
impacts of this design, due to the presence of th ree
curb cuts on Durant Avenue. Jay Hammond is reviewing
the plan, and considering recommending that the curb
cuts be reduced from three to two. As will be demon-
strated to you at the meeting, either of these ap-
proaches creates car turning conflicts, but with three
cuts these conflicts are on the public street, while
with two cuts the conflict is on the applicant's
property.
"4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the
impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen
Mountain from Hunter Street, and propose any
design changes which will reduce obstructions
of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or
Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed
architectural renderings and elevations shall
be provided at the Precise Plan stage."
The applicant has provided a computer simulated view of
the hotel as it will appear from Hunter Street at the
Durant and Cooper corners. These simulations are
5
~
.~
evidence that the critical viewplane from the town to
the Little Nell run and Bell Mountain will be preserved
through the hotel's design approach. The Council
should requi,re that. thes'e simulations be augmented-bY'
t;headdition of~ the~proposed gondolclterlllTnalbuildlng
to insure that this viewplane has been preserved."-~~It
should also be recognized that the views presented from
the east and west on Durant demonstrate that the
building will fill in the one remaining open area along
this st reet, and complete the "walled in" feeling from
the Aspen Club Lodge and North of Nell Buildings.
Finally, Council should be informed of the applicant's
commitments to P&Z that no equipment on the roof of the
building will be visible from Durant Avenue or the base
area, and that no height variation from the 40 foot CC
zone standard is required to build this project.
"IS. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of
the effects of the building along Durant
Avenue and Spring Street, and. mitigate the
problems caused by the building's shadows for
pedestrians crossing the street."
The applicant' s original shadow study stated that
"Durant Avenue will be in .shade for most of the winter.
In December, shadows from the Little Nell Hotel will
shade the street north of the Hotel all day. By the
end of February, most of the driving surface of Durant
Avenue will be in the sun from 10: 30 - I: 30. The south
side of Durant, adjacent to the Hotel, will remain in
shade all winter." This study was revised after the
building was moved back to demonstrate a significantly
less, although. still apparent, shading effect on the
st reet.
The applicant' s response to this problem is that "a
maj or pedest r ian crossing be const ructed at the
intersection of Durant and Hunter Street" at the
applicant's expense. Included in this plan is a neck
down of the street to two travel lanes at the intersec-
tion. We advised P&Z that with Durant acting as a
maj or thoroughfare for downtown, this neck down may be
ill advised, and may create turning conflicts into the
drop-off area. The Commission considered our concerns,
and the manner in which .the neck down in front of the
courthouse functions, and determined that the neck down
is a desireable addition to the plan. The Commis-
sioners felt that if the neck down were pulled back I
to 2 feet, it would allow pedestrians a chance to react
to on-coming traffic, but would improve their view of
that traffic. Further, they felt that much of the
shading problem had been solved by the new building
6
. .
..-, ,-,
location, and therefore, accepted the mitigation
proposed as adequate.
"19. The applicant shall make every effort,
including working with the City of Aspen, to
increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway
to the mountain so as to make it a more
"grand" entrance in the winter and summer."
In essence, the plan .for the pedestrian gateway to the
mountain is quite similar to that proposed at the
conceptual level, and was not found by P&Z to be
significantly more "grand." The ~pplicant made the
following representations to the P&Z as to improvements
in the gateway COncept:
o Pushing the building back has slightly increased
the width of the Hunter Street entrance to the
mountain.
o The roof on the western portion or .the building
has been Sloped more than in other locations to
increase the feeling of spaciousness in the
pedestrian mall.
o The mall paving/landscaping theme has been carried
into the drop-off area in front of the hotel.
o A paving link will be created between the deck at
Little Nell and that of the Tippler, to include
the maze area for the gondola, which will be a
substantial milling area for apres-ski, events and
summer visitors.
o There will be formal landscaping at the rear of
the hotel, which will transition into a more
natural mountain environment in the vicinity of
the lift towers.
Council should be aware that the ASC has broken the
mall proposal into Zone I, comprising all of Hunter
Street. and that portion of Dean Street between Hun.ter
and the Tippler, and Zone II, which involves the
Tippler frontage to Galena Street. ASC intends to pay
for the improvements in Zone I, and to participate with
its neighbors in the improvements to Zone II. The
likely vehicle for these improvements is the Lodge
Improvement Dist r ict, but the ASC agreed that if Zone I
is completed before the District is underway, they
would pave Dean Street with materials consistent with
the rest of Dean St reet, and rest rict the ent rance to
the Street such that it is limited to authorized
7
.--
.........,
vehicle access only (e.g., Tipple Inn residents and
service vehicles for the Tippler). This arrangement
appeared to satisfy both the Planning Commission and
the Tipple Inn residents, who had previously objected
to the ASC proposals in this area.
"23. The applicant shall disclose at the Precise
Plan stage all plans related to the Dean
Street right-of-way, including any requests
for encroachments as may be necess.ary."
The applicant has disclosed the plans for Dean Street
and made an encroachment request of the City Engineer-
ing Department for paving, landscaping, street furni-
ture, ski ticket sales booths and skier drop-off
parking. We have, however, received a comment from
the City Attorney that an encroachment may be the wrong
tool to address these improvements. Pau~ suggests that
the use of Dean Street by ASC for its ticket kiosk,
landscaping and street furniture is similar to the
arrangement by McDonalds to add facilities to, and use
the mall, which was done by a "vendor's agreement" with
the City. In this sense, we differentiate the en-
croachment of a private building into a public right-
of -way from the use of publiC space for public tYl?e
improvements, to allow business to be conducted in
these areas. .We, therefore, recommend that Council
enter into a vEmdoi.' sUagreement. with theappl icant,--Jn
whic:h....t:.he--iipl?licant-indemnif ies the- City for any
liabil ity associated with its iml?rovements, - and agrees
to maintain the mall for the period of the agreement.
"12. The al?l?licant shall provide detailed drawings
of the new base lifts, demonstrating that
these buildings are visually coml?atible with
the base area and that the principal storage
area for either chairs or gondolas will not.
be above grade at the base area.~
The al?plicant was only able to provide P&Z with the
design parameters for ,the gondola building, as the
structure itself is still in the design stage. The
aPl?licant's presentat:ion identified some of the
critical variables which defined the building's
location, including the following:
o It is essential that the gondola follow a route
which keeps its profile as low to the ground as
possible, to minimize wind disturbance. Given
existing lifts and mountain forms, orientation of
the lift building is relatively fixed.
B
_c.......,
.-.
~
o The gondola requires an extensive flat area,
including a "negative" grade, to permit accelera-
tion of the cars to necessary speeds. This area
also serves- ,the function of skier slow down,
mazing and entry to the building. The design of
this area is intended to minimize skier climbing
to get into the building.
o The building's form is set by its function,
including a height to cover the machinery and
allow for maintenance work (about 22-25 feet) a
width to provide not only for the lift, but also
for the underground entry to the building of
supplies for the mountain restaurant (about 40-45
feet) and a length to include the acceleration
facilities (about 55-60 feet). It was noted that
if the capacity of the lift were to be increased
at SOme point in the future, the -length of the
building would also increase (to~feet).
o It is the architect's intention to create a
building which uses primarily transparent materi-
als to create visual interest and minimize its
impact; on views.
The Planning Commission deferred its consideration of
th~ detailed design of the building to the Council
Precise Plan review, recogniz ing that the required
drawings would take some time to complete. As was
noted above, the Council should pay particular atten-
tion to the building's effect on the Hunter Street
viewplane and make every effort to preserve that public
view co.rridor. We also recommend that consideration be
given to refraining from affecting the function of the
gondOla by setting artificial building constraints
which will be counter to the best interests of the
community over the long-term.
"13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment
as to how lift service will be provided on
Little Nell for special events, ski instruc-
tions and for secondary access to Lift 5.
The applicant will show the location of all
lifts proposed for the base area and will
provide a commitment that their installation
will be initiated in 1987. The applicant
shall be required to specify to the City
which ..1 ift system is intended to be installed
prior to review of the Precise Plan by the
City Council, also giving the Planning Office
approximately two (2) weeks to review the
proposal and obtain referral comments from
9
,""-.
^
other agencies prior to the initial presenta-
tion of the Precise Plan to Council."
Since the applicant has chosen to install a gondola,
rather than a detachable quad chair, the issue of lift
service to. Little Nell has come into clearer focus.
Attached for your information is a letter which I wrote
to the ASC amending the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master
Plan (AMSAMP) to provide for the installation of a new
lift #4A. The lift is expected to be a triple chair
(although double or quad configurations are still under
considerat ion), capacity of 1200 skiers at one time
(SAar) which w ill not ope r.at e as an in i t ial access
lift. The lift will function as a backup to the
gondola, if the latter is out of service ~r running at
reduced capacity, and will provide ski school and
special event access to the Little Nell Run, but will
not ope rat e unt il 10: 00 A. M., while the gondola will
open at 8:30 A.M. If the ASC intends to alter the
operation of the lift, this will be con~idered a major
plan amendment, to allow the City and County to address
the on-site and off-site impacts of any capacity
increase which would result.
The new lift program has been reviewed with, and found
acceptable by the u.s. Forest Service, which is now
considering the amendment to their Master Plan for
Aspen Mountain. I have also received verbal comments
from the USFS that their landscape architect has looked
at the base area design for the ski area and feels that
it will function properlY. Finally, the USFS has
indicated that they are meeting with ABC to develop a
program to bring the lift towers into conformance with
applicable visual appearance criteria (i.e., painting)
and would like a condition applied to the proj ect to
insure that this occurs.
"16. The applicant shall aemonstrate the techni-
ques to be employea on the roof of the notel
to manage snow sheading to insure that it
does not interfere with or endanger pedes-.
trians below. ~
The applicant has provided us with a schematic drawing
of the features designed into the building to manage
the snow on the roof. The techniques employed inClude
a flat slope on the roof top to retain snow, avalanche
guards at the edge of the sloped portions of the roof,
use of dormers to protect ent rywaysand use of a flat
roof on the arcade to protect pedestrians. This
presentation satisfied the concerns of P&Z, and should
be reviewed by Council to insure that you are also
10
,~
A,
comfortable with the proposed approach.
"2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan
submission, request a variation of the
project's FAR if it is above 1.5:1, since the
land zoned Conservation does not count toward
the overall project FAR. The applicant may
also request special review approval to
increase the allowable commercial FAR of the
property to 1.7:1 by providing employee
housing in the appropriate ratio on or off
site. "
The applicant has indicated that the proj ect' s FAR is
about 1.93:l, using the land area zoned CC, and about
0.94:1, using the land zoned CC as well as that zoned
C. These numbers are based on the actual building size
proposed at 81,265 s.f., plus 2,000 s.f. requested by
the applicant to provide for miscellaneous building
needs which may become apparent during frnal design and
const ruct ion.
Since the Conservation zone does not allow the hotel or
retail uses, we continue to recommend that the same
method of FAR calculation as was used for the Aspen
Mountain PUD be applied to this proj ect. This rule
states that we do not calculate the FAR using land in a
zone in which the use is not allowed. Council should
also note that Ordinance No.2, Series of 1986, elimi-
nates the ability to obtain bonus FAR when off-site
housing is provided. Therefore, the applicant should
be viewed as requesting an FAR variation from 1.5:1 to
1. 93: 1, a substantial increase of about 25 percent over
the allowable FAR, although within the maximum 2.0:1
permitted in the CC z one when employee housing is
provided on-site. This variation should, however, be
permitted, if Council finds the design of the building
to be suitable for this site as presented.
The Planning Commission supported the Planning Office
in its calculation methodology, and recommended that
you grant the requested FAR variat ion to the proj ect.
2. Conditions Concerning Access, Circulation and Parking. The
issues to be discussed in this section include parking needs
(Condition No.3), adequacy of streets (Condition No.9),
service areas (Condition No. B) and trails (Condition No.
18) .
"3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical
study of the parking needs of the facility to meet
11
(-"
A,
the demands ~rom the lodge rooms, skiers, adminis-
trative offices, commercial spaces' and skier
support facilities, and shall increase the number
of spaces to be provided at the Precise Plan
stage."
TDA has accomplished the requested study and based on their
recommendations, the number of parking spaces has been
increased from 77 to 116. (Note: There are, 83 spaces, hot
85 on Level -22, and 33 on Level -12, for a total ofl16 and
not 118 spaces, as represented.) Following is a category by
category calculation of the applicant's proposal as compared
to the Code requirements:
CATOOORY
STANDARD APPLIED
SPACES
PROPOSED*
TYPICAL CODE
STANDARD**
CODE
REQIfr
Lodge Units (92)
Administrative
Offices (4883 s.f.)
Retail (20,553 s.L)
Restaurant
(5196 s. f. )
Skier (1300 skiers
added)
0.55-0.7 spaces/unit
Replace Existing
53/67
27/7
l/unit
3-"lt/1000 s.L
92
17
0.1-0.8 per 1000 s.f.
1/1000 s.f.
2/17
5
4/1000 s.L
4/1000 s. L
82
20
AMSAMP approval
46***
(off-site)
N/A
N/A
*
**
Range reflects winter vs. summer.
No parking is required in the CC zone for lodge or commercial uses.
These standards reflect those of the most similar zone for the
proposed mix of uses, the L-I/L-2 zone districts.
As a condition of AMSAMP, ASC agreed to provide 46 spaces either at
Little Nell, off-site (no location designated) or via cashcontribu-
tion to parking or transit facilities of at least $460,000, but not
more than $690,000 (based on $10-15,OOO per space, to be specified by
a City study). The condition also stated that "under no circumstances
will the automobile parking requirement of Pitkin County be increased
unless ASC proposes additional daily capacity increases on Aspen
Mountain in the future."
***
Based on the standards applied by the consultant, the
applicant argued that 92-101 spaces will be demanded for the
project in the winter versus the summer (92 = 53 + 5 + 27 +
2 + 5; 101 = 67 + 5 + 7 + 17 + 5) ,and, therefore, some
credit should be given to ASC against the 46 space require-
ment. The P&Z rej ected this request, but a pproved the
proposal to provide 118 spaces subgrade on site as meeting
the project's needs. It should be noted that in the discus-
sion of the impact of the project on City streets, the
cons,ultant stated that 67 cars would be generated by the ski
12
,;:-....
^,
capacity increase approved by
P&Z considered increasing the
additional 21 spaces, but this
vote.
Pit kin County in 1985. The
46 space requirement by an
motion waS defeated by a 4-3
Staff has numerous comments on the information provided by
the consultant, including the following'
o The parking standard applied to the Aspen Mountain
Lodge and to the hotels at the Highlands base of
0.7 spaces per unit is the minimum which we can
justify for this facility.
o It is reasonable to assume that many of the
visitors to the shops will already be on the site
for other reasons. However, the standard of one
space per 1000 s.f. of restaurant is exceptionally
low. We would expect some guests to the luxury
dining facilities to arrive at the port cochere
and expect valet parking to be available.
Further, no space has been provided-for visitors
who may attend a conference on the site, whether
they be in-town residents or guests from other
lodges. Invariably, some limited parking will be
needed for such facilities. The accessory parking
need for conference is included in the above-noted
standard of 0.7 spaces per unit but not in the
lower standard proposed by the applicant.
o Parking for ski area employees, based on 40
percent of employees driving, is reasonable, given
the Ski Company's excellent bus service for
employees.
o The 46 space requirement from AMSAMP represents a
very low standard applied only to the capacity
increase for the mountain. No provision was made
for the increased attractiveness of the Little
Nell Base Area due to the high speed lift to be
installed. No provision was made for any parking
with respect to existing skiers on the mountain.
While we do not suggest a reassessment of the on-
mountain parking commitment which emerged from the
Master Plan, we strongly suggest that you rej ect
any request to meet some of this requirement by
requiring any less than the 118 spaces proposed
for the hotel and other uses. We recommend that
at a minimum the Council require the same number.
of parking spaces as did the Planning Commission,
in addition to the 46 spaces required by AMSAMP.
o Council should be aware that a condition of AMSAMP
13
;-.,
A
from the City's referral review was that "ASC
shall agree to maintain the existing parking lot
(of at least 30 automobile parking spaces) located
on Aspen Street within the City of Aspen for
skiing area parking or transit related uses. The
Agreement shall be in the form of a recorded
covenant on the property to the benefit of Pitkin
County and the City of Aspen." This par:cel of
land has passed from the ASC to John Roberts, who
has since provided an option to purchase the lot
to Hans Cantrup as part of his 601 Aspen Street
Residential G~IP project. ASC has a lease with
Roberts which recognizes that 30 parking spaces
must be provided on this site, p~oximate to the
site, or underground and proximate to the site.
The lease does not, however, recognize the City's
desir'e to consider the lot for transit related
uses. We recommend that this issue be addressed
by the applicant as part of Council's review and
that an appropriate condition be carried forward
with this project.
o Another condition of AHSAHP was that "ASC shall
institute a taxi-limo-auto drop-off facility at
Lift lA within the time frame of the three year
improvement program for Aspen Mountain." This
Condit ion seems particularly important if we are
to continue to have a v iable second ent ry poi nt
for Aspen Mountain for the near: term. Also
valuable would be a shuttle between the Little
Nell Base and IA to respond to overcrowding at the
gondola and to otherwise betteJ; distribute s.kier
impacts on the town. We recommend that Council
also carry this condition forward in its review of
the Precise Plan, and further ask the applicant to
make representations as to any auto disincentives
such as vans which are being designed into the
hotel and the remainder of the base area.
"9. The applicant shall provide a detailed,
technical study of the adequacy of Durant,
Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle
traffic volumes associated with skiers, hotel
guests, employees, service vehicles, and
visitors to the commercial uses and shall
propose appropriate mitigation measures to
address any traffic problems which will
result from the project. The applicant shall
also take into account the access needs of
emergency vehicles, inCluding, but not
limited to ambulances and fire trucks.
14
t"""-.
i""\
The TDA "study of streets shows a daily net traffic
increase on Durant of about 250 trip ends per day in
winter (60 trips at the peak hour) and about 375 trip
ends per day in summer (42 trips at the peak hour).
However, in the original study, no accounting was made
of the approximately 300 vehicle trip ends per day due
to the mountain capacity increase. The implementation
of this increase, through constructing the new high-
speed lift, is clearly a part of this project, and was
not accounted for in AMSAMP. The consultant provided
an updated review of the street impacts to P&Z,
demonstrating that even with the inclusion of the ski
capacity increase, Durant could accommodate expected
vehicle trips, particularly since the skier drop-off
has been moved out of the right-of-way. Spring Street
was also demonstrated to have sufficient capacity, and
is discusse-d in further detail below with respect to
service and emergency vehicle access.
"S. The applicant shall provide a detailed
analysis of the proposed servtce yards on
Spring St reet and Dean St reet, demonst rat ing
that adequate space has been provided for
truck stacking and that proper turning
movements can be accomplished ~dthin these
streets. The applicant shall also confer
with the E.nvironmental Health Department as
to any air' and water quality devices which
may need to be installed in these areas (and
in the parking facility for cars). The
applicant shall work w,ith. the North of Nell
and Tippler management entities and shall try
to accommodate the service delivery needs of
these buildings in a single location off Dean
Street. Finally, the applicant shall demon-
strate that the service delivery area on Dean
Street will not cause safety problems for
pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance
problems for the residents of the North of
Nell, and that the needs of the facility
could not practically otherwise be met by a
single facility on Spring Street."
There have been two maj or improvements to the service
yard proposal since Council reviewed this application
at the Conceptual stage. First, the service area
adj acent to the Tippler on Dean Street has been
entirely eliminated, which will significantly benefit
pedestrians in this area. Service to the hotel is
proposed in a covered area off Spring St reet, as. is
receiving for on-mountain restaurants, which will be
transported beneath the site, to the gondola building
IS
~
,A
and up the mountain. This solution will substantially
reduce Snow-cat traffic to the base area, as will the
plan to remove the maintenance facility and move it up
to the mountain location.
The second change came about during the P&Z'S review of
the proj ect. The applicant agreed to construct a
modif ied "cu.l-de-sac" at the end of Spring St reet which
would improve the turning capabilities of trucks in the
service area, and allow the largest likely service
vehicle to maneuver past vehicles parked at the new
entrance to the Aspen Club LOdge. Although the
modified cul-de-sac would remove two of the Aspen Alps'
parking spaces adj acent to the Little Nell property,
its benefit to that facility is that it would reduce or
eliminate the through traffic which is currently
experienced at the Alps' drop-off are.a. It should be
noted that the ASC has a 30 foot circulation easement;\(O i:?u/..
over that portion of the property zoned "park" over6'f1'4~
which a portion of the cul-de-sac WGtiI-d be built.
Finally, it was agreed that the applicant wou.ldbe
responsible for providing landscaping to buffer the
Alps from any visual impact from the service yard and
cul-de-sac.
The Council should be aware that the utility/trash
service area requires a variation, as permitted by the
SPA regulations. There is a minimum rear yard require-
ment for the utility/trash service area in the area and
bulk requirements chart for theCC zone, referenced to
Section 24-3.7 (h) (4), stating that the a rea be on an
alley and setting standards for its dimensions. It
appears that an area for this building would require a
minimum length of 20 feet for the fi rst 6,000 s. f. of
building area and 5 feet for eaCh addition 6,000 s.f.,
resulting in a length' of about S3 feet for the s!!rvice
area. The P&Z recommends that you grant a variation
of this requirement to 36 feet which more accurately
represents the needs of the project. .
"IS. The applicant shall provide a trail easement
through the property connecting the trail
near the Aspen Alps with the Dean Street
trail and will include any required ramps for
bicycles or other year-round trail facilities
in their site plan at the precise plan
stage. The applicant will also examine the
potential for creating a pedestrian trail
connecting to the Aspen Mountain Road within
the context of the base area regrading and
provide an alignment for said trail if it is
found to be feasible."
16 .
^
^
The original proposal by the applicant was to provide a
trail which swung from the Aspen Alps, to the south of
the lift, in the flat portion of the site, connecting
to a ramp and to the Dean Street trail. However, the
location of the gondola, and its associated structures,
makes a trail in this location infeasible. The
applicant now proposes to connect the Dean Street and
Aspen Alps trails through the base area, using the
paving area behind the lift and providing signs for
connections as needed. The applicant has also expres-
sed a willingness to provide an unpaved, graded trail
connection to Aspen Mountain Road for summer hikers out
of the base area, but no design has been provided to
date. Finally, we have been informed that the appli-
cant has been working with the Nordic Council to
provide a trail across Aspen Mountain above the Aspen
Alps near Aspen Mountain Road. The applicant should be
required to provide a year-round trail easement to the
City for this trail, and to accommodat-e -the needs of
the trail in the slope regrading program.
3. Conditions Concerning Geologic Hazard, Drainage, Grading,
Utilities and Employee Housing. The issue.s to be discussed
in this section include geologic hazard (Condition No. 10),
grading (Condition No.5), drainage (Condition No. 22),
pumphouse relocation (Condition No. II), and employee
housing (Condition No. 14).
"10. The appl icant shall provide a detailed,
technical study of the geologic hazard on
Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and
shall demonstrate that any haz ard posed to
the property can and will be fully mitigat-
ed. The applicant shall also investigate the
soils hydrology in the area to demonstrate
the suitability of the site for development
purposes."
Chen and Associates has prepared two studies of the base
area subsurface, slope regrading and the on-mountain
geOlogic hazard during this phase of the project. The two
principal recommendations of their first study concerning
subsurface conditions were that:
o A program of test holes should be drilled and observa-
tion wells installed to provide information on ground-
water.
o A subSurface investigation program should be conducted
to provide information on subsurface soil conditions
and to analyze slope stability.
17
~
I
1"',,\
The later study recommends that:
o Monitoring of groundwater conditions be done through
the spring run-Off period.
o Additional design level foundation study be performed.
o Additional slope stability analysis be performed for
fill placement areas.
o Further surface water hydrology study be performed when
aerial topographical information can be obtained in the
spring.
Jay Hammond, City Engineer, feels that there are not any
unsolvable subsurface geological problems for the site and
recommends that you find that this condition has been met
if:
1. The additional studies recommended by Chen are com-
pleted; and
2. The final structural design and graoIng plan is
certified by the geotechnical engineer as not impacting
slope stability and surface hydrology to the detriment
of this project or its neighbors.
With respect to the potential off-site impacts from flood or
debris flow from Copper/Spar Gulch, and Vallejo Gulch, Jay
states that:
"Additional information is also required regarding the
flood and debris flow risk from the Vallejo Gulch area
onto the proj ect site and adj acent sites. Adequate
mitigation should be provided to protect the prOject
and any adjacent properties impacted by new grading,
Related to the work undertaken by Chen to evaluate the
geological hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell
redevelopment site is the ongoing effort to evaluate
the hazards and mitigation across the entire base of
the mountain. To the extent that the Aspen Skiing
Company is the maj or. land holder within the upslope
source areas and since a failure to mitigate the
prOblems in the upslope area could affect Little Nell
and other downslope sites, we would recommend ,that ASC
be required to commit to ongoing hazard study, engi-
neering and mitigation construction in those areas
under their control via direct ownership, leasehold, or
other usage agreement as a condition of the Little Nell
approval."
IS
/.........
r'\
This language should be carried forward in the agreement to
be written between the applicant and the City.
"5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans
for the earth work which is proposed to occur at
the base area, including any activity associated
with the base of the new lifts which may fall
outside of the SPA boundary, and shall identify
the locations for any material deposition which is
to occur."
The current grading plan for the site calls for a balanced
cut and fill program between the material to be removed from
the lower portions of the Little Nell slope and the material
which will be placed at the upper end of the slope, princi-
pally in the vicinity of Aspen~lountain Road and at the top
of the new Lift. #4A terminal. The regrading of Aspen
Mountain Road is intended to create no more than a 14
percent grade on the road, in keeping with cu~entgrades on
the road. The applicant will need to obtain an encroachment
permit f rom Pit kin County for the work on this County road
prior to initiating any regrading activities. Further,
Jay's comments with respect to geologic stability should
also address the proposed grading program.
"22. The appl icant shall prov ide a drainage plan at the
Precise Plan stage which meets the standards of
the Engineering Department concerning,the 100 year
storm and which addresses drainage from Aspen
Mountain as it affects the site and drainage from_
the development site itself."
During the course of P&Z's review, the applicant's represen-
tative, A.~. Zabbia, provided the City Engineer with
adequate information to indicate that this condition had
been met. The basic detention facility will be a 12 foot
deep trough, 24 feet wide, and 90 feet long, in front of the
gondola building, which will be fenced or otherwise pro-
tected against any skier or hiker crossing. Incidentally,
the trough helps in the functioning of the gondOla by
providing the negative grade needed for the acceleration of
compartment s.
"ll. The applicant shall provide a solution to the
pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to
implement said solution at the applicant' s cost."
The applicant's has made the following representation with
respect to this problem:
"The pumphouse relocation and well modification will
19
,'-"
,.......".
occur in essentially two phases. In 19S6 the facil i-
ties providing pumping capability to serve the Little
Nell 0.5 MG steel tank; control and telemetry equipment
to serve the tank; and controls for the motorized
butterfly valve at the well will be relocated inside a
new proposed pumping station thus eliminating the 12
inch steel line up the Little Nell slope.
In conjunction with Hotel cons.truction .and final
improvements in Hunter Street, the Little Nell well
will be modified by pulling the existing turbine pump,
cutt i ng the casing below grade, and installing a
submersible pump and controls. The existing wellhouse
will be removed and a subsurface vault with a removable
access lid constructed in its place. The chlorinator
and necessary control eqUipment will be relocated in a
room provided in the commercial structure with an
outside door.' -
The water produced by the Little Nell- well will be
pumped directly into the system through the existing
motorized butterfly valve."
The City Water Department supports this solution, provided
that all plans, equipment and access easements are viewed in
advance of any construction. Council should also be aware
that the applicant has committed to undergrounding all
utilities on the site east of Galena Street.
"14. The applicant, shall provide housing for
employees of the proj ect in a manner accept-
able to the Housing Authority and Planning
Commission. The number of employees to be
housed will be determined at the Precise Plan
stage, based on the applicant's commitments
as part of the growth management plan
application. "
The applicant's proposal is to house 30 employees, repre-
senting 36 percent of the net new employees generated by the
project. The Housing Authority concurs with the generation
figures submitted by the applicant, and the method by which
the employees are to be housed. The Planning Commission
recommends that you grant the requested change in use of the
Holiday House from lodge to residential use. We would also
note that the AMSAMP requirement that four additional
employees be housed is proposed to also be met at the
Holiday House. Therefore, 17 units (2 persons per unit)
will be converted at this time, while 5 other units were
.previously required to be deed-restricted by Hans Cantrup.
The remaining six units on the site will likely be used to
off-set the employee hOUSing impacts of the commercial
20
..~"
.~
development at the Little Nell base area.
4. Conditions Concerning Miscellaneous Issues Which Have Been
Resolved. The fOllowing issues were fully resolved during
the course of the P&Z'S deliberations.
"20. The applicant shall demonstrate in the Precise
Plan submission that all questions as to the
ownership of the Hunter Street right-Of-way are in
the process of being reSolved, to insure that
permanent guarantees of the availability of Hunter
and Dean Streets for pedestrian access will be
provided. The Precise Plan shall not be approved
until the pedestrian access issue has been
resolved to the City's satisfaction. The appli-
cant will also demonstrate that the boundary
questions adjacent to the Tippler have been
resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall
be adjusted accordingly."
The applicant has obtained title to the contested land in
Hunter Street. The Tippler boundary problem has been
resolved by only including in the SPA plan that land which
is not subj ect to any dispute. If the boundary issue is
resolved in the favor of the ASC, the added land will only
enhance the project.
"6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of
the City's 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane
review procedures to the proposed development.
Should it be found that either rev iew procedure
applies, the applicant will submit the necessary
materials at the Precise Plan stage. demonstrating
compliance with the .review criteria of the Code."
The Planning Commissionga'Ve final S040 G reenline and
Mountain V iewplane approval to' the proj ect at the time of
its Precise Plan review.
"17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
buildings do not encroach into the land within the
Park zone near the Aspen Alps..
Th.e applicant proposes no building activity on the property
in question. Emergency skier service is proposed through
this site, with ambulance pick up on Spring Street.
Further, the cul-de~sac will encroach into this land, but on
the portion of the site which has an easement over it for
circulation. These uses would not. appear to affect the
status of the land in the Park zone district.
"21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental
21
!"""-
.r-,
Health Department with detaiLed information
on any fireplaces which will be included in
the project, demonstrating their compliance
with applicable Code provisions." .
The Environmental Health Department is quite pleased at the
applicant's proposed use of "gas log" type fireplaces, which
meet or exceed current woodburning device legislation.
"24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary
change shall only occur in conj unction with
final approval of the Precise Plan for the
proj ect . "
This procedure is being followed by the tabling of Ordinance
53, Series of 19S5, at second reading until the Little Nell
project completes its Precise Plan review.
"25. In the event that the growth allocat'ions for
the project shall expire, the boundary of the
SPA shall revert to its prior configuration."
This item should continue forward as a condition of ap-
proval.
B. Evaluation of Consistency with Precise Plan Review Criteria.
The evaluation of the project's consistency with the Precise
Plan review criteria should be conducted using the fOllowing
language from Section 24-7.7 as the standard of evaluation.
"(b) The burden shall rest upon an applicant to
demonstrate the reasonableness and suitability of
the Precise Plan, its conformity to the require-
ments of this article, that the adverse effects of
the proposed development have been minimized t.o
the extent practicable, and that it complies with
the City Council's intent in originally designat-
ing the site with an SPA overlay, including the
reasonable conformance of the Precise Plan with
the approval granted to the conceptual plan."
Each of the criteria in the Code are considered with respect
to this proj ect below.
I. Compatibility with Neighboring Development - The proposal is
surrounded by other short-term tourist uses. Its height is
40 feet, in compliance with underlying zoning and lower than
the North of Nell or Aspen Square. Its FAR of l.93:1 is
well below that of the North of Nell Building and its mass
is offset by use of various architectural techniques.
Problems noted at the P&Z review stage concerning open
space, shadows and skier drop-off as they affect this site
22
~,
,..-."
and the neighborhood have been adequately addressed by the
applicant.
2. Utilities and Roads - The project will upgrade water, sewer
and fire service to the area, underground existing utili-
ties, and provide for detention of stormwater from the site
and the mountain and routing to the City's storm sewer. The
proj ect wilL.'l:c).9i~l~i9!li.Uca~t volllmes.ofo_t[Clf"fi.C.t:<LJ:>\U:9-_l!L
Avenue, although WIthIn avaIlable street c;lpacItIes. The
City Engineer remains concerned about traffic conflicts
between cars entering and exiting the skier drop-off and
those on Durant itself.
3. Environmental Suitability - The applicant has initiated
studies of the identified hazards affecting the site. If
the recommendations of the consultant and City Engineer,
summarized above, are followed, the site appears to be
suitable for development.
4. Land Planning Techniques - The techniques eIllployed by the
appJ,icant include the use of subgrade space for the support
services to the hotel and ski area, removal of the mainte-
nance function from the base area, use of stepped back
architectural form to preserve the Hunter Street viewplane,
provision of substantial open space at the rear of the
parcel, and upgrading of Hunter and Dean Streets into
pedestrian malls. The design of the gondola terminal is an
important factor which has yet to be reviewed but must be
sensitively accommodated on the site.
5. Conformance with Aspen Area Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land Use
Plan designates this site as "recreation/accommodati ons",
which is intended "to allOW for .the recreation and accommo-
dation needs of the visitor to Aspen in an area that is
especially suited for this because. of its unity with, and
identity to, the proposed transportation system, ~he ski
area and the central area." The conformance of the proj ect
with the Growth Management pOlicy Plan has been discussed at
the conceptual stage, and is reviewed again below.
6. Expenditure of Public Funds - The proj ect does not appear to
directly require the expenditures of additional public
funds, although there will be costs to the improvement
district to upgrade that portion of Dean Street not addres-
sed by the appl icant. The appl icant will enhance serv ices
to the neighborhood in a variety of categories.
The Planning Office ~nd the Planning Commission find that the
proj ect is generally consistent with the intent of the above six
review criteria.
C. SPECIFICATION OF ZONE DISTRIcr REGULATIONS, VARIATIONS
23
;' T
;,.
/"'"",
,~.
PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Section 24-7.6(c)
requires that the application specify the zone district
regulations and variations which are to apply to the
development, while Section 24-7.6 (d) requires the provision
of a schedule specifying the timeframe of the development.
The zone district, regulations recommended by the Planning
Office and Planning Commission are a combination of those of
,the two underlying zones (CC and C). In all cases, however,
the regulations are limited by the Precise Plan as it has
been presented to the P&Z and Council, since Section 24-
7.5 (b) states that "the plan (including all conditions of
approval and representations of the applicant) shall
constitute the development regulations for the parcel. "
1. Area and Bulk Requirements (with variations from
underlying zone noted)
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
j .
k.
I.
a.
b.
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit
Minimum lot width
Minimum front yard
Minimum side yard
Minimum rear yard
Maximum height
Minimum distance between primary
and accessory buildings
Percent of open space required
for building site (minimum)
External floor area ratio
(maximum)
Internal floor area ratio
Utility/trash service area
2. Off-Street Parking Spaces
a.
b.
Int,ernal to the project building
E,xternal to the proj ect building
3. Permitted and Conditional Uses
3,000 s.L
No ,requirement
No requirement
26 feet
No requirement
No requirement
40 feet
No requirement
25 percent
1. 93 : 1
(S3,265 s.f.)
(variation)
No requirement
36 feet in
length
(variation)
llS
IS (9 in drop-
off lane, 4 in
par a lIe 1
par'king along
drop-Off island
and 2 service
delivery bays)
The following uses for the project will be permitted,
unless identified as conditional uses (variations from
24
,-....
i~
underlying zone requirements noted)
a. Hotel (conditional use, variation allowed for
hotel protruding into C zone),
b. Retail commercial
c. Ski accessory retail to include ski shops, repair,
rental and storage
d. Open use recreation
e. Restaurant
f. Additional retail commercial as specified under
permitted uses in the CC z one Sect i on 24-3.2 of
the Aspen Municipal Code
g. Ski area administrative ofeices
h. Shipping and receiving for hotel and mountain food
service
i. Storage of materials accessory to the above
j. Cabaret and night club
k. Activities associated with emergency medical
service for treatment of inj ured skiers
1. Ski lifts and lift buildings (conditional use)
m. Ski mazes and milling areas
n. Hotel accessory ~etail
As noted above, the variations which the Planning Commission
recommends you grant are:
1. FAR from 1.5:1 to 1.93:1;
2. Utility/trash service area from S3 eeet in length to 36
feet in length: and
3. Hotel protruding into the C zone district.
The reason for continuing to identify the hotel and ski
lifts as a conditional use is that a public hearing is
required for substantial modieication oe a conditional use,
but not for an SPA amendment, and so in this manner the City
will retains its greatest review powers over the' two most
sensitive, and potentially impactive uses at the base area.
25
~.
~
The construction schedule originally proposed by the
applicant has been altered by the decision to construct the
gondola and the new Lift #4A this season. Generally,
following is the intended schedule:
Summer/Fall 19S6, - Excavation and structural work for
the ski administration area (hotel, west wing) .
Utility relocations, regrading of Little Nell slope.
Construction of gondola and Lift #4A with the former to
be operational by Christmas and the latter by Thanks-
giving. Interim skier services plan to be implemented.
Spring/Summer/Fall 19S7 - Demol ish Little Nell complex,
complete work at western wing of new complex to provide
skier services for the 19S7-19SS season, initiate hotel
and commercial construction.
Winter 19S7-winter 19S5 - Complete interior and
exterior of hotel, complete landscaping'- sidewalks and
plaz as.
Since the construction site is intended to continue in use
for initial skier access and commercial support services
throughout the construction period, we feel it is important
for us to fully understand how, circulation will occur and
what the base area will look like during construction. The
applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the base area
as it will function in the S6/S7 season which includes the
following features:
o The new ticket kiosks will be in place in Dean and
Hunter Streets, and the ski corral will be recon-
structed in its current location.
o Regrading will take place in the mall areas, temporary
steps will be construct,ed to allow access to the lifts,
and planters will be installed with temporary plantings
accomplished. The surface treatmeht on the site will
be asphalt. The pumphouse will remain in place until
the hotel is built.
o The ASC office and ski school buildings will remain in
operation. The maintenance building will remain for
receiving of goods, but most maintenance functions will
occur on the mountain in the new building.
Since these plans are quite schematic at this time, we
recommend that the appli Cant should be r equi red to prov ide
the Planning Office and the City Engineer with the following
materials prior to the issuance of a building or excavation
permit during each construction season:
26
,...,
,~
l. Specific design and location of pedestrian barricades
and walkway structures.
2. Traffic and pedestrian circulation routes during
construction.
3. An agreement on the part of the,applicants to properly
maintain the barricade and walkw~y system throughout
the course of construction, including repairs and
removal.
4. Provision of a plan addressing site access and material
and equipment storage areas during construction.
5. Scheduling and design detail regarding utility reloca-
tions, replacements and undergrounding.
6. Further detail regarding the limits of excavation,
construction easements and shoring needs_ .
7. Proposed landscaping of areas where demOlition is
contemplated without immediate reconstruction.,
A final issue for Council's information has to do with the
construction of the ski area administrative offices this
year. The Planning Office and City Attorney have determined
that this office space requires receipt of a growth allot-
ment in the "CL and Other Zone district" commercial competi-
tion. The date for submission of applications for such
projects is August I, yet the applicant will need to have a
building permit for this space this spring if the new
gondOla is to be built. We, recommend that, Council allow
t;EJ~__~ pa c~~__I?-~__~o.E_f)_t r !!.<::!:_eE]."rl:~J.oj~~=f<ii:JiI-=:s>L a:::h"()_t:~_~_~():r: sn
area accessory "sheU" (whiCh doesn't, need an allotment ) and
that -- ffs---OCcu pancy--as--commer Ci af"spa ce ' on ly---be--pe rmitfed-rr
growth allotments are obtained. Adequate assurances to
protect the City in this regard should be written into the
SPA agreement.
D. Lodge Development Allotment: As you recall, the issue of a
multi-year lodge, development allotment was discussed
extensively at the conceptual plan stage, at which time
Council indicated "its willingness to, consider granting a
multi-year allocation to the proj ect upo,n approval of the
applicant's' precise plan . . . II Since so much time was
spent on the policy aspects of this issue at the earlier
review stage, we will merely provide you with a brief
numerical analysis of the implications of awarding the 92
units requested by this project.
Before we address the numerical analysis, Council should be
27
;-..
,~
aware that at a public hearing on January 21, the P&Z scored
the Little Nell project at 55.2 points, just above the 54
point minimum threshold. P&Z Resolution No.2, Series of
19S6, is attached, providing you with documentation of the
scores awarded by P&Z to the proj ect. Further, Council
should note that during its review of the development
allotment issue, the P&Z declined to make a recommendation
either in favor of or opposed to the mUlti-year allocation
request.
In the nine years since the adoption of the lodge GMP,
following is a history of what has taken place in the L-l/L-
2/CC/CL zone districts:
QUC7l'A AVAILABLE
I 977/ Sl (5 yrs)
@ IS units/yr. = 90 units
1982-S5 (4 yrs)
@ 35 units/yr. = 140 units
QOC7l'A AWARDED
1977 (Aspen Inn - 36 units)
19S1 (Lodge at Aspen -
31 units)
TarAL 230 units
1982 (Carriage House -
26 units)
19S3 (Aspen Mtn. Lodge -
172 units)
T C7l' AL
265 units
The above summary demonstrates that we have awarded all of the
units available through 19S5, plus the 35 units available in
19S6. It is also obvious, given the four projects involved, that
no units have been built under this quota system in nearly a
decade.
Beyond the above units, two lodge proj ects have received GMP
exemptions as historic structures in this development category,
including the 20 units at the Sardy House and the 67 units to be
added at the Hotel Jerome. If we also account for these units in
the quota, as required by the Code, then the quota has been
allocated for 19 S7, 19S5 and 17 of the 35 units in 197 S. The 92
units request,ed by the Little Nell proj!!ct therefore takes the IS
units in 19S9, 35 in 1990, 35 in 1991 and 4 in 1992. Obviously,
these numbers presume that (i) the anticipated amendment to the
Hotel Jerome will not increase the number of rooms in the addi-
tion, which is not likely to be the case, as an ,increase of 10-20
rooms is expected; and (ii) the four projects which are approved
but, unbuilt will be constructed, rather than forfeit their units,
2S
;..."
,.-,
which may also be unlikely.
There is one important mitigating factor to this quota analysis.
There are four L-3 lodges which are to be converted to employee
housing as part of the lodge development ,activities, as follows:
Copper Horse
Alpina Haus
Cortina Lodge
Holiday House
14 units (part of Aspen Mtn. Lodge project)
40 units (part of Aspen Mtn. Lodge project)
11 units (Hotel Jerome Addition, Aspen Club
Lodge,)
17 units (Little Nell and AMSAMP)
Total
82 units
There are also 6 units remaining at the' Cortina Lodge and 6 units
at the Holiday House which are being held for future projects but
are also expected to be converted.
The total of 94 units at these four small lod~s completely
offsets the increase in lodge units from the Little Nell project
and indicates that if the four approved lodge projects and the
Little Nell project were built, and the conversions took place,
we would still be right on track for our overall projected lodge
growth rate in the community. Given the fact that it will take
2-3 years at a minimum for these projects to be occupied, it can
be seen that even including the Hotel Jerome GMP exemption; if no
other projects are approved over the next few years, we will be
back on our lodge quota target by 1990, at which time the hotels
will be in operation. We, therefore, recommend that Council
direct the Planning Office to credit the L-l/L-2/CC/CL and Other
zone category with the units from the change in use of the above
four L-3 lodges, in order that the quota effects of the approved
lodge development can be addressed. The newly converted employee
units will have to be deducted from the residential quota in the
year of their conversion to address the growth impacts of this
additional housing which is created by each of the lodge pro-
j ects.
E. Ordinance 53, SPA Rezoning
Ordinance 53, Series of 19S5, extends the SPA Overlay
designation across the lower portion of the site (approxi-
mately 1 acre) which is zoned C - Conservation. The
Ordinance was approved on first reading on September 17,
19S5 and then tabled until the Precise Plan could be
submitted and reviewed.
The applicant's zoning boundary change differs Significantly
from that which was considered and eventually denied by City
Council in 1983. The extent of the area requested for SPA
designation is considerably less than that previously
29
,~
~,
identified and corresponds directly to that area in which
the hotel, commercial and ski support facilities are to be
located at the toe of the slope. In fact, by extending the
boundary, we insure that the location of the lifts is
considered at the same time as the remainder of the base
area development.
We find that the increase in the SPA boundary meets the test
of being unique and providing pUblic benefit in that it
permits integrated planning of the lift locations in
conjunction with the remainder of the base area development.
Without the SPA Overlay, our review of the ski lifts would
be limited to the conditional use review process.
The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adj ust-
ment with the following qualifications:
a. The area designated C-SPA is not used in the calcula-
tion of the FAR for the project, since the hotel is not
an allowed use in this zone.
b. In the event that final approval of the project
expires, the boundary of the SPA should revert to its
prior configuration until a new conceptual and precise
plan is submitted. '
F. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOftMBND~IOR
On March IS, 19S6, by a motion of 5 in favor, 2 opposed, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the attached
Resolution S6-3, recommending that you approve the Little
Nell Base Redevelopment SPA. We also attach for your
consideration a minority position statement submitted by
four members of the Commission, either opposing or com-
menting upon the majority action. We anticipate that
members of the Commission will be present at your meeting to
express their concerns with respect to particular aspects of
the proposal.
G. SUMMARY
The above analysis provides you with material for your
upcoming meetings on the Little Nell Precise Plan. Staff is
working with the applicant to develop a draft SPA Agreement,
which will be the device used to tie, together all of the
applicant's commitments into a coherent document . This
document will be presented for your review at the conclusion
of your deliberations.
AR. ll5
30
r",
,"'""',
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
DO south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
March 18, 1986
Me Fred Smith
Planning Director
Aspen Skiing Company
0060 Atlantic Avenue
P.O. Box 124B
Aspen, CO S1612-124S
Dear Fred,
I am in receipt of your March 4, 1986 letter which requests that
insubstantial modifications be made to the Aspen Mountain Ski
Area Master Plan (AMSAMP). The Planning Office has rev iewed the
improvements proposed by the Aspen Skiing Company (ASe) for
construction during the 19S6 off-season and compliments ASC for
aggressively working to improve the skiing experience on Aspen
Mountain.
The Planning Office has reviewed your proposal to amend the
AMSAMP to include a new Lift #4 at the base of Aspen Mountain
serving Little Nell. As you know, the Board of County Commis-
sioners recommended certain improvements to the AMSAMP proposed
as part of Resolution No. S5-44. Specifically, the Board
proposed that theASC be given the option of retaining Lift #4 or
a similar lift system with certain operational restrictions as
part of the AMSAMP. Since the Board made this recommendation I
consider ,your proposal to construct a new Lift 14 to be an
"insubstantial change" to the AMSMIP as long as Lift #4 is
operated in accordance with ~he operation plan as set forth in
this lette r.
Pitkin County's major concern regarding Lift #4 relates to the
impacts upon the City of Aspen from an increase in the daily
capacity to Aspen Mountain and potential safety problems which
could occur on the Aspen Mountain trails system particularly at
the end of the skier day. Therefore, the conditions of the
.
"
.,!",
~
!"""\
MEMOR~DUM
TO:
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
FROM:
Jay Hammond, City Engineering
March 3, 1986
DATE:
RE:
Nell Precise Plan
==================================================================
This is to inform you of progress on several of the technical
items discussed in my memo of January 20 on the Little Nell
S.P.A. precise plan. This memo is intended to update my previous
memo on those items f or which I have received new information
from the applicants through meetings with Dave Ellis of Design
Workshop and A. J. Zabbia of Rea, Cassens and Associates. Any
items not discussed herein have not changed from my comments of
January 20.
UTILITIES
All of the concerns related to utilities are responded to via .
A.J. Zabbia's memo of February 20 (attached). Subject to approvi:lI"I'''''"
by Jim Markalunas, I would recommend that the representatives~in
A.J.'s memo be included in the S.P.A. agreement. Detailed plan$
and specifications for all City utility ~elocations will need to
be submitted to the City for approval prior to construction.
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
We have received a second prel iminary report from Chen dated
November 27, 19S5 regarding foundation conditions and proposed
grading for the project. The phase II report raises concerns
regarding proposed fill areas on the conceptual grading plan as
well as groundwater conditions in the area of proposed structures~
The phase II report recommends:
a. Monitoring of groundwater conditions through the
Spring runoff pe,riod.
b. Additional, design level, foundation study.
c. Additional slope stability analysis for fill
placement areas.
d. Further surface water hydrology study, which is
dependent on aerial topographical information which
must be flown in the Spring.
.
--
.
^
^
Page Two
Nell Precise Plan
March 3, 19S6
The applicants have demonstrated that they are in the process of
revising some of the slope grading plans to minimize the potential
problems identified by Chen. The evidence would seem to suggest
that there are not any unsolvable geological problems for the
site. At this point, I would be willing to support a conditional
approval sUbject to:
1. Completion of the additional studies recommended by Chen.
2. Certification of the final structural design and grading plan
by the geotechnical engineer as not impacting groundwater, slope
stability and .surface hydrology to the detriment of this project
or its neighbors.
STORM DRAINAGE
Storm drainage concerns raised in my prior memorandum are also
addressed in Mr. Zabbia's memo of February 20. Once again,
appropriate representations in that memo could be included in the
S.P.A. agreement.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
)(
Service Access - The information presented by the applicant to
the City Planning and Zoning Commission and to this office appear
to have addressed the service access concerns. Committment by the
applicant to participate in the construction of a reduced "cuI de
sac" may be appropriate.
Skier drop-Off - Concerns of this office have not been fully
addressed by the current solution to the skier drop-'off design.
Further demonstration by the applicants and their consultants
that a three curb cut design is less impactive to Durant Street
than a two cut design would be helpful in this area.
x
Parking - This remains a concern and we would continue to recommend
that the applicant ,be required to present a solution to the skier
capacity increases agreed to in the ski area master plan process.
This concern becomes all the more strident in view of the plan to
construct the new capacity improvements this year.
Please feel free to Jcontact me' if any of the above items raises'
questions. I will be available at the City P & Z meeting of
March 4 and will be back at work on March 10.
JH/co/NellPrecisePlan
Enclosure
cc: Dave Ellis
~
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Jay Hammond, City Engineer
A.J. Zabbia, Jr., Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc. ~
February 20, 1986
Memo from Jay Ha!l1(nond to Alan Richman dated January 20, 1986.
Little Nell S.P.A. Precise Plan
UTILITIES
Pumphouse Relocation:
The pumphouse relocation and well modification will occur in
essentially two phases. In 19S6 the facilities providing pumping
capability to serve the Little Nell 0.5 MG steel tank; control and
telemetry equipment to serve the tank; and controls for the motorized
butterfly valve at the well will be relocated inside a new proposed
pumping station thus eliminating the 12" steel line up the Little Nell
slope.
In conjunction with Hotel construction and final improvements in
Hunter Street, the Little Nell well will be modified by pulling the
existing turbine pump, cutting the casing below grade, and installing a
submersible pump and controls. The existing wellhouse will be removed
and a subsurface vault with a removable access lid constructed in its
place. The chlorinator and necessary control equipment will' be'
relocated in a room provided in the commercial structure with an outside
door.
The water produced by the Little Nell well will be pUlllped directly
into the system through the existing motorized butterfly val've.
Spring Street Line:
The Aspen Ski ing Company currently proposes installation of the 12"
DIP waterline in Spring Street as an upgrade and system improvement at
no cost to the City of Aspen.
Nell Slope Line:
The current plans for Little Nell regarding utility improvements
and relocations incorporates the installation of the City furnished 6"
DIP parallel to the 12" DIP proposed to serve the Aspen Alps project.
Items in the waterextensionjrelocation proposal have been added for
transporting the 6" DIP from the Water Department yard to the
construction site, steam cleaning the i.nside of the pipe, providing
rubber gaskets and cad welds, additional trench excavation, additional
bedding, additional compacted backfill, and any additional fittings for
the construction to incorporate the 6" DIP with the 12" DIP installation.
After the contract proposal is finalized the cost of the aforementioned
- "
"-,,.-.- "'- $-
1""'\
,,-.,
items will be forwarded to the City for review and if acceptable, will
be incorporated into the work. The City will be billed accordingly
based on the total cost of installation of the 6" DIP through an
agreement between the City of Aspen and the Aspen Skiing Company.
Easements:
The Aspen Skiing Company agrees to provide new easements for the
relocated water mains and ,the new extensions in accordance with the'
forms provided by the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen in turn is
requested to formally abandon any existing easements previously provided
by the Aspen Skiing Company, othtr individuals, or entities for \later
facilities no longer needed or relocated as result of the construction.
Electric:
The Aspen Skiing Company agrees to relocate at their expense all
Aspen electric lines and facilities directly affected by the project in
accordance with specifications and approval of the City Electric
Department. Holy Cross has been retained to design the system
modifications and oversee the contract construction.
STORM DRAINAGE
The Storm Water Drainage Study prepared for the project submittal
was based on existing topographical information and the proposed
development site plan at the tilite of submittal. The applicant is
currently revising the grading plan for the Little Nell Ski Slope and
the site plan will be modi fi ed in accordance wi th the resu 1 ts and
recommendations of the approval process. Additional topographical
information will be ascertained this spring for the area at and around
the base of Lift Terminal No.5.
The Ora i nage Study and recommendati ons fot" detenti on volumes and
location, as well as calculations for developed run-off will be revised
in accordance with the new grading plan, fina:li;:ed site plan and new
topographical information.
,The applicant requests that approval be given to the project
contingent on a revised and City approved Drainage Study if one is not
finalized by the end of the approval process.
One noted comment is that basin A-3 and its subsequent discharge
mentioned in Mr. Hammond's memo is historic in nature and depicts the
existing condition. The new grading plan for the Ski Slope and
subsequent developed drainage Hlay or may not reduce this discharge
toward the Aspen Alps, but in no case will it ~Qgravate the si~~ation.
, ,---- The applicant feels it is unfair and unreasonable to expec~
,~, solve or, mit;9'" "o';t;o", '"" '" ,,;,t;09 00' ""';"'",, "~
historical, and do not directly affect the project.
.~,lt~
-'~
:'\
.~
, i
.
'0-
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
February 4, 1986 - Tuesday
5:00 P.M.
city Council Chambers
City Ball
REGULAR MEET ING
I. COMMISSIONERS I COMMEN'l'S
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC BEARING
A. Little Nell Base Redevelopment Precise plan/Conditional
Use/Mountain Viewplane/8040 Greenline Review
IV. RESOLUTION
A. ReSOlution forwarding P&Z GMP Scoring of Little Nell project
to Council
V. ADJOORN MEETING
"
, .
....:p-
,"-';'
.~
".0. ...._.._______~,_
.
.
Sd/ "G?~
~
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 21, 1986 - Tuesday
5:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
City Ball
REGULAR MEET ING
I. aJMMISSIONJ::RS' aJMMENTS
I I. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC BEARING
A. Little Nell GMP Scoring Session
IV. OLD aOSINESS
A. ,",uni Code Amendment: Lot Split Resolution
v. ADJOURN MEETING
lo.-'
;-..,
^
MEMORANDUM
\,
TO:
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
Tom Newland, Planning Engineer
FROM:
RE:
Little Nell Base Development SPA
DA'rE:
January 24~ 19S6
====================================================================
I have reviewed the applicant's submission and wish to forward to
you the following comments:
Relocation of County Road: In the applicant's submittion the
grading plan shows the Aspen Mt. Road (County Road t14) relocated
approximately 25 feet above it's present alignment on the ski slope
known as "Little Nell". This county road is a Class V or primative
roadway that traverses the face of the Aspen Mountain ski area.
Since the Aspen Ski.ing Company is completely responsible for the
maintenence of this road, it is not necessary to require any
cUlverting or other upgrading to compensate for effects the
proposed grading plan might have on this realigned road. However,
an escavation permit should be secured through the county for
this work. This permit is obtainable through the County Road and
Bridge Department.
.
"!-
~
,-",
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
Little Nell Precise Plan/Conditional Use Public Hearing
January 23, 1986
TO:
RE:
DATE:
==============~================~=====================================
APPLICANT: Aspen Skiing Company
ZONIOO/Lar SIZE: The base area of Little Nell is presently zoned CC/SPA
and C. Ordinance No. 53, Series of 19S5, will place an SPA Overlay on that
portion of the property zoned C. This Ordinance has received first reading
approval from Council and will be heard at second reading when the Precise
Plan is before Council. The area zoned CC/SPA comprises 43,124 s.f., while
the area zoned C requested for inclusion within the SPA Overlay comprises
45,73S s.f., for a total lot size of SS,862 s.f.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The fOllowing requests are before the Planning
Commission at this time:
I. Recommendation to City Council for Precise Plan Review.
2. Grant of Conditional Use Permit for hotel in CC zone.
3. Grant of Mountain Viewplane Review.
4. Recommendation to City Council for Change in Use GMP Exemption to
convert units at the HOliday House from lodge to employee housing.
5. Grant of 8040 Greenline, Review to regrade the Little Nell slope and
install new lift towers.
6. 'Recommendation to City Council for encroachment into the Dean Street
right-of-way.
Copies of the applicant's entire submission have been provided directly to
the Planning Commission, therefore, the Planning Office's memo will
concentrate on the comments of review agencies rather than summarizing the
applicant's proposals. Comments are not provided herein on any growth
management issues. We have already provided the Commission with our
recommended lodge allotment scoring in an earlier memo. The applicant has
not yet applied for commercial allotment, although such a request is
anticipated on August 1, 19S6. Finally, we have not again provided you
with comments on the multi-year allotment issue, preferring tCil await your
direction to determine if it is necessary to spend additional time on this
issue.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW:
following sequence:
A. Analysis of compliance with conditions of conceptual approval.
Our review of this proj ect is organized in the
B. Review of, applicable precise plan and conditional use evaluation
criteria.
C. Specification of zoning district regUlations to apply to the parcel,
variations permitted, and a SchedUle for construction.
A. COMPLIANCE WrrB CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Council Resolution No. 85-33
set 25 conditions of approval of the applicant I s concept ual plan. An
ana lys i s of the appl icant 's response to each condition is contained
below, organized into the following three broad topical areas:
1. Conditions concerning access, circulation and parking;
, "-:~--_."'---_..
'-';' ,
2. Conditions concerning building design; and
3. Conditions concerning miscellaneous technical issues.
I. Conditions Concerning Access, Circulation and Parking: The
issues to be discussed in this section include skier drop off
(Condition NO.7), parking needs (Condition No.3), adequacy of
streets (Condition No.9), service areas (Condition No. S),
trails (Condition No. IS) and encroachments (Condition No. 23).
"7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an
auto-taxi-limo drop-off facility of adequate size for
the needs of the ski area, which is in addit ion to any
drop-off area for hotel guests. As the Council is
concerned about maintaining adequate traffic flows on
Durant Avenue, it is, expected that the applicant will
address the proper location for this facility within
the project's property boundary."
In our review of the proj ect in the GMP scoring process, we
indicated that the skier drop-off facility represents one of the
principal design flaws in the project. This comment was
reinforced by the relatively low scores given to the project by a
majority of the Commission in t'he categories of site design and
parking and circulation.
The principal problems we see with the present solution include
the following:
o Potential turning conflicts for cars entering and exiting
from the area with cars on Durant Avenue.
o The area extends into the public right-Of-way, contrary to
the intent of the condition.
o There is a loss of approximately 12-14 public parking spaces
on Durant, which are being replaced by the 12 skier drop-Off
spaces. This problem could be mitigated through management
of the spaces to allow public usage during other than peak
skiing periods.
o The area creates a poor image for the entrance to the
mountain/front of the hotel. The entrance in this area is
neither open space, nor is it a lively street facade, but
instead is a parking lot. The area should either truly be
an open space area, or should create pedestrian interest
through stores fronting directly on the street.
The Planning Office recommends that the applicant be required to
submit alternative designs to resolve the identified problems
with the drop-off area.
"3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study
of the parking needs of the facility to meet the
demands from t he lodge rooms, skiers, administ rat iv e
offices, commercial spaces and skier support
facilities, and shall increase the number of spaces to
be provided at the Precise Plan stage."
TDA has accomplished the requested study (Appendix 3) and based
on their recommendations, the number of parking spaces has been
increased from 77 to 116. (Note: There are S3 spaces, not S5 on
Level -22, and 33 on Level -12, for a total of 116 and not lIS
spaces, as represented. However, there are also 12 spaces in the
skier drop-off which are to replace those lost on Durant.)
Following is a category by category calculation of the
applicant's proposal as compared to the Code requirements:
2
~
,~
SPACES TYPICAL CODE CODE
CATEX>ORY STANDARD APPLIED PROPOSED* STANDARD * * REQ!fl'
Lodge Units (96) 0.55-0.7 spaces/unit 53/67 l/unit 96
Administrative Replace Existing 27/7 3-4/1000 s.f. 17
Offices ( 4SS3 s.f.)
Ret a 11 (20,553 s. f.) o .l-O. S per 1000 s.f. 2/17 4/1000 s.f. 82
Restaurant 1/1000 s.f. 5 4/1000 s.f. 20
( 5196 s. f,)
Skier (1300 skiers 0.05/skier 46 N/A N/A
added) (off-site)
*
**
Range reflects summer vs. winter.
No parking is required in the CC zone for lodge or commercial uses.
These standards reflect those of the most similar zone for the
proposed mix of uses, the L-I/L-2 zone districts.
Based on the standards applied by the consultant, 92-l01 spaces
will be demanded for the proj ect in the winter versus the summer
( 92 " 53, + 5 + 27 + 2 + 5; 10 1 = 67 + 5 + 7 + 17+ 5).
Considering that the project removes 45 on-site existing spaces,
and provides 116 new spaces, supply has been calculated to exceed
demand in the winter by 11 spaces. Therefore, the applicant
requests that II spaces be applied to the 46 spaces requirement
in the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan. (AMSAMP) that offset
the ski capacity increase of 1300 skiers per day.
Staff has numerous comments on the information provided by the
consultant, including the following: "
o The parking standard applied to the Aspen Mountain Lodge of
0.7 spaces per unit is the minimum which we can justify for
this facility. The consultant did propose a standard of
0.66 spaces/unit. for summer use for the Aspen Mountain
Lodge, which was not accepted. The proposed winter standard
of 0.55 spaces per unit should be rej ected unless adequate
reasons are provided for its usage.
o It is reasonable to assume that many of the visitors to the
Shops will already be located on the site. However, the
standard of one space per 1000 s.f. of restaurant is
exceptionally low. We would expect some guests to the
luxury dining facilities to arriv'e at the port coche,re and
expect valet parking to be available. Further, no space has
been provided for visitors who may attend a conference on
the site, whether they be in-town residents or guests from
other lodges. Invariably, some limited parking will be
needed for such facilities." . iil. ' (,
o Parking for ski area employees, based on, 40 percent of
employees driving, is reasonable, given the Ski Company's
excellent bus service for employees.
o The 46 space requirement from AMSAMP represents a very low
standard allied only to the capacity increase for the
mountain. No provision was made for the increased
attractiveness of the Little Nell Base Area due to the high
speed lift to be installed. No provision was made for any
parking with respect to existing skiers on the mountain.
While we do not suggest a reassessment of the on-mountain
parking commitment which emerged from the Master Plan, we
are very discouraged at this effort to meet some of this
3
--,,7""-,-----'
,""----~-"
requirement by proposing unreasonably low parking standards
for base area uses. We recommend that the Planning
Commission request the use of more realistic parking
standards and continue to require that 46 skier spaces be
provided on site, or as part of City initiated parking plan
off-site (see attached condition approving AMSAMP).
o p&Z should be aware that a condition of AMSAMP was that "ASC
shall ag,ree to maintain the existing parking lot (of at
least 30 automobile parking spaces) located on Aspen Street
within the City of Aspen for skiing area parking or transit
related uses. The Agreement shall be in the form of a
recorded covenant on the property to the benefit of Pit kin
County and the City of Aspen." We were very disturbed to
review the 601 Aspen Residential GMP project and find that
ASC placed this property under option to that project's
developer, without covenanting the property as required.
The developer of the 601 Aspen Project intended to place the
spaces underground, contrary to the intent of that
condition. We recommend that the P&Z carry forward the
AMSAMP condition as part of this review and set a specific
date for the implementation of this condition.
"g. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study
of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to
handle the vehicle traffic volumes associated with
skiers, hotel guests, employees, service vehiCles, and
visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose
appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic
problems which will result from the project. The
applicant shall also take into account the access needs
of emergency vehicles, including, but not limited to
ambulances and fire trucks.
The TOA study of streets shows a daily net traffic increase of
about 250 trip ends per day in winter (60 trips at the peak hour)
and about 375 trip ends per day in summer (42 trips at the peak
hour). However, no accounting is made of the approximately 300
vehicle trip ends per day due to the mountain capacity increase.
The implementation of this increase, through constructing the new
high-speed lift, is clearly a part of this project, and was not
accounted for in AMSAMP. The applicant should be required to
address these impacts, and propose appropriate mitigation
techniques. Further, the applicant should be required to remove
the skier drop-off area from the Durant Avenue right-of-way, as
this proposal is viewed as adding to the circulation problems on
Durant Avenue, which is a major through street in the downtown
area due to the existing mall closures on Cooper and Hyman
Avenues. Finally, the applicant should provide comments on the
emergency vehicle situation, which does not appear to have been
addressed in the submission."
"S. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the
proposed service yards on Spring St reet and Dean
Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been
provided for truck stacking and that proper turning
movements can be accomplished within these streets.
The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental
Health Department as to any air and water quality
devices which may need to be installed' in these areas
(and in the parking facility for cars). The applicant
shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler manage-
ment entities and shall try to accommodate the service
delivery needs of these buildings in a single location
off Dean Street. finally, the applicant shall
demonst rate that the service delivery area on Dean
Street will not cause safety prOblems for pedestrians
on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents
of the North of Nell, and that the needs of the
facility could not practically otherwise be met by a
4
"......,
i~
single facility on Spring Street."
The applicant is proposing a single, coveI"ed shipping and
receiving area off Spring Street to handle the needs of the hotel
and on-mountain restaurants. While we prefer the single access
pc:lint to, the prior dual service area concept, we have the
following comments to make:
o The schematic drawing contained in the submission does not
constitute a "detailed analysis". Conclusive drawings and
calculatio'ns should be provided to the City Engineer,
demonst rat ing the adequacy ,of the turning radi us.
o The applicant's drawing of the Dean Street area does not
respond to the request that cooperative planning be
accomplished for service delivery to the North of Nell and
Tippler/Tipple Inn properties. While we understand that the
draw ing has been abandoned, and responsibil ity given to the
improvement dist rict, we f eel that a conceptual proposal by
all three entities is needed at this time. Without a
service access plan suitable to the entry to De,an Street, we
believe that the entire concept of the Dean Street mall will
be flawed. Therefore, a design of this area is an integral
part of this SPA plan, although responsibility for
accomplishing the improvements should fall on the
improvement district.
o There is a minimum rear yard requirement for the
utility/trash service area in the area and bulk requirements
chart for the CC zone, referenced to Section 24-3.7(h)(4),
stating that the area be on an alley and setting standards
for its dimensions. It appears that an area for this
building would require a minimum length of 20 feet for the
first 6,000 s.f. of building area and 5 feet for each
addition 6,000 s.f., resulting in a length of about 135 feet
for the service area. We recommend that the applicant quest
P&Z's variation of this requirements since the area shown on
the plans is about 35 feet in .length and does not abut an
alley. The request should provide adequate justification
for the area as proposed.
"lB. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through
the property connecting the trail near the Aspen Alps
with the Dean Street trail and will include any
required ramps for bicycles or other year-round trail
facilities in their site plan at the precise plan
stage. The applicant will also examine the potential
for creating a pedestrian trail connecting to the Aspen
Mountain Road within the context of the base area
regrading and provide an alignment for said trail if it
is found to be feasible."
The illustrative site plan shows a trail connection from Spring
Street to Dean Street across the base area. There do not appear
to be any ramps or other facilities required to implement the
trail. The applicant further commits to "an informal pedestrian
trail" to the Aspen Mountain Road.
"23. The applicant shall disclose at the Precise Plan stage
all plans related to the Dean Street right-of-way,
including any requests for encroachments as may be
necessary. "
The applicant has disclosed the plans for Dean Street and made an
encroachment request of the City Engineering Department for
paving, landscaping, street furniture, ski ticket sales booths
and skier drop-off parking. Jay Hammond' s comments with respect
to this application are that the reqUired submittal materials and
fees have not been received. The applicant should get together
with Jay to provide him the necessary materials.
5
-"
^
2. Conditions Concerning Building Design: The issues to be
discussed in this section are open space (Condition NO.1),
visual impact (Condition No.4), shadows (Condition No. IS),
pedestrian gateway (Condition No. 19), snow shedding (Condition
No. l6), FAR (Condition No.2) and lift building design
(Condition No. 12).
"1. The applicant shall amend the site plan to provide open
space along the length of the Durant Street frontage of
the hotel, so as to create a courtyard of ~t least 10
feet in depth. The open space requirement shall be
considered in coordination with rather than in addition
to the area to be set aside for the on-site drop-off
facility required in condition #7 below."
During the conceptual review, we raised a concern that the open
space on the site, being at the rear of the building, did not
meet the requirement of Section 24-37. (d) that open space be open
to the street. By the conclusion of that stage of the review we
suggested that the open space along Spring Street could be
justified as te,chnically meeting this requirement. Therefore,
when the condition was rewritten, reference to the technical
requirement was dropped in favor of a simple statement that open
space be provided along Durant to create a courtyard effect.
When Condit ion No. 1 was w r itt en, we had in mind that the skier
drop-off area could be set in the midst of open space, and that
the two areas need not result in a total requirement for 20 or
more feet of set back. However, we did not anticipate that the
drop-off area would be deSigned to occupy the entire frontage,
and would essentially be used instead of providing open space.
It is not reasonable to consider the drop-off area as an open
space courtyard, and we do not approve of the street image which
is created by this proposed solution.
In our opinion, there are two distinctly different ways of
looking at the open space requirement. If, on the one hand, the
building were trUly set back from Durant by open space, its
impact on the street would be softened, the pedestrian entrance
be made more grand, the shadows on Durant might be reduced and a
more positive image created for the hotel. On the other hand,
the historic character of our victorian town is that. commercial
buildings front directly on the street, creating active people
places on the adjacent sidewalks. Therefore, if we are given a
choice between a parking lot and no setback at all, the street
frontage might be preferable. Our preference is that the
applicant should be made to provide true open space on the front
of the site, moving towards (although not necessarily
duplicating) the open ba,se area concept advocated by Hans
Gramiger, and creating the several complimentary benefits noted
above. However, we recognize that this redesign should
fall within the parameters of the conceptual approval upon which
the applicant has relied in preparing the Precise Plan, and
suggest that a reasonable compromise be proposed by the
applicant.
"4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of
the hotel on the views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter
St reet, and propose any design changes which will
reduce obstructions of the mountain from the corner of
Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Oetailed
architectural renderings and elevations shall be
provided at the Precise Plan stage."
The applicant has provided a computer simulated view of ,the
building as it will appear from Hunter Street at the Durant and
Cooper corners. These simulations are evidence that the critical
viewplane from the town to the Little Nell run and Bell Mountain
will be preserved. On the other hand, the views shown looking
6
,1""'\
^
east and west on Durant demonstrate that the bUilding will fill
in the one remaining open a rea along this st reet, and compl et e
th e "walled in" feeling f rom the Aspen Club Lodge and North of
Nell BUildings. The applicant has provided renderings Clnd
elevations of the building on its four sides which I consider to
be relatively schematic for this final stage of the review
process, although nearly identical in detail to that provided by
the Aspen Mountain POD at the preliminary review stage. It would
be helpful if the applicant identified the materials to be used
in each location in the building during your review so as to give
a better picture of the way the building will truly look.
"IS. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the
effects of the building along Durant Avenue and Spring
Street, and mitigate the' problems caused by the
building's shadows for pedestrians crossing the
st reet . ..
The applicant I s shadow study states that "Durant Avenue will be
in shade for most of the winter. In December, shadows from the
Little Nell flotel will shade the street north of the Hotel all
day. By the end of February, most of the driving surface of
Durant Avenue will be in the sun from 10: 30 - 1: 30. The south
side of Durant, adjacent to the Hotel, will remain in shade all
wi nt e r . "
The applicant's response to this problem is that "a major
pedestrian crossing be constructed at the intersection of Durant
and Hunter Street." Included in this plan is a neck down of the
st reet to two t ravel lanes at the int ersect i on. We feel that
with Durant acting as a major thoroughfare for downtown, this
neck down is ill advised, and will create turning conflicts into
the drop-off area. It is also unclear from the applicant's
presentation whether the ASC will take responsibility for placing
the proposed sidewalk paving matetials across the street to
indicate pedestrian zones. Finally, it should be noted that the
icing problem which now exists from the Aspen Club Lodge and
North of Nell Buildin9s is likely to be repeated on this block as
well, causing additional problems for vehicular traffic. The
only real solution to this prOblem would appear to be a maj or
design change in the hotel by either (a) stepping the building
back from one story to the next or (b) setting it back much
further from the s,treet than has been proposed.
"19.
The applicant shall make every effort,
working with the City of Aspen, to increase
of the pedest r ian gateway to the mountain so
it a more "grand", entrClnce in the winter and
including
the extent
ClS to make
summer."
We do not see any improvements in the plan for either flunter or
Dean Streets which are any more "grand" than the proposal made at
the conceptuCll level. Clearly, the improvements to both streets
will make a vast difference in terms of better skier circulation,
visual image and functional support of recreation at the base
area. These elements of the plan were present Clt the conceptual
level, and Clre nOw committed to be paid for fully by ASe, with
the exception of the area in "Zone II" on the IClndscape plan,
whose cost is to be sha,red with other owners having property
along Dean Street.
"16. The Clpplicant shall demonstrate the techniques to be
employed on the roof of the hotel to manage snow
shedding to insure that it does not interfere with or
endanger pedestrians below." '
The applicant has provided us with a schematic drawing of the
features designed into the builG1ing to manage the snow on the
roof. The techniques employed include a flat slope on the roof
top to retClin snow, avalanche guards at the edge of the sloped
portions of the roof, use of dormers to protect entryways and use
7
I'~
^
of a flat roof on the arcade to protect pedestrians. In our
review of the elevations and perspectives for the building, we
see large sloped areas on the roof which. appears to be capable of
allowing snow to slide beyond the arcade area. We feel that this
design problem should be reviewed visually by the P&Z with the
project architect.
"2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan sUbmission,
request a variation of the project's FAR if it is above
1.5:l, since the land zoned Conservation does not count
toward the overall proj ect FAR. The applicant may also
request special review approval to increa,se the
allowable commercial FAR of the property to I. 7: 1 by
providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on
or off site."
The applicant has indicated that the project's FAR is 1.96:1,
uSing the land area zoned CC, and 1. 05: I, using the land zoned CC
as well as that zoned C. Since the Conservation zone does not
allow the hotel or retail uses, we continue to recommend that the
same method of FAR calculation as was used for the Aspen Mountain
PUD be applied to this project. This rule states that we do not
calculate the FAR using land in a zone in which the use is not
allowed. P&Z should also note that Ordinance No.2, Series of
19S6, eliminates the ability to ~btain bonus FAR when off-site
housing is provided. Therefore, the applicant should be viewed
as requesting an FAR variation from 1.5:1 to 1.96:1, a
substantial increase of over 30 percent of the allowable FAR.
This variance should, however, be permitted, if P&Z finds the
design of the building to be suitable for this site as presented.
"12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the
new base lifts, demonstrating that these buildings are
visually compatible with the base area and that the
principal storage area for either chairs or gondolas
will not, be above grade at the base area."
The elevations provided in Appendix 7 include a drawing from the
Hunter Plaza, showing the proposed lift building. The lift
building should meet the representation made in the Master Plan
that it will be a minimal structure, as generally represented by
several conceptual drawings provided at that time. Instead, the
building has been scaled at 25 feet in height, which seems quite
'sub,stantial. Further, the sketch provides little detail as to
the building design, including no indication of building
materials. The applicant has indicated, however, that storage of
gondola cabins will beat the top terminal, but that limited
"work rail" storage will be at the bottom. This representation
should be clarified as we do not know what "work rail" storage
means.
3. Conditions Concerning Miscellaneous Technical Issues:
The issues to be discussed in this section include geologic
hazard (Condition No. 10), grading (Condition NO.5), drainage
(Condition No. 22), rights-of-way ownership (Condition No. 20),
lift service (Condition No.3) S040 Greenline and Mountain
Viewplane (Condition No.6), pumphouse relocation (Condition No.
11), employee housing (Condition No. 14), potential park zone
encroachment (Condition No. 17), fireplaces (Condition No. 21),
and SPA Boundary Change (Condition Nos. 24 and 25).
"10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study
of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects
this site and shall demonstrate that any hazard posed
to the property can and w ill be fUlly mitigated. The
applicant shall also investigate the soils hydrology in
the area to demonstrate the suitability of the site for
development purposes."
8
,r~
....-...,
Chen and Associates has prepared a study, contained in Appendix
1, which reviews the geologic hazards to the site. On-site
impacts include potentially shallow groundwater, steep slopes and
mine subsidence. In this regard, the consultant recommends:
o A program of test holes should be drilled and observation
wells installed to provide information on groundwater.
o A subsurface investigation program should be conducted to
provide informatiOn on subsurface soil conditions and to
analyze slope stability.
In this regard, Jay Hammond notes that the regrading and
subsurface work on the site will likely require the use of a pile
retaining system, adj acent to South Spring Street, which is a
difficult construction technique, involving noise and disruption
to the neighborhood. Jay would like to see more detailed
investigation of the design of this system prior to any
construction on the site. More Comments on construction impacts
are provided in a later section of thismemo.
o No action is recommended relative to mine induced subsidence
due to the low risk posed to the site.
The potential off-site impacts to the proposed development
include the potential for flood or debris flow from Copper/Spar
Gulch, and Vallejo Gulch. According to Jay Hammond:
"Additional information is also required regarding the flood
and debris flow risk from the Vallejo Gulch area onto the
project site and adjacent sites. Adequate mitigation should
be provided to protect the proj ect and any adjacent
properties impacted by new grading.
Related to the work undertaken by Chen to evaluate the
geological hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell
redevelopment site is the ongoing effort to evaluate the
hazards and mitigation across the entire base of the
mountain. To the extent that the Aspen Skiing Company is
the major land holder within the upslope source areas and
since a failure to mitigate the problems in the upslope area
could affect Little Nell and other downslope sites, we w~uld
recommend that ASC be required to commit to ongoing haz ard
study, engineering and mitigation construction in those
areas under their control, via direct ownership, leasehold,
or other usage agreement as a condition of the Little Nell
approvaL.
"5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for
the earth work, which is proposed to occur at the base
area, including any activity associated with the base
of the new lifts which may fall outside of the SPA
boundary, and shall identify the locations for any
material deposition which is to occur."
The grading plan for the site calls for the creation of a 160
foot flat area between Dean St reet and the uphill end of the
acceleration wheels on the detachable lift system. The plan
indicates that approximately 66,600 cubic yards (c.y.) of dirt
will be cut, in the lower potions of the slope and 51,350 c.y.
will be filled, in the upper portion of the slope. This leaves
approximately 15,250 c. y. of dirt which is not addressed by the
plan, with our assumption being that this dirt will be removed
from the site. If other plans for the dirt are proposed, these
should be disclosed by the applicant. We would also note at this
time that the regrading involves a proposed relocation of Aspen
Mountain Road, a County Road which is maintained by ASC by
agreement with Pitkin County. The applicant should be required
to obtain an encroachment permit for road work from Pitkin County
prior to initiating any regrading activities.
9
~,
.,.-"
"22. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan at the
. Precise Plan stage which meets the standards of the
Engineering Department concerning the 100 year storm
and which addresses drainage from Aspen Mountain as it
affects the site and drainage from the development site
itself. "
Appendix ,5. contains the drainage study prepared by Rea Cassens
and Associates. The scope of the study was to determine drainage
requirements for the site, including those due to runoff from
Vallejo Gulch, which appears to flow down the Little Nell slope
and to handle runoff from the development site itself. The City
Engineer's comments on this plan are that:
"Rea Cassens and Associates has provided a thorough analysis
of the various basin impacts from the 5 year and 100 year
storms. Conceptually, they appear to be both, conservative
and in keeping with City policy of detaining major flows and
releasing them off-site at historic rates. The site plan,
however, does not address the specific location of proposed
detention facilities and channels. Precise plan approval
should include adequate location and capacity for storm
routing and detention. In addition, Basin A-3 on the
drainage plan indicates a discharge onto the Alps property.
To the extent that this discharge has been increased due to
grading or other site activity it should be detained by the
Nell developer and released at historic rates."
"20. The applicant shall demonstrate in the Precise Plan
submission that all questions as to the ownership of
the Hunter Street right-of-way are in the process of
being resolved, to insure that permanent guarantees of
the availability of Hunter an,d Dean Streets for
pedestrian access will be provided. The Precise Plan
shall not be approved unt il the pedest rian access issue
has been reSOlved to the City's satisfaction. The
applicant will also demonstrate that the boundary
questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved,
and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted ac-
cordingly. "
We received a letter from Gideon Kaufman indicating that ASC
would provide the City with ,funds to purchase or condemn the west
half of vacated Hunter Street and would defend the City's right
to acquire this land through condemnation. This matter was taken
up by City Council on their regular agenda on January 27, at
which time it was decided that the City Attorney should research
this matter, and provide the Council with a recommended course of
action at their meeting on February 10. When a decision is
reached, we will provide you updated information on this matter.
As to the Tippler issue, we are informed by the applicant that
resolution of the boundary location is proceeding and does not
affect the site plan due to relocation of the service yard.
However, in a conversation with the representative of the Tippler
we were informed that, no contact has been made with them by ASC
since the conceptual approval. This issue should be resolved by
the applicant.
"13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment, as to how
lift service will be provided on Little Nell for
special events, ski instructions and for secondary
access to Lift 5. The applicant will show the location
of all lifts proposed for the base area and will
provide a commitment that their install;:ltion w ill be
initiated in 19S7. The applicant shall be required to
specify to the City which lift system is intended to be
installed prior to review of the Precise Plan by the
City Council, also giving the Planning Office approx-
IO
,-'
""'"
imately two (2) weeks to review the proposal and obtain
referral comments from other agencies prior to the
initial presentation of the Precise Plan to Council."
The Master Plan ~rovides two options for the new high speed lifts
on Aspen Mountain, as follows: '
1. Detachable grip, quad chair, capacity of 1800-2000 skiers
per hour, terminating at the top of Tourtelotte Park.
Access to Little Nell and Lift is is committed to via a
midway unload station or separate lift system similar to the
present Lift H.
2. Gondola system, capacity of 1800 to 2000 skiers per hour,
terminating near the Sundeck. Access to Little Nell and
Lift is is committed to via a separate lift system similar
to the present Lift 14.
We would expect a choice between these two systems to be made and
presented to the Planning Office following the completion of
p&Z I s review.
"6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the
City's 80 40 greenline and mountain viewplane review
procedures to the proposed development. Should it be
found that either review procedure applies, the
applicant will submit the necessary materials at the
Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the
review criteria of the Code."
The applicant has determined that both review procedures apply to
the project and included appropriate review materials in Appendix
4. The S040 greenline review applies to the placement of two
lift towers and regrading of the Little Nell slope, and not to
the base area construction. We tend to agree with the applicant
that this type of development is not the kind which resulted in
8040 review being implemented by the 'City. Nonetheless, the
regrading will substantially change the view of the mountain,
will affect the drainage on the site and is affected by the site
geology. In general, the benefit to the community of installing
the new high speed lift justifies, in our opinion, the regrading
which must be accomplished to allow the detachable chair/gondola
to gain speed out of the base area. Drainage and site stability
concerns are addressed elsewhere. Therefore, we concur with Jay
Hammond that there appears to be no problem with the proposed
regra~ing or lift tower construction, subject to appropriate
utility relocations, accomplishment of necessary drainage/slope
stability investigations and reseeding of disturbed slopes.
The Mountain Viewplane issue also does not bring particular
concerns. Although the site does fall within the Wagner Park,
Cooper Avenue, Courthouse U and 12, Wheeler Opera House and Main
St reet Viewplanes, only the Wheeler Viewplane presents any
limitations to the height of the development. Further, due to
the existing buildings on the Hyman and Cooper malls, there is no
further degradation of the view of Aspen Mountain from the
Wheeler due to this proj ect. Although, as Jay notes, if the
foreground obstructions were redeveloped and brought into
compliance with the Viewplane, there would be an intrusion by the
hotel into the viewplane, given its minor nature and its position
in the backdrop and not the foreground, this effect is minimal.
The Planning Office and Engineering Department recommend approval
of the S040 Greenline and Mountain Viewplane reviews.
"II. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse
relocation problem and shall agree to implement said
solution at the applicant's cost."
The applicaryt' S solution to relocating the pumphouse in Hunter
II
.,-,
~
Street is to install a submersible pump with a remote
chlorination station. The City Water Depa,rtment supports this
solution, provided that all plans, equipment and access easements
are viewed in advance of any construction.
"14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of
the proj ect in a manner acceptable to the Housing
Authority and Planning Commission. The number of
employees to be housed will be determined at the
Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commit-
ments as part of the growth management plan applica-
t ion. "
The applicant's proposal is to house 30 employees, representing
36 percent of the net new employees generated by theproj ect.
The Housing Authority concurs with the generation figures
submitted by the applicant, and the method by which the employees
are to be hOllSed. We would note that the applicant has not
applied for a Change in Use approval for the Holiday House Lodge
conversion to residential status. The applicant should sllbmit a
letter of application, site plan and drawings of internal
configuration so that the adequacy of this facility can be
determined.
"17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
bllildings do not encroach into the land within the Park
zone near the Aspen Alps."
The applicant proposes no building activity on the property in
question. Emergency skier service is proposed through this site,
with ambulance pick up on Spring Street. This use would not
appear to affect the status of the land in the Park zone
district.
"21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental Health
Department with detailed information on any fireplaces
which will be included in the project, demonstrating
thei~ compliance with applicable Code provisions."
The Environmental Health Department is quite pleased at the
applicant's proposed use of "gas log" type fireplaces, which meet
or exceed cllrrent woodburning device legislation.
"24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary change
shall only oCCur in conjunction with final approval of
the Precise Plan for the project."
This procedure is being followed by the tabling of Ordinance 53,
Series of 19S5, at second reading until the Little, Nell proj ect
completes its Precise Plan review.
"25. In the event that the growth allocations tor the
project shall e~pire, the boundary of the SPA shal.l
revert to its prior configuration."
This item should continue forward as a condition of approval.
-
B. REVIEW OF APPLICABLE PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE EVALUATION
CRITERIA: As noted above, there are six rev iew procedures which need
to be addressed in this process. 80 40 Greenline, Mountain Viewplane,
Change in Use, and Encroachment were addressed a,bove. The purpose of
this section is to address the following:
1. Conformance, with standards for review of Precise Plan (Section
27-7.7).
2. Conformance with conditional use review criteria (Section 24-
303) .
In our review, the following provision from Section 24-7.7 should be
12
f'""'.
^-'
the governing review criterion:
"Ib) The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate
the reasonableness and suitability of the Precise Plan,
its conformity to the requirements of this arti,cle,
that the adverse effects of the proposed development
have been minimized to the extent practicable, and that
it complies with the City Council's intent in
originally designating the site with an SPA overlay,
including the reasonable conformance of the Precise
Plan with the approval granted to the conceptual plan."
I. Conformance with Precise Plan Review Standards.
a. Compatibility with Neighboring Development - The proposal is
surrounded by other short-term tourist uses. Its height is
40 feet, in compliance with underlying zoning and lower than
the North of Nell or Aspen Square. Its FAR of 1. 96:1 is
well below that of the North of Nell Building and its mass
is offset by use of various architectural techniques.
Problems noted elsewhere in this memo concern open space,
shadows and skier drop-off as they affect this site and the
neighborhood.
b. Utilities and Roads - The project will upgrade water, sewer
and fire service to the area, and provide for detention of
stormwater from the site and the mountain and routing to the
City's storm sewer. As noted above, we are most concerned
that the road system analysis by, the consultant discounts
the impact of the mountain capacity increase on the City
streets, and feel this issue should be more thoroughly
studied.
c. Environmental Suitability - The applicant has initiated
studies of the identified hazards affecting the site. If
the recommendations of the consultant and City Engineer,
summarized above, are followed, the site appears to be
suitable for development.
d. Land Planning Techniques - The techniques employed by the
applicant include the use of subgrade space for the support
services to the hotel and ski area, removal of the
maintenance function from the base area, use of stepped back
architectural form to preserve the Hunter Street viewplane,
provision of substantial open space at the rear of the
parcel, and upgrading of Hunter and Dean Streets into
pedestrian malls.
e. Conformance with Aspen' Area Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land Use
Plan designates this site as "recreat i on/a ccommodat ions",
which is intended "to allow for the recreation and
accommodation needs of the visitor to Aspen in 'an area that
is especially suited for this because of its unity with, and
identity to, the proposed transportation system, the ski
area and the central area." The conformance of the project
with the Growth Management pOlicy Plan has been discussed
earlier, and will be reviewed again at the conclusion of the
Precise Plan review.
f. Expenditure of PU,blic Funds - The proj ect does not appear to
directly require the expenditures of additional public
funds, although there will be costs to the improvement
district to upgrade that portion of Dean Street not
addressed by the applicant. The applicant will enhance
services to the neighbo,rhood in a variety of categories.
Issues not adequately addressed at this time include parking
and road impacts and associated costs.
2. Conformance with Condition Use Criteria.
13
,~\
,-."
a. Compliance, with zoning Code Requirements - The proposed use
of the property complies with most of the standards of the
underlying CC zone district. The proposal strictly complies
with the 40 foot height limitation, substantially exceeds
the 25 percent. open space requirement and provides a front
yard of 16 feet, where no setback requirement exists, and
provides 116 subgrade and 12 at grade parking spaces where
no Code requirement exi st s. The only var iations requested
are in terms of FAR, from a Code allowance of 1.5: I to a
proposed 1.96:1; and in the rear yard trash area, from about
135 feet in width to about 35 feet in width. The applicant
also requests a use variance to allow the hotel to occupy
land zoned C - Conservation. All other uses appear to be in
conformance with the limitations of their underlying zones.
b. Consistency with Intents and Purposes of CC Zone - The
intent of the CC zone is "to allow the use of land for
retail and service commercial, recreation and institutional
purposes, with customary accessory uses to enhance the
business and service character in this central core of the
City. Accommodation and residential uses are limited to an
accessory status." Based on this intent, the project is
consistent with the intent of the zone in terms of its
ret ail and recreat ion uses. The accommodat ions uses, which
are the principal use of the property rather than accessory,
are more in keeping with the surrounding properties and
nearby CL, L-l, and L-2 zone districts. Nevertheless, since
this CC property is not located in the central commercial
area, but instead is more closely associated with the base
of Aspen Mountain and its tourist accommodations, the hotel
use can be viewed as appropriate to the site.
c. Compatibility with Surrounding Land-Uses - This revi,ew
criterion has already been covered under the Precise Plan
review standards.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Office finds that:
1. The proj ect meets the conditional use review criteria; and
2. There is a substantial amount of material which must be
provided by the applicant before it can be demonstrated that
the project complies with Precise Plan standards of review.
C. SPECIFICATION OF ZONE DISTRICT Rro OLAT IONS, VARIATIONS PERMl'l'TED AND
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Section 24-7.6(c) requires that the
application specify the zone district regulations and variations which
are to apply to the development, while Section 24-7.6(d) requires the
provision of a schedule specifying t,he timeframe of the development,.
Based on the preceding review, it is clear that several of the zoning
district requirements will need to be set following the review by the
Planning Commission, including trash area access and parking, and
possibly minimum front yard. The proposed uses listed on Page 13-14
of the SPA Precise Plan portion of the application appear reasonable,
with the exception that the hotel should continue as a conditional use
for the property, to give greater review power over any alterations or
modifications which may be proposed after it is constructed (1. e.,
public hearing is required for substantial modification of a condition
use, but not f or an SPA amendment). We would expect to specify the
zoning regulations for the property within the final resolution
concerning the project.
The applicant has provided a construction schedule on Page IS-19 of
the GMP submission. The schedule provides for the fOllowing:
Summer/Fall 19S6 - Excavation and structural work for the commercial
structure and lower lift terminal, along with the regrading of the,
Little Nell Slope to permit future lift construction/operation. The
regrading would be done in such a way as not to disrupt the footings
of the existing lift towers so as to maintain the existing Lift #4 in
14
,-
r""'\
operation for the time being.
Spring/Summer/Fall 19S7 - Demolish Little Nell complex, complete work
at western wing of new complex to provide skier services for the 1987-
SS season, construct new lifts, initiate hotel and commercial
construction.
Winter 19S7fWinter 19S5 - Complete interior and ~xterio% of hotel,
complete landscaping, sidewalks and plazas.
Since the construction site is intended to continue in use for initial
skier access and commercial support services throughout the
construction period, we feel it is important for us to fully
understand how circulation will occur and what the base area will look
like during construction. We feel that the applicant should submit
both graphic materials as well as a detailed written description of
the proposal for the interim base area. The applicant should also be
requ,iredto demonstrate that the regrading of the slope can be
accomplishe~ without disrupting the lift service or otherwise
endangering visitors to the area. Finally, in keeping with our
approach to the Aspen Mountain PUD, the applicant should be required
to provide the Planning Office and the City Engineer with the
following materials:
1. Specific design and location of pedestrian barricades and walkway
structures.
2. Traffic and pedestrian circulation routes during construction.
3. An agreement on the part of the applicants to properly maintain
the barricade and walkway system throughout the cour se of
construction, including repairs and removal.
4. provision of a plan addressing site access and material and
equipment storage areas during construction.
5. Scheduling and design detail regarding utility relocations,
replacements and undergrounding.
6. Further detail regarding the limits of excavation, construction
easements and shoring needs.
7. Proposed landscaping of areas where demolition is contemplated
without immediate reconstruction.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: As noted earlier in this memo, SPA Precise Plan
review puts the burden on the applicant to demonstrate the reasonableness
and suitability of the project, including the minimization of its adverse
effects to the extent practicable, and its compliance with the Council's
intent in designating the site with an SPA overlay. Given the strategic
location of this parcel and its crucial importance to the success of Aspen
as a resort, we have been most careful to work within the applicable
prov i sions of the Code to try to obt ain the best possible proj ect for the
residents of and visitors to Aspen.
Based on our review to date, we feel that substantial work must be done to
demonstrate to the Planning Commission that the project is reasonable and
suitabl,e for the site and has minimized its adverse effects to the extent
practicable. We recommend that the following work be accomplished -during
the course of p&Z'S review of this submission.
/1. The applicant should be required to submit alterna,tive designs to
address the skier drop-Off problem.
/2. The applicant should review the parking and circulation studies with
the Planning Commission. If the consultant's assumptions cannot be
justified, additional mitigation in terms of parking and roads should
be required.
/3. The applicant should provide detailed drawings and calculations as to
15
W4.
~.
A.
./7.
,/8.
, 11.
,-..
,"""
I
/
the service area turning radius.
ASC should work with its neighbors to develop a design concept for the
entrance to the Dean Street Mall and present this concept to the P&Z.
The applicant should investigate and present alternative designs for
the hotel which provide true open space along Durant Avenue.
The applicant should propose ways to mitigate the shading effects of
the building on Durant Avenue.
0~he Planning Commission should review the snow retention plan and
detailed architecture (including materials) with the architect.
The applicant should agree to the requests by the City Engineer with
respect to geol,ogic concerns, grading and drainage, and provide the
Commission with the necessary review materials.
The applicant shall make appropriate submissions with respect ,to the
change in use of the Holiday House" the request to vary the size of
the trash access area, ,and the encroachment licenses.
The applicant shall submit the requested materials with respect to the
construction at the base area.
./9.
'10.
Other miscellaneous requests and comments made throughout this memo
should be reviewed and addressed by the applicant and the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Office has no final recommendation on the entire application
unt il these concerns have been addressed.
AR.5
16
"
.-,
,-
MEKlRANDO M
FROM:
REi
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Richman, Planning Office
Little Nell Base Redevelopment plan - Lodge GMP Scoring
Se ssion
TO:
DATE:
January 21, 1986
=====================================================================
PCRl'OSE: The purpose tonight's meeting is to score the only project
which was submitted in the 1985 L-l/L-2/CC/CL Zone District
competition for lodge units -- The Little Nell Base RedeveloIXTlerit
Plan. Although the Municipal Code provides for such applications to
be submitted to the City on October 1 of each year, and reviewed by
P&Z in November, Ordinance 42, Series of 19S5, adopted on August 12,
changed these dates to December 1 and January, respectively.
Tonight's public hearing will focus only on the GMP scoring issue. On
February 4, we have advertised a public hearing to initiate discussion
of the precise SPA plan and hotel as a conditional use in the CC zone
issues. Other issues to be addressed at that, or subsequent meetings,
include S040 greenline, mountain viewplane and right-of-way
encroachments. Finally, at the conclusion of all of your
considerations, we would expect you to make a recommendation with
respect to the applicant's request for a multi year allotment of 96
lodge \.lnits.
PROCEDURE: The standard procedure used by the Planning Commission in
scoring GMP applications can be sununarized as follows. The Planning
Office will initiate the meeting by summarizing the project and
providing a suggested number of points for the scoring of the
application. At this time, we will also review any procedural issues
which ma,y arise from questions by Commission members, the applicant or
members of the public. Next, the applicant will give a brief
presentation of the proposal, including any clarifications or rebuttal
of Planning Office comments. A public hearing will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing each
commission member will be aske,d to score the appl icant' s proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all member s, divided by the
number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to
the project. A project must score a minimum of 60% of the total
points available under categorie's 1, 2, 3 and 4, amounting to 54
points, a minimum of 30% of the points available in each category 1,
2, and 3, and provide housing for 35%' of the employees generated by
the project to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum
points are as follows: Category I" 3 points; Category 2 = 11.7
points; Category 3 = 6.3 points and Category 4(a) = 9 pts.' Should the
application score below these thresholds it will no longer be
considered for a develoIXTlent allotment and will be considered denied.,
Bonus points cannot be used to bring the application over.this minimum
thre shold.
PLANNING OFFICE ~INGS
The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a
recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the'
ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively scored the proposal.
The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explana-
tion of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the
attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings.
/'
~,
~,
Public Facilities Quality Guest
and Services of Design Amenities
Public policy
Goals Total
7.5 19.5 16
14 57
In our rating of this project, we have used a slightly 'different
standard than would otherwise be the case.' When reviewing all
previous GMP applications, the project has been at the concept ual
level, and our expectations in terms of level of detail and degree of:
problem solving haS been set accordingly. In this case, the SPA
regulations require that the GMP submission occur at the precise plan
level. Therefore, iq cases where the applicant simply commits to
addressing an issue ~i.e., drainage) without adequately presenting, a
design solution, we have been more conservative in our rating than.
would otherwise be. the case. We feel that problems must be solved at..
this stage of the review, since it represents the Planning
Commission's final opportunity to consider the project.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
To help the Plannin9 Commission in understanding our thinking on this
project, following lS a category-by-category summary of some of the
principal issues identified in our proposed scoring!
1. Adequacy of Services - The applicant has provided a utility plan
1 which demonstrates that the project will benefit the community by
.,\i" upgrading water and sewer service not just for the project, but
I' ,J for the surrounding neighborhood. The drainage proposal for the
," site intends to provide for detention of mud flows from Aspen
lr'~'i i' ,,Mountain, but has not provided a design demonstrating where or
I"" I.e,'this runoff will be handled and tells us that in any case, it
liP}'""I, iV} "t'Will fi~ally be diyerted to the City's storm se~ers. Fire
J\if>'jJ, it protectlon needs wlll be met by two new hydrants ln the area,
U },"/' M$tLll necessary for the project and neighborhood, and sprinklers in the
, J(' t/ "',,f 'bu~ld.ing, since a~cess cannot be provided to all sides of the
~\}J \~~t(:" bUlldlng. No road lmprovements are proposed for the area.
') ,"'2. Quality of Design - The project will provide significant design
\-i"
)1 improvements to the gateway to Aspen Mountain, but also exhibits
significant site design flaws. The architects have attempted to
reduce the perceived mass of the building, but have not provided
true open space along Durant Street and have creat,ed Ii.
significant shading problem for a major thoroughfare. The
proj ect will upgrade the Hunter Street entrance to the mountain
and a portion of Dean Street, but leaves costs for the remainder
of Dean Street to neighbors., The skier drop off along Durant
Avenue does not meet our expectations from the Conceptual review,
and it would be preferable to have the building truly front on
the street or be moved back on the site dramatically, rather than
to accept this solution. The proposal may cause ,significant
traffic conflicts on Durant and stacking problem.s on Spring
Street. Service access has been significantly improved by one
covered access point on Spring Street. Parking has been increased
to 116 spaces but still may not be in excess of proj ect needs. 'A
major circulation and access problem ,has been created for the
Tipple ,Inn and the Tippler. Maintenance functions will be
removed from the base, helping circulation and creating a
positive visual image. Views frOm key public places have been
preserved.
3. Guest Amenities - The project provides conference, lobby,
restaurant, bar and recreational space befi~ting a project of
this magnitude but not to the point of being superior for the
community when compared to other lodging developments we have
experienced. The new lift at Little Nell, to be either a
detachable quad or gondola, is of crucial significance to the
continuing superiority of Aspen as a ski resort:
2
,~
,~
4: Employee Housing - The appiicant meets the mlnlmum threshold by
housing 30 employees at the Holiday House, to be converted from
lodging to deed restricted status.
In summary, the project scores slightly above the minimum threshold
and is eligible for an allocation. The applicants have taken on an
ambitious project in a highly sensitive location and have been
successful in their efforts to enhance the skier experience and
develop a quality lodging/commercial/administration complex directly
adjacent to Aspen Mountain. However, in taking on a project of this
magnitude, they have also created impacts on the neighborhood for
which they are responsible. We expect that in the coming public
hearings re9arding the precise plan and conditional use, considerable
attention wlll be given to issues such as open space, skier drop off,'
j;:edestrian malls, service access, public views, shading, drainage,
parking and roads. We feel that these issues can and should be
resolved during the cour se of the upcoming review procedure, and must
be successfully handled before we get to your recommendation to
Council on allotment of 96 lodge units.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
we recommend that the Planning Commission direct the Planning Office
to draft a Resolution which:
1. Forwards to Council the Commission's scores on the GMP project;
and
2. Recommends that City Council not act on the issue of allotment o,f
96 lodge units until such tillle as the Commission completes its
review of associated submissions, and forwards its complete
recommendation to Council.
The applicant should be aSKed to submit a letter to the Planning
Office, in a form to be established by the City Attorney, waiving the
procedural deadlines of Section 24-1l.6(f) as amended by Ordinance 42,
Series of 19S5, that Council must award a developllent allotment to the
proj ect prior to March 1st of 19S6.
AR.2
3
,
. /"
..-.. ..,..
--...
~,
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
L-1, 1.-2 GMP SCORE SHEE'rS
PROJ ECT :
Little Nell Base Area Rerlevelopment Date: January 21. 1986.
, l. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum 10
point s) .
Th'e Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the impact of the proposed building or the addition thereto upon
public facilities and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following formula:
o
Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense. '
Project can be handled by the existing level of service
in the area of any service improvement by the applicant
benefits the project only and not the area in general.
Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
1
2
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - Considering the ability of the water system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment to fi nance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING, 2
(Multiplier: 1)
POINTS:
2
COMMENTS: Jay Hammond and Jim Markalllna!'l view the following
activitieR a!'l ay!'<tem upgradeR' abandon the 12" Little Nell steel
line, relocate and reinforoe the 12" DIP oonnection from the
pllmpholl!'le to the reRervoi r. relocate pumpi nq fad1 itieR to the
snowmaki"IiI plant:! r~locat:~. well C'!ont:rol and t:rpa~m@nt:faci 1 itie~
from the Hunter Street: pllmphouRe into the staiNer'l. maintain
Rupplv to Aspen Alps and !'ltora'ile tank. Appl icant ha!'l not
committed to over!'lizing the fire main in Spring Street from 6" to
1 2". bllt will in!'ltall the l2" based on the Ci ty pickin'il up the
additional co!'<t for the Ute Avenlle interconnect.
b. SEWER - Considering the ability of the sewer system to serve
the development and the applicant's commitment. to finance
any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required
to serve the development.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 1)
POINTS:
2
COMMENTS: Hei ko Kuhn feel s that relocation and uP'ilradin'il of the
10" main which rllns from Sprin'il Street-Ute Avenue acro!'l!'l the maze
te Gal PM Strpet-Dean Street with a 12" PVC main in Sprin'il Street
to Durant and then a 15" PVC to Gal ena Street will tlpqrade the
sy,,;tem hy 1) crpatinq a better qrade than the' flat R1epe in the
exi "ti ng 1 ine!'l.' and 2) allowinq for better maintenance by
redtlCing the depth (exi!'<tinq is 10-15' deep).
c. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the develop-
ment site. If the development requires'use of the City's
drainage system, considering the commitment by the applicant
"
r--.
~
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: I
(Multi pli er: 1)
POINTS:
I
COMMENTS: The ap,,] icant' s stormwater runoff stuny recommends on-
"ite netention be increa"en ny 50% to allow for mud flow from
~r~~: ~~~~ta~r;ectTh: ~~~orr\t;l "~f "~~tee"rl~~~if r:~~~~in~r;~:n:~~
affect" the A"pen Alps to the hotel base area and Sprinl/ Street,
storm "ewer. which can pre"ently hannl e the flow. Althoul/h the'
appl icant "commits to in"tall, and maintain storm drainal/e
faeil itie" for thl" "ite and trihutary nrainaqe to the "ite". no
ne"il/n has heen prepared at this prl"cise plan level for what will
be a "i I/nificant detention facility. Jay Hammond. in a phone
eonvprMl"ion on 1/14. al/rl"ed that without Mid desil/n. we cannot
in,,"rp that the drainal/e commitment can actually he provided and
ehanl/ed his recommendation to a "core of "1". with which we
cOnetH. F'urthprmore. in a conversation with thp applicant's
repre"entative on 1/16. it was' "taten ,that althoul/h a suhl/rade
netpntion facility had heen evaluated for the "ite to addre""
mountai n flow", thp intpnt i" not to fully retilin the rllnoff hut'
to detai n it ann route, it to the City "torm sewer "ystem.
Therpfore. a "core of "I" is also justifiah1e on this hasis. '
d. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Considering the abil ity of the Fi re
Department to provide fire protection according to i~~
established response without the necessity of establishing..!
new station or requiring the addition, of major equipment to
an existi~g station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and
the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection
facilities which may be necessary to serve the project,
including, but not limited to, fire hydrants and water
storage tanks.
RATING: 1.5
(Multiplier: 1)
POINTS:
1.5
COMMENTS: The applicant has aI/reed to install a fire hydrant at
the south end of Sprinl/ Street. which will serve the project and
prov ide a mea sllre of improvedserv ice to the Aspe n C11lb Lodl/e and
the 200 Buildin\/ of the Aspen Alps. A "econdhynrant. on Dean
Street hphind the North of Nell Buildinl/' will "erve the project
only. Water pre""ure in the area is adeQllate and the appl icant,
has committed to placinl/ a new 6" line in Sprinl/ Street to serve
the first hydrant. hilt not to oVl"rsize the lineVasrequested Qy
the pllhl ic servicl"s al/ency ( Jay Hammond fee]" that th~
fact 1 iti e" to he in"ta11ed are mandatory for the project and,
de"erve a rati nl/ of "1" only. Jim Wi] son notes that since fin'
acee"s i" not avail ahle to all "ides of the huildi nl/. it rnll"t be
"prillkled. as provided Qy the allpl icant. We conclude that the
hydrant s are both needed hy the proj ect and the nei9hhorhood and
recommend a f::corp of "1.5".
e. ROADS - Considering the capacity of major linkages of the
road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantiillly altering the existing
traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment to
finance the necessary, road system improvements to serve the
increased usage attributable to the developnent.
RATING: I
(Multiplier: I)
POINTS:
1
;:~ ,
-'
1""'\
i"""'\
COMMENTS: TDA's analy",iR appear" to indicate that ex!!'<tin\1 :oads
IHP aneQllat;e. ann no improvemer;t'" are pro~sed.. Clty En\11neer
Que",tion", peak winter trafflc \1eneratlon fU.IlHe", used ny
conRultant. Trafficf10w on Durant Street will likely be,
impacten ny URe of City ri\1ht of way for Rkier dropoff. pIllS the
increa"p in the traffic by appro"imately 10% projected by the
con"u1 tant. P&Z "hould recoQni7.e that the TDA "tuny does not
inclune any annen traffic from the mountain capacity increase
(see Appenni" 3. paQe 14l. estimated to be 300 trip ends per day.
despite the fact that the new lift is an inte\1ral part of this
project. and the County review of the Ski Are>a Ma"ter Plan did
not conf'ider effects on City !'<treet",. Further. the addition of,
the \londola or detachable Quan will and to the attractiveness of
usin\l Little Nell to acces", the mountain and \1enerate traffic on
City !'<trpet", over ann above the capacity increase resultin\1 from
the new lifts on the mOUntain.
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 39 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements
proposed thereto, and shall rate each developnent by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 Indicates a totally def ici ent design.
I Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard design) .
3 Indicates an excellent desi gn.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN- Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building or any addition thereto (in terms of size,
height, location and building materials) with the existing
neighborhood developnents.
RATING: 1.5
(Multiplier: 3)
pOINTS:
4.5
COMMENTS: 1'he techniQues employed in the desi'Jn. incl udi n\1 the
,,10ped roof. stepped roof forms. use of dormers. balconies and
pedp"trian arcade. partial flat roof and an'Jled buildin'J corners
All tenn to renuce the perceiveclmass and hei\1ht of the builclin\1'
Neverthple",,,,, the hotel will be a lar\1e structure. cban\1in\1 the'
open perception of the base area from the eastern portion of
DllrAnt Street. The buildin\1 appro"imates the hei\1ht of the
neighborin\1 bllildin\ls IWoodstone. North of Nell and A"'pen
SQuare). ha", a perceived size that is les" thAn its neighbors.
Ann contai n", a simil ar setback on the lot from the street to
tho"e of its nei\1hhors. A flaw in the desi\1n is that the
appl iCAnt' s shadow !'<tudy "tates that III Durant will he in ",hade
for mo",t of the winter! and 12] Sprin\1 Street will he shaded in
t'hp aft'ernoon from the buildin\1' and i", already "haded in the
mornin\1 from the l"oodstone. hilt does rE>ceive some sun durin\1 mid-
day. Finallv. oVE>rall. the architecture 'i" ",till far too
Rchpmatic for thi" "ta',lE> in the review process.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposal or the improvements to the existing landscaping and
open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities,
and the provision of pedestrian amenities (path, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the ,development and to
provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the
dev el opn ent .
RATING: I
(Multiplier: 3)
pOINTS:
3
"
,~
-.
COMMENTS: The mall in Hunter and Dean Streets is a Ri~nificant
im!;)rovement to the area, however. necesRary to Rerve the project
ann not to he fully paid forhy ASC. as area near Tippl!>!: is
reRpooRibility of improvement di!'ltrict. Parks Dept. Questions
who will maintain the mallR over ~ime. Two significant flaws in
tho> program include tho> propol'<ed skier dropoff. extendinll into
nurant Street potentially creating turning conflicts with traffic,
and creatinQ an entrance image on Durant of parking. and the lack
of any true open space on nurant. with the parking suhstituting
for open space. not meeting Connition .1 of Conceptual Approval. .
c. ENERGy CONSERVATION - Considering the use of insulation,
solarener gy devi ce s, pa ssive solar orientation and, simi;Lar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use of.
solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition thereto. '
RATING: 3
(Multiplier: I)
POINTS:
3
COMMENTS: Ener9Y conservation ,mea ",ure", are standard for the
curr,ent, Rtate-of-the-art. and include ",olar orientation. sub'ilrade
con!'ltruction. heat exchange recovery aystemR in high ventilation
areas. heat retentive glazipg. ultra efficient light sourceR and
insulation meeting or exceeding codes. We would like to
r eco \In i ze th every Ri gni f i "ant cont r i hut i on hY thi s appl icati on
to air Qual ity hy inRtall ing "gas log" type fireplaces in the
hOb'l units. and feel that this category i!'l the mORt appropraite
pI ace to do RCl.
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - Considering the quality and
effiCiency of the internal circulation and parking system
for the proj ect, or any additi on thereto, including the
proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading
areas, and the design features to screen, parking from ~blic
views.
RATING: I
(Multiplier: 3)
PO INTS:
3
COMMENTS: The single covered service acce!'l'" point on Spring
Street- i", preferable to the two points shown at thp Conceptual
level. Parkin<,l haR heen increaRed to 116 (not 1181 spaces. all
under ground hut i R ba Red on unusually low demand rateR (l. e.. 0.7
Rpaces/longe room. .S Rpaces/IOOO s.f. retail. 1 Rpace/lOOO
restaurant/bar) a Th@ rEmoval. of ,th~ maintenance flln"ction from
the haRe will hE!lp circulation on the sitE!. aR well as have
visual benefits. However. design flaw... a!'l noted by Jay Hammond
ann the Planning Office are plimination of public pinking on
Durant. potential traffic flow problemR in the Rkier dropoff.,v
effect", on nurant Avenue. parking. circulation and access,/
problem'" created for the Tipple Inn and the Tippler (Ree aIM /
letter from Jack Crawford). and a potential !':tacking prohl em on v
Spring Street from carR I eaving the porte cochere and turning
onto Durant rather than entering the parkin<;l garage (i.e.. taxi
dro!;) offs t-o hotel or bar1.
e. VISUAL IMPAC1' - Considering the scale and location of the
proposed buildings or any addition thereto, to maximize
public views of surrounding scenic areas.
RAT ING: 2
(Multiplier: 3)
POINTS:
6
COMMENTS: The most crucial view of' th.. site. from Hunter Street
to A Rpe n Mounta i n. ha", been preRe rv ed. Vi ewpl ane impact s from
de",i<;lnated puhlic location", are totally avoided. N..vertheless.
the project will drastically change the view of the mountain from
the eastern end of Durant Avenue. This IORR of viewR will be'
~,
~
offl'let by the nramatic vil'lual
America' s premier l'lki mountain
recreational rel'lource.
improvement to the hal'le of
ann Al'lpen I s most impo rtant
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (MuimUlll 21 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests'
as compared to the size of the proposed lodging project or any
addition thereto. The Commission shall rate each developllent by
assigning points according to the following formula:
o Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 Indicates services which are judged to be deficient in terms
of quality of spaciousness.
2 Indicates services which are judged to be adequate in terms
of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates serv ices which are judged to be exceptional in
terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference areas,
in relation to the size of the proposed lodging project or
any addition thereto.
RATING: 2
"L~
r. I',IY' .,
I, ;\J.~ \,-
(0'\() ll.'/COMMENTS: The hotel provides a l'lingle conference room of ahout
\lY','jI" 1000 l'l.f. in the l'luh\7rane area. A multi purpol'le room on the
Il'y il" ',lohny level il'l also to he ul'led for meetings. as is a third room.
/i' ',lr' the "Boa rd" room. These latter two area s pro"; ine an andi ti onal
rS I,n~ ,v 1000 l'l.f. of meeting space., The 10hl1Y appears aneQuate for the
c'vV' hotel'l'l nel'!ds. It is impnssibll'! to evaluate the Quality of any
!.\0-Q,ll' of the amenity l'lpaces nUl" to the sketchy drawings 'provinen to
lY \ date. although reprel'lentationR arp that this will he a "firRt,
~~) :~a""":v:::ialbiit;~ty of or improvements to the existing on-site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed
lodging project or any addition thereto.
(Multiplier: 3)
POINTS:
6
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 2)
POINTS:
4
if
COMMENTS: Four nining/drinking spaces have heen inentified in
the pl an. There arl'! two sllbl'ltantial reRtaurants at the lohhy
level. ann a har/lounge. A nightclub. npscrihed in the plan
nil'lClll'll'lion. couln not he locatpn on thp drawingl'l. The rpl'ltaurant
ann har l'lpacPl'l al l'l0 have outdoor areal'l to continue the present
experienN> on the neck at Little Nell. The n!ning experience'
shoul d he an upgrade. al though the "funk! ness" of the present
eatin'ol and nrinking areas at the hal'le may be 10l'lt. It should he
notE'n that there are presently two reRtaurants on thE' site ann a
bar. all of which have a n!Rtinctly local flavor. The change in ,
style to "luxury" rel'ltanrant. al'lnoted in the plan. will serve0
one type of quest. hut displace ariQt;her. and !l'l thereforI' not'
jungento hI' an improvement. hut rnerply a Rtandard amenity.
"
1",
-
c. Availability of or improvements to the existing on-site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health clubs,
pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto.
RATING: 3
(Multiplier: 2)
l'OINTS:
6
COMMENTS: The applicant~ are providin<;/ an outdoor pc:> 0 1 of ahout
~ S5' x 35' and deck. a jacuzzi and a I=mh<;/rade health club of ahout
2200 ~.f.. with acce~~ to the decks. all for hotel <;/uests. The
improvement~ for the 90mmunity in <;/eneral include the pllblic ski
locker,~ in the compl ex. the propo~ed improvement~ to
hiki n<;//bi ki nil trail ~ and. most impc:>rtantly. the commitment to,
in<rt:all pither a detachable <;Illad 1 ift or \j:ondola at the base with
a capacity of 1S00 to 2000 ~kiers per hour.
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC l'OLICY GOALS (Maximum 15 points in
Category A, normally 5 points in Category B)
The Commission shall consider each application and its degree of
conformity with local planning policies, as follows:
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Commission shall award points as follows:
o to 40% of the additional lodge employees generated by
the project who are housed on or off-site
I point for each 4% housed.
41 to 100% of the additional lodge employees generated
by the project who are housed on or off-site
I point for each 12% housed.
(Multiplier: I)
l'OINTS:
9
9
RAT ING :
COMMENTS: The a ppl ica nt pro];O~e ~ to hou~e 30 of the S 4 net new
employees <;/enerated b,y the deve1opnent. eQuivalent to 36 percent
of net new ,emp1 Qyees. Empl oyee~, will be housed at the Hol iday
House on W. Hopkin~ Avenlle. to be converted from lodqe to
housin<;/. and will be hOllsed at hi<;/hly affordah1 e monthly low
income rental prices of about SlOO per person.
b. CONVERSION OF EXIS'l'ING UNrrS
The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low-, moderate-, or
middle-income units by purchasing fully constructed units
whi ch are not re st ri cted to Aspen 's ho using guidelines and
placing a deed-restriction upon them in compliance with
Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the
following schedule:
PoINTS
1%-33%
34%-66%
of all low-, moderate- and
middle-income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed-restricted
of all low-, moderate- and
middle-income units proposed by
appl icant are to be purchased
and deed-restricted
1
3
iI""'..
-
67%-100% of all low-, Illoderate- and
middle-income units proposed by
applicant are to be purchased
and deed-restricted
5
RATING: 5
(Multiplier: I)
POIllrS:
5
COMMENTS: All employees will he houspn in converted IlnitR.
PleaRe notp that thi" cateqory Rhoulrl he "coren this ypar;
althollqh P&Z recommennation and Ordinance 62. Series of 19S6 will
el fro i na t~ th i R' l!at:~tjfory hpncef orth a
5. BONOS POIllrS (Maximum 6 points)
The Commission members may" when anyone determines'that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substant ive
criteria of Section 24-1L6(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4), but has also
exceeded the prov:isions of these subsections and achieved an
outstanding overall design m eritfng recognition, award additional
bonus points not exceeding ten 10) percent of the total points
awarded under Section 24-11.6(b (I), (2), (3.) and (4), prior to
the application of the corresponding multiplier. Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
RATING: NIA
(Multi pli er: 1)
POIllrS:
6 . TOTAL POIllrS
Point s in Category 1 : 7.5 (Minimum of 3 pts. req ui red)
Poi nt s in Category 2: 19.5 (Minimum of 11.7 pts. required)
Poi nt s in Category 3 : 16 (Minimum of 6.3 pts. required)
Poi nt s in Category 4a: 9 (Minimum of 9 pts. required)
Poi nt s in Category 4b: 5 (No minimum thresh,old)
SUBTOTAL: 57 (60% threshold = 54 pts. )
, Bonus Point s:
TOTAL POIllrS: ' 57 (Total' of 96 Avail abl e)
Name of Commissioner member: Aepen/PitkinPlanning Office
AR.l
,-
," '
,-,.,
llEllORl\NDllll
!:'ROH:
l\lan Richman, Planning and Development Director
.Tay Hammond, City Engineering~
~'o:
DA'l'E:
January 20, 19S6
RE:
Little tlell S.P.A. Precise Plan
~. ~- - ~-.. - ~.-~ - - -- -.- -- --.-.- -- - _.- -- ---- -- _.-- -.... --- -.-.. - - -- - - -- --.- _.- -~ .---~. -.- -. -- -- - -. ---
_.___________________.._______----------------.------------______0______--------
Having reviewed the above application for precise plan approval
of the Little Nell S.P.A., the City Engineering Department ~Iould
offer the following comments;
UTILITIES
t'later - Generally, l'le are pleased ~Iith the
and relocations presented by the applicant.
informed of:
svster:l improvements
~ie Ii ill neec:] to be
Pumphouse Relocation - Conceptually, this does not appear to
create problems though the City will need to approve all plans,
equipment and access easements to all relocated facilities.
'Spring Street Line - We would recommend the upsizing of the
proposed Spring Street water line to a 12 inch line with a valve
at Durant and a valve, plug and kickblock at Ute .\venue to
provide for fu~ure extension by the City. '
tlell Slope Line - The City ~/ould like to coordinate ~Iith the
applicant the placement, by the City, of a parallel 6 inch main
crossing the Nell slope adjacent to the nel1 12 inch proposed by
the development.
Easements - Relocation of water and other utilities will
require nel1 easements from the ski Company. Also, sone existing
easements will need to be formally abandoned by all utilities
currently utilizing them.
Electric ~ Relocation of City electric facilities in the
area shall be at the applicant's expense with relocation and
equipment design subject to approval by the City Electric Superi-
ntendent.
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Precise plan approval should be, subj ect to further geotechnical
investigation to investigate slope stability and groundl./ater
conditions in the areas of the proposed cut slopes and foundation
and groundwater conditions in the areas planned for structures
,
,-,
^
Page TI~o
Little Nell S.P.A. Precise Plan
January 20, 1906
per the Chen report.
involves the potential
South Spring Street.
One important construction related concern
need :{or retaining structures adjacent to
Additional information is also required regarding the flood and
debris flow risk from the Vallejo gulch area onto the project
site and adjacent sites. Adequate mitigation should be provided
to protect the project and any adjacent properties impacted by
ne\~ grading.
Related to the work undertaken by Chen to evaluate the geological
hazard and mud flow risk for the Little Nell redevelooment site
is the ongoing effort to evaluate the hazards and nitigation
across the entire base cf the mountain. To the extent that the
Aspen Skiing Company is the major land holder within the upSlope
source areas and sin,ce a failure to mitigate the problems in the
upslope area could affect Little Nell and other downslope sites,
we \'/ouldrecommend that M3C be required to commit to ongoing
hazard study, engineering and mitigation construction in those
areas under their control via direct ownership, leasehold or
other usage agreement as a condition of the Little Nell approval.
STORH DRAINAGE
Rea Cassens and Associates has provided a thorough analysis of
the various basin impacts from the 5 year and 100 year storms.
Conceptually, they appear to be both conservative and in keeping
with City policy of detaining major flo\'iS and releasing them
off-site at historic rates. The site plan, hO\'/eller do!!s not
address the specific location of proposed detention facilities
and channels. Precise plan approval should include adequate
location and capacity for storm routing and detention. In
addition, basin 1\-3 on the drainage plan indicates a discharge
onto the Alps property. To the extent that this discharge has
been increased due to grading or other site activity it should be
detained by the Nell developer and released at histcric rates.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
Service Access - Further detail with respect to appropriate
turning radii for truck access and egress are needed. naintaining
public parking on the east side of Spring adjacent to the Aspen
Club Lodge is a concern as is the limited right-Of-way in Spring
Street.
Skier Drop-Off - The skier drop-Off proposed involves elimination
of public on-street parking and an unworkable curb line extension
adjacent to the Hunter Street, right-of-~Iay. \1e would recor.mend
e:,ploration of al ternative designs that maintain on-street tJublic
~
I.. ,
^
Page Three
Little Nell S.P.A. Precise Plan
January ~O, 1906
parking and revision of the curb design adjacent to the llorth-of-
Nell.
Parking - \1hile the parking provided on-site appears reasonable
for the needs of the lodge and skier support facilities, we
remain concerned about the adequacy of parking for the nell
restaurants and for the increased skiers attracted to Little Nell
by the proposed ne\~ lift and general area expansion. Expansion
a!)proval by the County required 46 additional parking spaces and
some indication of where these are to be located may be appropr-
iate.
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The appl icant should be required to commit, to participation in
the Lodge Area Special Improvement District #HG-I pursuant to the
representations in the application and appendix IO as a condition
of the SPA agreement.
ENCROACHMENTS
Despite the representations in the application, lie have not
received appropriate submittal materials or the fee for encroachment
application.
8040 GREENLINE
Subject to appropriate utility relocations, as represented by the
applicant, as .,ellas reseeding of the revised slopes, \'le have no
particular problems .,ith the proposed regro...ding or lift to\'ler
construction under the 8040 criteria.
VIEW PLANE
Again, \~e are not particularly concerned about the Vie\'l plane
issue. I \'lould suggest that one of the theories of the view
plane \1aS that foreground obstructions may eventually be redeveloped
and brought into compliance. Given the distance fror.l the I'1heeler
and the minor nature of the intrusion, ho\~ever, \'le are not
particularly concerned.
Jill cOlLi ttleNell2
cc: Jim Ilarkalunas
Rich Cassens
o
,,-..,\
^
I1EMORANDUM
TO:
Alan Richman Planning Dept.
Bill Ness Parks Dept.
Landscape Development Plan Little Nell
January 9,1986
FR011:
RE:
DATE:
----------------~~------------------------~---------
After viewing the landscape conceptual site plan,I believe
it to be a big improvement and should fit into the citys
overall design.All the plants the architect will be using
are indigenous with this elevation.My only concern is,Hho
will be responsible for the maintenance of the trees along
Durant St.,and the snow removal on Spring St.sidewalk in
front of the hotel?
,'-"
^
RICHARD D, LAMM
GOVERNOR
PI-86-00 13
JOHN W, ROLD
DIHECTOR
January 6. 1986,
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY D' @ tr:> IC?
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES r--1i ~ l.S Q~ @"fi\\
715 STATE CENTENNIAL eUILDING"';';' 1313 SHERMAN STREE I !ll i I
DENVER, COLORADO 802031'HONE 1303) 866-2611 I' JIAll !i: ,
. I f1I1 - 9 /986 :,: ill
,. I 1 " 1,
:'L (}Jj
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Richman:
RE: LITTLE NELL LODGE, GMP
We have reviewed the pertinent portions of this application and the general
and engineering geology of the area. We concur with the findings and recom-
mendations found in the Chen & Associates, and Rea-Cassens & Associates re-
ports (Appendix 1 & 5 respectively).
The potential problems associated with high watertable and slope instability
are resolvable based upon detailed, site-specific design studies as recom-
mended by Chen. These studies should be accomplished prior to actual con-
struction or grading activities commence.
The recommendations found in the Storm Water Drainage Report appear adequate
for the water/mud floods anticipated. The observation for the need to update
and revise the entire city plan is well taken.
In summary, we see no adverse conditions of a geologic nature which should
affect GMP approval. The detailed studies regarding slope stability and
water table problems should be conducted prior to final approval.
:::::.~
Senior Engineering Geologist
bcr:JLH-86-049
GEOLOGY
STORY OFTHEPAST", KEYTOTHE FUTURE
-..
, '
MEMORANDUM
t""",
D ~~, @~D~~IIT
I JAN - 7 1986 I U
Date:
January 6, 19S6
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director
FROM:
Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official-;.v""'"
Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
SUBJECT:
The following fire, life, safety deficiencies are evident at this
stage of the design:
/' 1) Fire Department access to all sides of the building has not
been provided, therefore the building must be protected
throughout with an automatic fire sprinkler systc..
2) Class III standpipes shall be provided as required by
building code.
3) A stairway (centrally located) shall extend to the roof,
while access via roof hatches is permissible at the other
stairways.
4) The atriu. area must meet the requirements of the 1982
U. B.C., including a smoke removal system.
/ 5) The fire-safety code discourages day care centers in basement
levels. A building permit will not be issued for the proposed
child care center as it is currently designed.
,
6) The north end of the corridor at Level ~12 exits into the
parking garage, a violation of building code.
7) Any wood roofing material must be fire-retardant, Class B
rated.
In addition, the developer should be aware of the possibility of
an effective building code change. [n 1986, the Building
Department will be submitting the 19H5 U.B.C. to City Council for
adoption. The building code in effect at the time of building
pel"mit application will be applied to this project.
cc: Peter Wirth, AVFD
JW/ar
,-..,
1"';;.,
,
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
Jay Hammond, Public Services Director ~
January 6, 19S6
Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
=============:====~======~=======================~================
Having reviewed the above application for Growth Management Plan
scoring of the Little Nell Base Development, ,the City Engineering
Department would offer the following comments:
WATER
Subject to the commitments elCpressed by the applicant to:
a. Abandon the Little Nell 12 inch steel line.
b. Relocate and reinforce the Little Nell 12 inch gravity
line (per Marky's letter of November 27, 19S5).
c. Relocate pumping facilities to the snowmaking plant.
d. Relocate well control and treatment facilities from the
Hunter Street pumphouse into the lodge structure
And, subj ect to the appl icant I swill ingness to assist and coordina te
with the City in its installation of an additional line to the
Aspen Alps, as well as upsizing of the proposed Spring Street
line, we would view the proposal as a substantial upgrading of
the area water system.
We are currently analyzing some of the additional items above and
will be more specific in our recommendation as soon as possible.
Recommended Scoring
-L
SEWER Based on the development plan, and pursuant to the
comments in Heiko Kuhn's letter of November 20, 19S5, the plan
represents an improvement to the Aspen Sanitation District's
system in the area.
Recommended Scoring
--.L
S'l'ORM DRAINAGE The proposal responds to current requirements
with regard to on-site detention of storm flows. In addition, it
responds, at least conceptually, to the need for upsizing of
detenti.on to accommodate potential mud flows and i.s beneficial to
the area in general in that regard. Subsequent information
,
"""
-,
Page Two
Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission
January 6, 19 S6
regarding the specific location of detention facilities should be
required.
Recommended Scoring
---L
FIRE PROTECTION The application provides for two new fire
hydrants and is responsive to Peter Wirth's letter of November
21. The hydrants are recommended to serve the project and
represent a standard solution to the needs of the new development.
Recommended Scoring
-L
ROAD SYSTEM TDA's analysis would appear to indicate that the
existing network is adequate. We are concerned that traffic
generation figures for the winter months may be low anticipating
the increased use of Little Nell as a skier access following
completion of the Gondola. Generally, however" the road system
should be adequate to provide some flexibility in the trip
generation figures. Greater concerns resolv,e around parking and
will be discussed later.
Recommended Scoring
-L
SITE DESIGN The site plan calls for extensive utility relocation
and proposes to place all .pro"(X>sed utilities" underground. We
would ~equest some further detail regarding any existing utilities
slated for undergrounding.
Recommended Scoring
---L
PARKING AND CIRCULATION Generally, parking provided for the
lodge and base facilities, taken in consideration of a firm
commitment to proposed van service, valet parking, employee
shuttles, etc., would appear to be adequate.
Problems include:
a. Elimination of public parking on Durant to accommodate
controlled skier drop-off and parking on the site.
b. Parking, circulation and service access problems created
for the Tipple Inn and the associated bar and restaurant.
r--.
Page Three
Little Nell Base Development GMP Submission
January 6, 19 S6
-.
We would recommend further work in these areas to maximize public
and require private parking.
Recommended Scoring
JH/co/LittleNellGMPSub
-L
.
,~,
r---,
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
T~:~\r? (C: ~ 0 W ~ ~~
"I ' ,'.:> 'C/ LS .
I~I OEC24~ Ie;
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING OFFICE
JIM MARKALUNAS
LITTLE NELL LODGE GMP!PRECISE
DECEMBER 23, 19B~
~ ---.J/ ~
PLAN
)1/j r:. ~f(A I-UtJ A. 5-
This is to advise you that we have reviewed the Little Nell Lodge
GMP/Precise Plan, and at this time, we do not have any additional
comments. We do wish to reference our letter of Nov. 27, 19S5,
and note that we have been in c,lose contact wi th the developer
and engineers regarding this project. It has been suggested that
the, 6" fire main in Spring St. be increased to a 12" for future
connection to Ute Ave. We have no further comments to make at
this time, except that the Water Department wishes to be advised
of any changes in the overall plan and the scheduling of construction
work, so we can properly schedule the necessary changes to our
operations and construction activities.
JM:ab
'-\
.,-."
, ASPEN.PITKIN
ENVIRONMEN'TAL HEALTH CEPARTM,ENT
MEMORANDUM
CANl REV 1 F:~;
FROM:
Alan Richman, Planning Office
Tho'mas S.' Dunlop, in rector ISD "
Env ironmental Heal th Depart.n,"'nl
TO:
DATE:
December 14, 19S5
RE:
Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
=======~============================~====================~=:~=~~~.==
The above-referenced submittal has been reviewed by thi:; ofUce
for the following environmental concerns.
AIR POLLUTION
Solid Fuel Burning Devfces:
The applicant has committed to install only "gas .i 09" Lyp':
fireplaces in hotel suites and one wood-burning [ir,~pla"'l.' j,p
the main hotel lobby. This approach is in conforffi'lnce willi
policies of this department.
The a'pplicant should be commended in this novel design
feature to address the fireplace issue. As the result of
many air pollution studies which have been perfornll~d in thE:'
Aspen ~ietro area, it is well documented that every development.,
large or small, has the potential to negatively imrK'tct, ai I
quality. The Aspen Skiing Company's progressive approach to
this very sensitive issue should be considered as a Illodel
for other fu~ure developments to follow.
The applicant has met and/or exceeded their required comrli,lI1ce
with current woodburning device legIslation.
Construction Air Pollution
Prior to any demolition of existing buildings, the iijJl'l i ..-ant
V' shall certify through a qualified source that there i" no
asbestos present in those buildings. Inspect.iN', ~;dlllp] i ng
and analysis of any suspected asbestos material" will be
required.
If asbestos is present in the buildings, the appl ieant. ~;hall
retain qualified asbestos removal personnel to [e,.,"ve the
material.
It shall be handled as a hazardous waste and di"pnsed nf in
a designated landfill after the removal plan "...t'; ;,';U.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado B1G11
303/925-2020
,""',
,-"
Page Two
Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
December 14, 19S5
approved by this 'department and the Colorado Health Departm-
ent. Colorado Air POllution Control laws, Regulation 8
Section n,.3.4' dictates the need for this action.
Further, during demolitio,n and construction the applicant
will be required to remove any mud and dirt carry-out onto
City streets by vehicle traffic from the site.
This soLI. sball be removed by means of a mechanical street
sweeper which will use a water/brush method. The soil
contained within the machine shall be re-deposited on the
applicants property. Daily cleaning of the impacted streets
will be tbe applicants res,ponsibility.
DEMOLITION
t/
During actual razing of buildings, the applicant will be required
to prevent windblown (fugitive) dust from leaving the property.
This control may take the form of spraying the immediate demolition
site with water. Other examples of acceptable control techniques
include dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site, shrouding
the work area, etc.
v
Contact by the project sponsor shall be made with the Colorado
Health Department to determine if an emission permit and/or a
fugitive dust control plan is reqUired for both the demolition
and construction phase of the project. That determination is
relative to the estimated emissions which will be generated
(tons per year). Contact Mr. Scott Miller, Colorado Health
Department, 222 S. 6th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, or
phone him at 24S-7150 to inquire about Regulation 1, Section III;
D,2,h titled "Demolition Activities. of the "Colorado Air Quality
Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards," Revised
March 19S3.
ONDERGROOND PARKING
It will be a requirement of this office that adequate air handling
facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate any buildup
of air contaminants inside the underground parking structures.
NOISE ABATEMENT
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
J Ordinance 2 series 19S1 ti tled Noi se Aba temen t. All demol i tion
and construction noise related activities shall be covered under
the maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance.
A project of this magnitude can be expected to generate persistent
,-."
,,~
Page Three
Little Nell Lodge GMP/Precise Plan
December 14, 1985
sound levels that'may be annoying to the neighborhood. The
applicant must be aware of this and be conscious of methods and
approach to minimize generation of complaint? to this office.
,Time of day, duration 'of specific activities and using the most
technically quiet equipment are a few mitigating measures that
may be involved. If complaints are 'received, the referenced
ordinance will be the,governing document used in enforcement~
The submittal details plans for a night club to be included in
the project. Construction techniques shall be employeed which
will not allow sound generated from this facility to exceed the
noise abatement ordinance maximum allowable decibel levels. Such
sound levels would be measured at the property line.
^s a point of information, the applicant should also be considerate
of guests at the lodge and design the night club to not interfere
with their comfort.
CONTAMINATED SOILS
No evidence of mine dumps or mine tailings being present on the
project site are indicated in the Chen and Associates report.
However, during demolition, excavation and construction if such
soil types are discovered the following shall apply.
All suspected mine waste materials shall be sampled and evaluated
for Lead, Zinc, Arsenic, Cadmium and other metals commonly found
in mine dumps or mine tailings.
The sample analysis shall be provided to this office from a
qualified laboratory for evaluation. If elevated levels of heavy
metals are identified. mitigating measures will be required.
Professionally competent people in the field of geoloyy wi.ll be
required to develop the mitigation plan.
SF;WAGE DISPOSAL
Service to this project of a public sewage collection system as
provided by the Aspe.n Consolidated Sanitation District i!: in
conformance with pol-icies of this office.
This will include installation and maintenance of grease traps as
((:qui (cd by the District.
WATP.H suppr.y
Service to this project by the distri.bution lines as provided by
the City of r\~pen Vitltcr Department i1; in <':OJlf<"HllIallc(.~ wi tJi policie:..;
,~
,,-,
Page Four
Little Nell Lodg!! GMP/Precise Plan
December 14, 1965
of this office.
FOOD SERVICE
All food service establishments shall comply with Colorado Rules
and Regulations governing such 'facilities. This will include not
only restaurants, bars and lounges,' but also mountain restaurant
food storage areas. Proper licensing of these facilities through
this department will be required prior to service of food to the
public. ' ~
Compliance with Section 11-2.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code titled
"Restaurant Grills" will also be required. This section addresses
the type of cooking dev ices which can be installed and operated
in new or remodeled food service establishments.
SWIMMING POOLS/SPAS
Swinuning pools and spas must comply with the Rules and Regulations
governing such facilities as required by Colorado standards.
Throughout this review reference has been made to various rules,
regulations, ordinances and laws. Copies of "UI of them may be
found in this office. It is recommended that architects under
contract to this project become famil i a r with them du ri ng the
design phases.
TSD/co/LittleNell
TO:
FROH:
RE:
DATE:
^
""""
~IENORI\NDUM
Ci ty J\ttor l1ey
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen l'later Dept.
Environmental r!ealth DeFt.
,Aspen "Consoiidated Sanitation, Dist'ti"Ct
Parks Department
Fire Chief
Chief Duildir.o Official
Zoning Enforcement Officer
1\I"ah Richman, PI anni ng Off ice
Little Nell Lodge GI'W/precise Plan
December II, 19S5
====~=============================~======::===========~==============~=
Attached for your revie\\' is an application subrr.itted by Peter Forsch
of the Aspen Skii.ng Cor.:p:lny. This application consists of a request
for a 96 unit Lodge Gnp quota allotment, Precise Plan revie\, (since
the property is located in the CC zone district with an SPA overlay),
Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline Review and l:ountain Viewplar.e Review.
\'Ie are referring this application at this [.Oint in time although there
are additional materiels el:pected from the applicant (c.g., addi-
tional drawings to be submitted around 1st of year), ~lhich \,.'e will
provide to appropriate referral agencies at the time they are submit-
ted. Also, please note that we are referring full scale plan sets to
a select group of the ref erral agencies. If other agencies are
interested in seeing full scale plan set't;, they are available here
in the Planning Office.
He I,'ould appreciate if you would please limit your cOlilnents to your
o~m parti cul ar ar ea of e xperti se. If you have any questions a s to IV hy
this application Has referred to you and Hhat comments we may be
looking for from you, please contact me. This application is unusu-
ally complel( and has a great deal of politicCll importance.. I-Ie,
therefore, need your CO,c:H2nt.s on time, and in ani' case, no later thCln
J<:<nunry 6, 1986.' l'le cannot. accept delays in this case.
Thank you for your cooFcration in advance.
-r(V~ /-i5/'Je..:.- CO-S)L-'...."'ref) .i,A_4r"'I".~"""
1d.1 '.
I~ I.. j"L I ... I~ :.:.. .t1. --
~e A..""",~
_ t _~::.
PIt'JJ~...' riO-I; '-~..
, r- -/......
,,......_.).......,)
~ 'I "-'r.":
/2..r. .
..e,o _'tt_t-
'" r-
-,....~
~ ." oJ --.~ '.~,
_ :-co
. ""'....pc:
r-/~ .... ..... I~ ,i.. /- I"":..
r N I.'
't "';'~ .1 ~ .....,.. ''::1' ... 6-
~_______i_1
,.... '>
'hA-...,"'-.~
<.J-----t~--
/,
/ I....~.-
'.
'"
1'1''.. (t!~' -l\'~ .
(, t . I '." ',. ,..-"
_..r'__N~_' """_'__
.""""
^
j"
;...::" ...;. fl.,
t'~1.7
/1;';; ,v"'t!:~,,~-.: i,~~:"'>.i ~'(2:
/) ''',I.;..f
C/' '<' ".'
Ef}(I;
/.,';-"~ f:ci'I.l.p)
'/ 1/- ." I.,'
t-,. /(./; / /'/'
'~I {1,;,Y>:j
,
/0.;;' .{: ,.GJ /_,:' ;:;:_'i;(
, 1-;;,:","'(""',_ ,;~) J,(,//' .'
(FH., .. i"'':'.'-~!''''/ /1:/,:;('
'.' ' ,
/, In[:'~, ::..(-..- t/t/':'-
"
MEK>RANDU M
FROM:
Aspen City Council
Hal Schilling, City Manager
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director ~
TO:
TH 1<IJ :
DATE:
Conceptual SPA Submission - Little Nell Base Redevelopment
September 17, 19S5
RE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) requestsconcep-
tual SPA approval for the redevelopment of the Little Nell base area.
The applicant also requests that the boundaries of the area designated
as, SPA be expanded. Presently, the SPA Overlay covers that portion of
the site (about 43,000 square feet) which has a "ce" - Commercial core
zone designation. The applicant requests that the SPA overlay be
expanded across about 45,000 additional square feet which is now
designated "c" - Conservation, with no change in the underlying C-zone
designation being requested.
APPLICABLE CODE SECl'IONS: There are several sections of the newly
adopted Ordinance 20 which are particularly pertinent to the a ppl i-
, cant's request, including the following:
"Section 24-7.2 Procedure for Designation of Sites as SPA
(a) Parcels of land shall be designated with a Specially Planned Area
(SPA) overlay or the boundaries of parcels already designated
with' an SPA shall be adjusted only following the procedures and
requirements for amendments to the zoning map described in
Article XII of this chapter, and by submitting a conceptual plan
for development of the parcel, as described below."
(c) In designating parcels with an SPA overlay, the Planning Commis-
sion and City Council shall make findings as to the unique
characteristics of the parcel which justify its designation with
an SPA overlay, including how the parcel complies with the
intents and purposes of this Article."
"Section 24-7.3 Conceptual Plan
(a) An applicant for any site designated, or proposed to be designat-
ed with an SPA Overlay shall submit a conceptual plan, for the
purpose of establishing the Objectives which the SPA designation
is to achieve. The conceptual submission shall include a
statement of the intent and a conceptual description of the
type of development which is proposed to take place on the
parcel, including but not limited to use categories, overall
,-"
^'
proj ect density, and design concepts to be employed. The
applicant shall consult with the Planning Directqr as to the
submission requirements prior to the submission of the conceptual
plan; however, as a general guide, it is not intended that the
submission go into the technical detail required of conceptual
subdivision or conceptual IUD." '
In my opinion, the key p:>ints regarding conceptual review which are
contained in the above statements are as follows:
1. Adj ustment of the boundar ies of an SPA requires that rezoning
procedures (Le., pUblic hearing before P&Z, Ordinance adoption
by City Council) be followed. We attach a prop:>sed Ordinance for
your first reading consideration.
2. If Council supports the alteration of the Little Nell SPA
boundaries, it must identify "the unique characteristics of the
parcel which justify its designation with an SPA overlay."
Therefore, we must make such findings wi th respect to the new
area requested for designation if we are to support this request,
,as was done by P&Z in their attached resolution.
3. Conceptual SPA is a very broad review process, intended princi-
pally to identify the overall type and form of development which
is to take place on the parcel. In this respect, it is closer to
a zoning process, which establishes the uses and area and bulk
requirements for a parcel, than a subdivision or IUD process,
which deals with design standards and technical feasibility of
the project. These detailed COncerns are more properly to be
addressed at the precise plan stage which follows conceptual
approval by Council.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: The Planning Office review of this project
can be broken down into the following categories:
1. Major design issues, inCluding referral comments; and
2. Growth rate issues.
Following this review, a summary of the pros and cons of the project
is presented, and a Planning Office recommendation is made. For a
detailed summary descrip:ion of the project and an analysis of the
existing deficiencies of the base area, we refer you directly to
the materials provided by the applicant.
~
MAJOR DESIGN ISSUES:
1. Use - The conceptual plan is the appropriate time to review the
use categories proposed for the project. The uses proposed in
the Little Nell Base Redevelopment are as follows:
o Hotel - 96 rooms (approximately 77 ,700 sq. ft. above grade
2
^
^
and 15,700 subgrade).
subgrade spaces serving
rooms.
Included in the hotel are various
skiers such as lockers and rest-
o COlIIIDercial - Approximately 16,100 sq. ft., of which about
13,400 sq. ft. is requested for verification as existing
space. (Note: This square footage is included in the above
hotel size estimate.)
o Ski Area Support Facilities - Approximately 10,000 square
feet of subgrade space, some of which is a reconstruction of
existing space (note: the applicant should clarify the
breakdown of uses within this space and how much is a
rebuild of existing offices and support areas for the
purposes of establishing the commercial quota for which the
applicant will be applying). This area is principally ski
administration space, but also included in this category are
the new lifts at the base area, for which no FAR has been
provided.
o Parking - 77 subgrade spaces are proposed, at a rate of .7
spaces per room (96 x .7 = 67) plus 10 spaces for key
employees, in an area of about 30,000 square feet.
The Planning Office believes that the proposed mix of uses is an
appropriate one for this SPA site. The .,!1ote.l is a conditional
~_,tJl__j:.P:~__c:.Cz()nE?' while the commercial uses are permitted in
this zone. The ski area support facilities are an appropriate
use of the land in the Conservation zone district. More will be
said about the appropriateness of the proposed uses in the
section of this memo concerning the proposed boundary change to
the SPA overlay. However, at this point it is clear that the
intrusion of the hotel and commercial area into the portion of
the site zoned C, with an SPA overlay requested, would be a
variation in the uses allowed in that district.
':'':',/'.
/:'i"i:.~
It 2. o,~~ I
2. Area and Bulk Requirements - The key area and bulk requirements
of the CC zone district which apply to this developnent ,are as
follows:
o Maximum Height - 40 feet - The building has been scaled at
46 feet to the top of the roof and appears to be able to
meet the 40 foot limit to the midpoint of the roof. Final
determination of compliance would be made at the preci se
pI an stage.
o Percent Open Space - 25% If we include both the present
and proposed SPA areas, the site contains about BS, S62
sq uare feet, of which 61, 003 sq uare feet are to be kept in
open space (approximately 6S.5% open space). However,
according to the definition of open space in Section 24-3.7
(d), open space must be open to the street and unobstructed
3
^
.-,
from ground level and have a mlnlmUm street frontage of 100
feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet. The purpose of these
provisions is to provide visual relief along the street
from the mass of the building.
Since the pedestrian plaza is not within the applicant's
ownership, there is no area along the Durant Street frontage
,which meets this provision. However, the open spaces does
front on Dean Street. As a condition of P&Z I s reconunenda-
tion, the applicant has been asked to verify with the Zoning
Official that this open space meets the requirements of the
Code. In any case, the building as proposed has an exten-
sive facade mass, and by not having open space along Durant
Street within the applicant's ownership, will particularly
,affect views from the Aspen Square Complex. Also important
in this regard are the shadow effects on Durant Street, as
noted in condition 15 of the' P&Z resolution.
o External FAR - 1.5:1 There are two possible methods to
calculate the external FAR for the project. First, the FAR
can be calculated based on the existing CC/SPA site, which
would ,involve 43,124 square feet of lot area and 77,71S
square feet of building, amounting to an FAR of I.SO:l. A
second approach would be to include in the calculation the
area zoned C, and proposed to have an SPA overlay placed on
it. In this case, the site would be SS, S62 square feet and
the FAR would be 0.S7:l. Based on the precedent ,set in the
review of the Aspen Mountain Lodge, the land zoned C should
not be included in the FAR calculation, since the uses
proposed (hotel, conunercial) are not permitted or condition-
al uses in the C zone. Therefore, the applicant is request-
ing a variance from the CC FAR from 1.5:1 to about I.S:l.
The applicarit can also' request Special Review approval to
increase the allowable conunercial FAR on the site to 1.7:1
by providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on-
or off-site.
o parking There is no requirement for parking for lodging
or commercial uses in the CC zone. There is also no parking
requirement for lodge uses in the C zone, but the Code 'does
require that parking for "all other uses," (i.e., the
commercial space) receive Planning Commission review. Both
the Engineering Department and the Planning Office have
serious doubts about the adequacy of 77 spaces for a project
of this magnitude. The application references "recent
downtown parkihg studies" (presumably those for the Aspen
~Iountain roD) to justify this level of parking provision.
We would like to see additional study of this issue to
justify that the 'parking needs of the lodge rooms, adminis-
trative offices, commercial spaces and skier support
facilities are being met by this proposal. We would al so
note that the building is proposing to displace approxi-
4
^
^
mately 30 parking spaces which now exist on the property,
although only about 10 of these spaces are used year-round.
The parking issue is addressed by Condition 113 of P&Z
Resolution 85-IS.
3. SPA Boundary Change The applicant prop::>ses to adjust the
boundary of the area designated with an SPA overlay. The
applicant does not request any change in the extent of the area
designated as CC. Instead, it is proF.()sed that an SPA desig-
nation be placed over approximately I acre of property currently
designated only as conservation.
The applicant's zoning boundary change differs significantly from
that which was considered and eventually denied by City Council
in 19S3, The extent of the area requested for SPA designation is
considerably less than that previously identified and corresponds
directly to that area in which the hotel, commercial and ski
support facilities are to be located at the toe of the slope. In
fact, by extending the boundary, we insure that the location of
the 1 ift s is considered at the same time a s the remainder of the
base area development.
We find that the increase in the SPA boundary does meet the test
'of being unique and providing public benefit in that it permits
integrated planning of the lift locations in conjunction with the
remainder of the base area development. Without the SPA Overlay,
our review of the ski lifts would be limited to the conditional
use review process. Furthermore, the site itself is unique' due
to its location at the gateway to Aspen Mountain, and the year-
round recreational benefits to the community which can be
provided there.
The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adjustment
with the following qualifications:
a. The area designated C-SPA is not used in the calculation of
the FAR for the project, due to the rationale noted above.
b. Final approval of the boundary change should only occur in
conjunction with final approval of the precise plan for the
project. Therefore, the City Council should accomplish a
first reading of the ordinance, and table second reading
until a precise plan submission is reviewed in 19S6.
c. In the event that final approval of the project expires, the
boundary of the SPA should revert to its prior configuration
until a new conceptual and precise plan is submitted.
Each of these qualifications was accepted by P&Z and included in
their attached Resolution.
4.
proj ect Visibility
There are at least three aspects of the
5
^
1""">,
project's visibility which we believe are of concern to the
community. First, there is a concern about the historic ability
of residents and visitors to view the base of the mountain from
various points in town. In my opinion, the view corridor up
Hunter Street provides the least cluttered sight lines which must
be preserved. I have reviewed a computer simulation prepared by
the applicants which will be included in their slide show. This
simulation appears to demonstrate that because of the pedestrian
pla:z;a, the hotel will not cause a signiJicant impact on the
Hunter Street view. However,"r have asked the applicants to move
the reference point for this view back down Hunter Street from
Durant to Cooper and even to Hyman to better evaluate this
impact, and feel that this information could be requested at the
conceptual review stage. P&Z addressed this concern in Condition
#4 of Resol ution S5-IS. Detailed architectural renderings and
elevations would not be expected until the precise plan stage.
A second visibility question has to do with the regrading of the
Little Nell slope. I have been informed that either the new quad
lift or the gondola will require an extensive flat area to allow
the I ift motor s to bring the chair or the gondola up to the
necessary minimum speed. This flat area will also have the
significant benefit of allowing easier pedestrian access to the
lifts, drastically improving circulation at the base area. We
will need to see a detailed grading plan to evaluate the extent
of th,e cut which will be required and to obtain a clearer idea of
the degree to which the historic appearance of the base of the
mountain will be altered. This concern is addressed as Condition
#5 of Resolution S5-lS.
A final vi sibil ity question has to do with the City's mountain
viewplane and S040 review criteria. It appears that a portion of
the site may technically fall within the Cooper Avenue viewplane,
or possibly even be affected by the Courthouse or Wheeler
viewplanes. It also is unclear from the applicant's presentation
whether or not the project falls within 50 yards below the S040
greenline. The applicant should stUdy these viewplane and
greenline concerns and, if review is required, submit the
necessary documentation at the precise plan stage of review.
5. Circulation Several conceptual circulation issues have been
raised by our review of the conceptual site design. First, the
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners approving the
Aspen ~lountain Ski Area /fJZlster Plan (AMSAMP) requires that the
taxi-limo-auto drop-off facility at Little Nell be maintained.
We do not see where provision for this facility has been made on
the conceptual drawings. This issue received extensive attention
at the P&Z level and was finally addressed as COndition #7 of
Resolution S5-lS. The applicant also has not made provision for
the 46 off-street, skier automobile parking, space's required to
mitigate the, effects of the 1,300 daily skiers-at-one-time
capacity increase, on Aspen ~lOuntain. However, the BOCC Resolu-
6
1"""'\
!""""\
tion states that this requirement can be met either at the base
of Little Nell, through a cash contribution, or through an off-
site solution by ASC.
A second circulation question has to do with the location of
service delivery areas on Spring Street, opposite the Woodstone
Inn, and on Dean Street, behind the North of Nell building.
These two entrances are intended to serve the ,vehicles bringing
goods to the hotel-commercial facility, and for the restaurants
on the mountain, respectively.
The City Engineer questions whether it is appropriate to have two
such service yards, or if a single area can be provided to
consolidate these operations. 'Given our recent experience with
the Aspen Hountain Lodge service yard on Monarch Street, we want
to insure that these facilities impact the least number of sur-
rounding residents. Condition liS of ResolutionS5-IS states
that we would like the applicant to demonstrate that adequate
room has been left for stacking trucks within the service yards
and for making necessary turning movements, without causing
interference with traffic on either Spring Street or Dean
Str eet.
With respect to overall traffic circulation, the aJ212J,.iJ;,aot_!:uui~
pr ov i de d_l!~.ti.,1:h._,.n9.~j,n~gIIll3! tJ.'OIl.".w:!1?,j:"l>.Qe,v e r" .on th~" a, d eq l.la cy()f
Durant '__~~.mE9.,._<,l.I}~L,R~,?n.$J;I.eet.l>.,to,.handle,.the traff ic vol u!l}J':s,
fiOm"SKJ.ers" guests, emplOYees and ,users of thecommeroal
spac'(s':"""coiidit:COn'1I9' of'Resol uti on S5-18 requi res that ". sucn
te'cfiiiical inf ormation be provi ded in conj uncti on with pre ci se
pI an review.
One .of the most positive aspects of the applicant's proposal is
the improvement to pedestrian circulation ,which is expected to
resul t form the, plazas on Hunter and Dean Streets. The appl icant
appears to have given thoughtful attention to the placement of
the ticket booths, the lift and the entrance to the mountain. We
are conceptually pleased with this effort, but note that neither
Dean Street nor Hunter Street is owned by ASC, although the
applicant states that it does have easements over these pro-
perties. The ASC must clarify its intent with respect to these
right-of-ways at the time of precise plan review, and provide us
with copies of these easements as soon as possible, since with.out
these areas, there is certain to be inadequate access for
pedestrians to the mountain. P&Z has requested that efforts be
made including coordination with the City, to increase the extent
of this pedestrian gatelvay to the mountain.
We also need to clarify the kinds of vehicles which will be
permitted on Dean Street, since the applicant already intends to
have service vehicles, here, and possibly emergency (fire,
ambulance, etc.) vehicles as well, which could affect the
pedestrian character of, the street. Finally, the applicant has
7
,-.,
~\
been asked in Condition i18 of
facilities connecting to Ute
through the site.
Resolution S5-IS to provide trail
Avenue and Aspen Mountain Road
6. Miscellaneous Technical COncerns - From our review of the Aspen
Mountain roD it has become clear that we must take a much closer
look at geologic hazards in the review of any developllent at the
base of Aspen Mountain. Cond'ition no of Resolution S5-IS
requires that a conclusive, technical study demonstrating that no
hazard is posed to this project, or that any hazard can be fully
mitigated, be provided prior to the review of the precise plan.
'I'he applicant has also been asked to address off-site drainage as
it affects this site and on-site drainage in Condition #22 of P&Z
Resolution 85-IS.
A memo has been received from Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water
Department noting the presence of City water 'pumping facilities
in the east half of Hunter Street., Jim ,feels that relocation of
this facility is technicJ.lly possible and should not bean
impediment to the project. Condition HI of Resolution S5-18
requires that technical details of the proposed solution to this
problem be provided at the precise plan stage. There appear to
be no problems whatsoever with the provision of sewage disposal
service for this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Di st rict.
Several_.~~~c!:_~._Qf.-,,,.1::l:!.'L.P?l:i~Lj;J;<<=_a_planrelate to, cOmmitments mad~
during- the review of MlSAMP, Fir sf: ; Ai3C'comriiitted to'a""seneral-
rz'ed'de'sigii"'f-or--th~eITh- Structure at the base which would insure
that it not be a large, obtrusive building in which hundreds of
chairs would be stored. Compliance with this condition should be'
demonstrated at the preci se plan review stage, as noted in
Condition 112 of P&Z' s attached Resolution.
The applicants also committed to provide lift service on Little
Nell for special events, ski instructions, and secondary access
to Lift 5. The applicants agree at this time to provide such
service via a mid-way unloading station (if a detachable quad
chair is implemented) or via a relocated number 4 lift (if a
gondola is implemented).
-_,'-"
Finally, the applicants agreed to removing the snowcat mainte- I'" A'''')
nance shop from the base area and relocating it to the mainte-"'i/'#J"
nance facility on the mountain. Accomplishment of this commit-71IM/"!,..
ment will significantly improve the look of the base area, as\V~t'nli'I
will the consolidation of the snowcat loading dock function in a or.!. <,',
much less obtrusive location. Both of these commitments are qfl~1:tII-
contained in the conceptual SPA plan. '7
One amenity requested by the Planning Office but not made a
condition of approval by the County was the provision of public
ski storage facilities on site. We felt that such storage would
S
,...,
~
be an auto disincentive by making it easier for people to travel
about town without excess baggage before and after skiing. We
are pleased to see the inclusion of public lockers and ski
lockers in the hotel plan. We would like the applicant to
clarify that these lockers will be available for public overnight
storage of skis, boots and accessories.
A concern raised by the City Engineer and the P&Z in Condition
Ji16 relates to snow shedding from the roof. The applicant has
been a ske d to addr ess th is probl em to insure that pedestr ians
are not affected by snow from the hotel.
A last technical issue is that of employee housing. The app-
licant has put this issue off to the precise plan review stage,
and indicate that the requirements will be satisfied at an off-
site location. The Planning Office does not object to this
approach at the conceptual stage, pending review of the location,
quality and quantity of the proposed housing.
GROWTH RATE ISSUES
A. Problem Statement
Under the provisions of Ordinance 20, the applicants will not
submit their growth management a ppli cation unt il the preci se plan
is submitted. Council recently changed the due date for 19S5
lodge allocation submission other than LC-3 from OctOber I to
December I. Therefore, you can expect a lodge GMP application to
be submitted by this applicant on December I of 19S5 or OctOber 1
of 19S6.
Even though we are not yet reviewing the GNP application at this
time, the Planning Office believes that the question of the
allocation itself is a conceptual issue. Presuming for the
moment that the applicant is succe ssf ul in meeting the competi-
tive threshold, we feel the Council should provide the applicant
with an indication of the likelihood of obtaining an allocation
for this project. We pose this issue because of the unique
circumstances associated wi th this year I s lodge competition.
As you recall, the City granted an allocation of 172 lodge units
to the Aspen Mountain roD. This allocation consisted of 32 lodge
units unallocated from prior years, and the full 35 unit per year
allocation for 19S3, 19S4, 1985 and 19S6. In effect, the lodge
quota available for this year and next year i.s o.
Section 24-11.3 (b) of the Municipal Code provides that:
"(b) The City COlincil may (but need not) grant a developuent
allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a
period of years provided that !!ach year during the scheduled
construction the annual allotment provided for in Section
9
^
~
24-ll.1 shall be reduced by the amount of construction
permitted by the approval."
Therefore, it is clear from the above language that the City can
award an allocation to this project from the 19S7, 19S5 and most
(26 of 35) units of the 19S9 quotas. Therefore, the question for
us to analyze is whether the City should, from a planning and
development perspective, award such an al.location.
B. Numerical Analysis
In the opinion of the Planning Office, one key consideration
in awarding a future allocation is that we have approved a
series of lodge projects in recent years which have not yet
been occupied and whose impacts have yet to be felt. Included
within this list are the following projects:
1. Aspen Mountain Lodge (275 rebuilt units, 172 new units)
5i"c,.)j",'x::..-2. Hotel Jerome PUD (2S rebuilt units in phase I,ll
., 1,1 >"rebuilt and 67 new units in phase II).
~ VI 3. Sardy House (20 new lodge units) .
)..)01'" IP (,..1.),),.,;;.;., 4. Highlands Inn Renewal ( 37 rebuil t un its, 136 new
units) .
tJ("i {.t'("'dP'/,_ 5. Hot el Aspen (13 new units).
The above projects amount to about 350 rebuilt units and over 400
new units in the Aspen Lodging inventory, none of ~lhich have yet
been occupied. Other projects which have recently been occupied
and which demonstrate the level of activity in Aspen's lodging
market include the 14 rebuilt and 4 new units at the Hotel
Lenado, the 35 rebuilt units at the Hotel Aspen (Nugget Lodge),
and the 35 rebuilt and 3 new units at The Aspen (Applejack).
Units which are approved to be removed from the inventory include
the 14 at the Copper Horse and 40 at the Alpina Haus. -S1;0,:",.(j Ie'"",
t./ y , (ff'~"{t,:'{/ ;r...;
(Note: When the units at these two facilities are deed-restrict- (0 ;-11,;
ed, the change in use provisions of the Code will require us, to'n":
credit the L-3 quota with these 54 units, and to deduct 54 units l)".,'""~,,,
from the re-sideriEfal quota.) 1//1i( (r/t rl.''''~
'I'
711ft 4":1);1'
The Council should also be aware that the Code (Section 24-11.2) !II,'/', 'c'"
requires that when a building permit is issued for the new units Q~6{/'''''
in the Sardy House (this occurred in August, 19S5) and Hotel
Jerome projects (expected in Spring" 19S6), we will have to
deduct those units from the lodge quota. This requirement means
that, in effect, these projects have taken the availabl e quota
for 1987, 19S5 and part (17 units) of the 19S9 quota. Therefore,,:
the Little Nell Base Redevelopment project could be seen as
10
I""
,-,
requestin.g the remainder of the quota for 19S9, 1990 and 1991
(less 2 units).
C. Policy Analysis
During the Planning Commission's review of this project, quite a
controversy was created when the Planning Office presented the
above numerical analysis. Some members of the Commission felt
that additional study of the lodging inventory should be done,
since there have been assertions of an overall loss of short-term
pillows over the last 10 years which have not been addressed by
the formulation of the lodge quota. The applicant provided some
data to support this claim,al though admittedly not a comprehen-
sive study of this issue.
The ,appl icant al so provided a numerical analysis of the lodge
quota. This analysis found that if the 54 units in the Copper
Horse and Alpina Haus are credited to the L-l/L-2/CC/CL and Other
zone quota (as was originally recommended by the Planning office
and Planning Commission in the P&Z Resolution recommending con-
ceptual approval of the Aspen Mountain Lodge) and the 20 units at
the Sardy House are deducted from this quota, then 34 of the 35
units in the quota would be available beginning in 19S6. On this
basis the applicant's request would be to obtain 34 units from
the 19S6 quota, the 35 unit,s from the 19S7 quota and 27 units
from the 19S5 quota. Since the facility is planned to open in
19S5 or 19S9, the applicant feels that no inconsistency with the
growth management quota system is being proposed. However, the
problem with this rationale is that Council did not accept the
recommendation to credit the L-I/L-2 quota for those units, and
the L-3 quota will, theref ore, receive the lodge unit credi t.
The Planning Office believes that this type of numerical analysis
is one indication of the impacts of the 96 unit allocation
request by the applicant, but that it should not be the sole
determinant of Council's decision. As' noted on page 41 of the
Growth Management Policy Plan, "Growth management would be a
meaningless exercise in the manipulation of sterile numbers if
some hi gher goal wer e not in mind ". Our under standing is that
the higher goals were (and continue to be) community balance and
quality of life.
A principal reason that the community chose to regulate its rate
of growth was to avoid the boom conditions of the prior decade,
where the construction of a multitude of projects at a single
time would take us across major service thresholds and require
the government to intervene in a time frame in which it cannot
respond. We, theref ore, establi shed a growth phasing mechani sm
to smooth out the growth cycles, so that projects do not occur at
the same time which would profoundly change the community before
the public sector can develop plans and react to the service
problems the growth has caused.
II
Ji
?t-yrf;'J~
foR- ~rl~
~
,-'
r-\
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 identify some of the
most critical, incl uding:
o Highway Entrance to Town;
o Parking - Intercept Lots or Downtown Structures;
o Air Quality; and
o Bus Terminal.
While it is certainly not this applicant's responsibility to
solve these problems, we believe that it is incumbent upon'
the community to identify how it will s<;llve them if it is to
continue to grow. By asking us to give out tomorrow's alloca-
tions today, this project seeks to accelerate our rate of growth,
yet does not similarly speed up our ability to solve our pro-
blems. In fact, each time we move forward with development
approvals, without putting into place the public facility
solutions to accommodate the projects, we may be foregoing
possible alternat,ives without ever realizing their potential. If
we haven 't solved these problems during our recent era of
moderate growth, how will we do so following the downtown lodging
boom?
We recognize that the project before us offers some very appeal-
ing amenities wi th respect to the very dilapidated a,rea at the
base of our mountain, just as the Aspen Mountain PUD offered us
an opport uni ty to upgrade the core of our lodge di stri ct and the
Hotel Jerome to repair our historic hotel. We feel that the
reconstruction of old lodgihg units, along with the renovation of
existing commercial space and the Aspen Mountain skiing area, are
desirable developments because they contribute to the revi tal i-
zation of our resort complex. However, when the Aspen Mountain
Lodge, Hotel Jerome addition and Li ttl e Nell Ba se Hotel are all
scheduled to come on line in a 2 or 3 year time frame, we can
anticipate a massive change in our lodge sector, which is likely
to have spinoff effects which we cannot predict for years to
come. The Growth Management policy Plan postulated that growth
in any sector has interdependent and cyclical effects on the
other sectors, as lodge development leads to ski area and
commercial growth, which influence residential development, and
so on. As we compress the rate at which we create new lodge
units, we wonder how we will respond to the secondary impacts on
our other sectors, and where the accelerated rate will end.
The question of secondary imp:lcts is a confusing one, and, in
fact, the, GMPP noted on page 3 that "Growth is composed of a
variety of elements with connections that are only poorly
12
,-..,
.-"
under stood." Since we recognize that we cannot 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 maj or hotel proj ects going on downtown
will not give us the chance to monitor and respond to the impacts
of growth in an orderly manner. Further:more, it will mean that
we will be adding to our congestion and to our problems in that
portion of town which is already the most dense and exhibits many
of our problems.
As we all know, we have just approved the largest tourist
project in the history of the town, and we are in the process of
occupying the largest residential project in our history, and we
have yet to experience the impacts of either. Given the moderate
rate of growth of our recent past, and the fact that several
projects have been approved but not yet built, many in town seem
unconcerned that another large project such as this is following
right after the approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Current
residents seem to have forgotten what it is like to live in a
boom growth period and have been lulled i-nto a false sen seof
security about growth. However, if we don't take this opportun-
ity to see how the town will change as a result of the impacts of
the Aspen Mountain PUD, and those of the Hotel Jerome, when
will we evaluate what happened and how we must respond? More
importantly, what kind of prece,dent with respect to our rate of
growth will we be setting with respect to the Aspen Me,adows
development, which is likely to follow this project and which
will also be requesting a multi-year allocation?
One of the arguments made in the numerical analysis is that
we 'have not been growing in the lodging sector over the past
decade and that accelerated growth is therefore appropriate.
,There are at least two fallacies in this argument. First, in
response to the lack of activity in the first 5 or 6 years of the
lodge quota, we increased the L-I/L-2 quota from IS to 35 units,
and created the L-3 zone, with its ten unit auota. These actions
increased the overall City lodge quota from" IS to 45 units per
year, ,and help to explain some of the more recent activity in the
lodge sector.
Second, and more importantly, because of the slow growth in
lodging in this period, we felt comfortable in approving major
employee housing developments exempt from the system (Castle
Ridge and Centennial) an excess commercial growth rate, and the
expansion of the Hotel Jerome. Is it reasonable to then argue
that the slowed lodge growth of the prior year s is a basi s for
allowing three major projects to be built during such a confined
period of time? Moreover, do you still have a meaningful growth
management system when you are approving major projects that
are exempt from the system and others which borrow from future
year s' quotas, so that you are simply accounting for rath er than
phasing growth?
13
.""'"
,-..
SUMMARY: The Little Nell Base Redevelopment presents the community
wi th a very important set of tradeoff s to consider. On the one hand,
the community is presented with an opportunity to upgrade the entry
point to its most important recreational asset. Key improvements
include the visual benefits of removing the surface parking and
maintenance functions; circulation benefits of better pedestrian
access to the lifts and ticketing function; and recreational benefits
of improved skiing and commercial facilities at the base area.
There are a variety of technical issues which must be addressed to
insure that the project "can be planned and developed in a manner
which prov ides th e greatest publ ic benef it II as is th e purpo se of it s
designation as an SPA. Issues to be resolved include parking, open
space, FAR, hazards, transit, service delivery, employee housing,
utility relocations, roads, grading and visibility. None of these
issues is technically beyond resolution, although they do tend to
indicate the magnitude of the impacts this project will have on the
community.
The growth J;Olicy issue, is, in our opinion, a threshold question with
regard to this project. Al though we could def er consideration of thi s
issue until such time as the project has been scored and an allocation
is pending, we feel this is the wrong course to take. The applicants
will be expending a great deal of time and effort if this conceptual
SPA is approved. We feel that they deserve the full benefit of our
thinking at this time, before further studies are authorized.
Furthermore, we think that the issue of future allocations is crucial
to the basic concept proposed herein and is justifiably to be consid-
ered at this time.
As noted above, the Hunicipal Code provides a mechanism by which a
future lodge allocation can be granted to the applicants. It is the
Planning Office's finding that such an allocation is inappropriate at
this time. We feel that the Council should consider the following
four questions in its consideration of the growth rate issue, and only
give a favorable response to the ASC on this issue if it can positive-
ly answer the following:
1. Does the government have the ability to solve its service
(highway, parking, bus terminal, etc.) and environmental (air
quality) problems at an accelerated rate to address an accelerat-
ed growth rate?
2. Can you still have a meaningful growth management system when you
are approving major projects that are exempt from the system
and others which borrow from future years' quotas, so that you
are simply accounting f or rather than pha sing growth?
3. What kind of precedent would granting this request set with
respect to other requests which may be made for multi-year
all ocati ons?
14
,-"
,......,
4. Can we accommodate the likely growth which will spin off from
this project in the skiing, commercial and residential develop-
ment sector s?
Based on these considerations, Council has the following alternatives
available for action:
1. Approve the conceptual SPA and provide the applicant with an
indication that you are willing to entertain a request for a
mul ti-year allocati on.
2. Approve the conceptual SPA and provide the applicant with an
indication that you are concept ually oPPO sed to the m ul t i-year
allocation request.
3. Deny the enti re concept ual SPA due to your concept ual opposition
to the multi-year allocation request, or for other technical
review concerns.
The Planning Office strongly supports and recommends approval of the
reconstruction of the commercial, administrative and skier support
spaces, the replacement of the base lift, the upgrade of the pedes-
trian circulation corridors and the removal of the maintenance
facil ities from the base a,rea. However, we are concept ually opposed
to the applicant's multi-year allocation request. Since the Council
cannot formally consider this request until a 'growth management
application is submitted, l'i!L_.r_ec}?EI!!1_~ng_j;hE_j;YOu,JolloW Alternative 2
and make your final decision on-the growth issue when and--if a preise
developnent plan is before you.
AR.12
15
,-'
~
U> ~ '" '" ~ " "
.. :0
N 8
< '"
'" 0-" 8 no- . ,. It) 0.0 0" n. 0 rt) a. 0 O",QI ;g fl G
~ ill . . . . . c . . . . .
z ,. '" ~
c (3 z ... ... z z
'" ::l ::l ~ 0 ,.
(H" :0 :OO"':l.:r <:", ('I1cn > :t;I""cntn:E; ,., R
Cl o ~ ~ (J) .....g" /tI ~ .....Qt::J ""... "' o ....(1".tl) III ~
~ ... ~'O O::SOtl> '" ~.",(l).rTO Ct.., 0'( (T ;Z
~ ~ <~ Z ............M' to c:~.,l'D::r' 0 OOtt)..,ftltO ili
Z '" 0 ,., (J).;:l........ (11 ....\0 .. ..... .., (II ;:J....,., ,.,
> ... I: ~'< '" (11.10.....;::1 :lI '-::1'< 0,,,,," " ~ !;j
... '" '" ~ '" '" ~ ~"' '" "' '" '" 0 '" "Ocncn ...
::ii ....'" 0 ijj .......,.... 0 fij 3Q1g~.g. :0 ::ii O",t'll/D ::l '"
(l (l 0 .., o Ql rt) >' < tTtlI......
... ~ '" ... :::so en.., ~ ... i::l::S\CI c: ~ ... (J) .....< < ~
~ ~ fl 0 ;g ~ . ~, '" " fl a.",:::s., ~ fl n ::s ......... '"
~ ~ Oc ~~ . '" n '" . '" t't,QI 0,0 to
> ,.,,~ '" ,. ~. ~ 0 ,. (Tn.,., ~ :0 ,. ......0 l'tl/tl
'" '" ... ~, ... ... ..,.. . ... ~, < 0 ... 0'" 5;
MO ~ . ~, (3 .. ~. 0 < .. 0
.. x", ,., n '" .. n.. " '" 0
~. ~,~ 0 :0 C ~. " tli
lit Cl ~ 0" ....0 ~. '"
~, 0" 0 ." "' z !;j
~ ~, ... ~ ~, c ~ " ...
.. ~ ., ~, " '" ~, '" <
"' ,., '" ~ '" 0 ~
"' ~ ... " .., ,.,
c '" 0 M
" 0 b' '"
~. 0 '"
~ ,. " M
,. ... ,." '"
'" " .,
~ 0 "
" z ...
0 >
n '"
" z
.,
z
0..
>'"
z'"
I I It.. t II r II I L I /I I I t /1111 ~.. 0'"
t: co rr t;: ~~ r illrr il'l"""" N)
I I i I I II I 0..
z,
%1
-in"",
E ~ l~ t II I, 1 I I 1 /I /I I I I /I /I ~'" 1:8;::;-
rr (;: r~ r E n;rrl r ~1"'t:rl' ~:E.Q
I I I ",<!if'
c:'"
","'0
I I f 1 II 1 II I L /11/1 1 11111 I'" tl~'"
~ co ~ r~ c: ir r rirrr b rl'1"'l'1'" ~"
I I I I I I I (l1'3
.,c:
1 I I II II I f II /I I I I J II I fi~ ~<!i
f ~ ",'"
t:: I:: to
co rr ri r rt:rrc r r1"'r1"'r 1:0
I I I I 8z
I ~ f I /I ~ ~t I 1 till t I I II II !'" 2
eJ t;: E .,
rr r rrr E: rrt:r1'" 0
I I I z
I I f,~ II F ~~. ~ b ~~~~~ r ~tttt I~
el
I r rr I
I ~ f I ~~ F~~ ~ b ~~~~~ b ~~~~~ r~
el t;:
I I I I
I r ,,~ I I ,} I >
~ <
~ ~ f !;J
~
M
">,~.