Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Mountain House Lodge.905 E Hopkins.55A-88 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 9/29/88 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737 - 182 -06 -001 55A -88 STAFF MEMBER: C-N -4 Prg- PROJECT NAME: Mountain House Lodge GMP Project Address: 905 E. Hopkins Avenue Legal Address: Block 32, Lots A, B & 1/2 Lot C APPLICANT: Mountain House Lodge Applicant Address: 905 E. Hopkins Ave. REPRESENTATIVE: C. Welton Anderson & Associates, Architect Representative Address /Phone: P. O. Box 9946 5 -4576 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT $1970.00 ($30.00 over) TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X C . P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: CIO NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: c// City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas / Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Roaring Fork Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. -- 7 Roaring Fork Other V Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. /y p DATE REFERRED: / INITIALS: i(2 FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: s /005741 INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer ✓ Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: / /q� FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: / C/ /r--&-A-- ..y— ORDINANCE NO. C (SERIES OF 1989) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REZONING LOTS A, B AND 1/2 OF LOT C OF BLOCK 32 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FROM RMF (RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY) TO LP (LODGE PRESERVATION) WHEREAS, on October 1, 1988 the Mountain House Lodge submitted an application for the rezoning of Lot A, B, and 1/2 of Lot C, Block 32 of the Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the rezoning request was part of a GMQS application for additional Tourist Accomodations in the LP zone district; and WHEREAS, the request is to rezone the above stated lots from RMF to the LP zone district in order to enable the Mountain House Lodge to expand onto the adjacent parcel; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to the City Council that C the Lots A, B and 1/2 of lot C in Block 32 be rezoned to LP; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the Commission, and has determined that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby rezone Block 32, Lots A, B and 1/2 of Lot C to LP from RMF. Section 2: That the Zone District Map be and hereby is amended to reflect the zoning described in Section 1 and that the Planning L_ 1 (I' Director is hereby authorized and directed to amend said map to reflect the new zoning. Section 3: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4: If any section. subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. C i Section 5: Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: A public ic hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the / 3ckj day of '7 /2 4,� ( ( , 1989 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. 2 ,1 , ... C INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, � � by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1989. William L. Stirling, Mayor )i .la d; °, ATTEST• , '. • Kathryn,A. City Clerk .1PINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this /�� day of L /7 / E+L— , 1989. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST!:: /6Z ;Lit j J4 Kathryn,,, Koch, City Clerk CE . M {ORD . • 3 RESOLUTION NO. /0 (Series of 1989) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING 12 LODGE ROOMS TO THE MOUNTAIN HOUSE LODGE IN THE LP ZONE DISTRICT THROUGH THE 1988 LP GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 24, Section 8 -106 of the Municipal Code, October 1 of 1988 was established by the City Council as the 1988 deadline for submission of applications for Growth Management Tourist Accommodations allotments in the LP Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Mountain House Lodge Growth Management application was the only 1988 application submitted to the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office; and WHEREAS, duly noticed Public Hearings were held by the Aspen C Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on December 6, 1988 and January 10, 1989 to consider the Growth Management Quota System competition for Tourist Accommodations in the (LP) (0) (R -6) (R -15) (RMF) zone districts, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the Mountain House Lodge expansion project; and WHEREAS, the Mountain House met the minimum threshold of 26 points by Scoring 32.5 points; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and commitments made by the applicant in scoring the Mountain House Lodge project and granting Special Review approval to increase FAR with the following conditions: 1. The dining area shall be limited to the guests of the lodge, shall not be open to the general public, shall c only serve breakfast and shall not request a liquor 1 license. 2. The applicants shall provide a sidewalk along the Hopkins Street frontage which shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to permit angle parking to continue along this property line. A sidewalk shall also be provided along the West End Street frontage, which shall be coordinated with the City's repaving of this street. 3. The applicants shall provide all trash and utility needs on -site and shall pave the area used for trash access. Prior to review by City Council, the applicants shall provide the Planning and Engineering Department with a letter from BFI which states the needed amount of trash storage required for the development, based on the frequency of pick -up. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall make a cash contribution to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for improvements to the system. The amount of this payment shall be acceptable to the ACSD, based on the commitment made by the applicant in the GMQS. 5. The applicants shall make every effort to see that the f log house is relocated to another site in town. The applicants shall report back to the Planning Office 45 days prior to initiating the development in order to allow the City an opportunity to find a site if the applicants have been unsuccessful. 6. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site units before an issuance of a Building Permit for any portion of the development. Said units shall be restricted to the then current Employee Housing Guidelines and indexed to the low income category. 7. The Owner covenants that the use and occupancy of the employee rental unit shall be limited to housing for qualified employees in accordance with the low rental guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen / Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 2 4e i v C hours per week, nine months out of any twelve -month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 8. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the employee rental units shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to occupancy thereof, and reverified on a yearly basis. If the Owner does not rent the employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be made available for occupancy in accordance with the Housing Authority guidelines, provided the Owner shall have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. 9. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, or the duly authorized designee of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction of non - complying tenants during the period of the life of the last surviving member of the presently existing Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty -one years, or for a period of fifty years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be less. 10. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maintained on each unit. 11. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recordation. WHEREAS, the Commission further recommended approval of a Growth Management Exemption request for 4 on -site employee rooms; and WHEREAS, the Commission further recommended rezoning approval for the adjacent parcel (Lots A, B 1/2 of C, Block 32) ( from RMF to LP; and 3 1 N y WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring for the Mountain House Lodge project does wish to grant the requested 12 room allotment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that 12 rooms of the LP Zone District Tourist Accommodations quota is hereby allocated to the Mountain House Lodge. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 8 -108 of the Municipal Code, this allocation shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site specific development plan unless a building permit is obtained and the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of the approval is obtained. Dated: % /S , 1989. William L. Stifling, Mayer I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held ek' / 1989. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk CMH/ das ccreso.mtn.house 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager �. FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office \ RE: Mountain House Lodge Growth Management Quota System Allotment, Rezoning Ordinance and a Growth Management Quota System Exemption for On -site Employee Housing Units DATE: March 13, 1989 SUMMARY: On February 13, the City Council passed the 1st reading of the rezoning Ordinance for the Mountain House. On January 10, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the Mountain House Lodge Growth Management Quota System application for a 12 guest room expansion onto an adjacent 2 1/2 lot parcel which requires a rezoning from RMF to LP. In addition, the Planning Commission approved a Special Review to increase the Mountain House Lodge FAR (FAR in LP is set by Special Review) and a Growth Management Quota System Exemption for 4 on -site employee rooms. REQUEST: Approval of GMQS Allotment for 12 guest rooms, a GMQS Exemption for 4 on -site employee units, and 1st reading of a Rezoning Ordinance to rezone Lots A, B and 1/2 C in Block 32 from RMF to LP. The allotment and GMQS Exemption issues are included in this memo. These issues should be acted upon only after passage of the 2nd reading of the rezoning Ordinance. APPLICANT: Mountain House Lodge /John Werning and Ralph Melville ZONING: LP and RMF HISTORY: In 1986/87 the Mountain House Lodge went through a major renovation, including enlarging rooms, adding private baths and increasing the FAR to 1:1 by a prior special review (for providing on site employee housing). The existing Mountain House sits on a 4,500 square foot lot. The surrounding developed lots are of similar massing and scale, composed of multi family and duplex structures. The immediate neighborhood contains five (5) single family homes. The existing lodge includes 11 guest rooms, and houses 3.3 employees. Currently no off street parking exists on the site. SITE DESCRIPTION: The east end neighborhood has recently experienced a substantial redevelopment phase. Within the last two years, Hopkins Street between Original and the Roaring Fork River has experienced the redevelopment of five sites and has three additional sites which are currently contemplating redevelopments. This has substantial implications for the character of the East Hopkins neighborhood and has produced negative local feelings that the community is changing too rapidly. It is the Mountain House's east end neighborhood which has raised our consciousness regarding neighborhoods in transition (ghost town /second home sections of town). The east end of town is one of the few remaining areas within the City limits which is primarily composed of locally owned and occupied multi family projects. The Mountain House proposal furthers the goals of the community by expanding on a small, locally based lodge. However, there is an inherent conflict when a small, low key lodge expands into its residential neighborhood. This conflict is basically a conflict between a commercial enterprise and a residential setting. Both activities have specific elements which are not necessarily compatible. A lodge creates a space for vacationing visitors who have different agendas than a permanent resident. Vacationers are here to see the town and ski the slopes, and may also stay up late and make noise outside. While locals also partake of these activities they must balance these activities with holding down full time jobs and raising families. Permanent resident neighborhoods desire amenities such as quiet nights, light local traffic, parking spaces and a pleasant residential atmosphere. The Mountain House Lodge has co- existed with the East Hopkins neighborhood since 1963, expanding into what is today an 11 guest room lodge with small simple amenities and facilities. The enlargement of the Mountain House will no doubt produce an additional shock for the evolving East Hopkins neighborhood. The lodge use will become a dominant rather than a subordinate activity in the neighborhood between Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River. This dominance, however, will be competing with the condominium /duplex conversion of the east end lots. We must question, however, if the expansion of the lodge will further force a local neighborhood to become more of a tourist - oriented neighborhood. All of the existing developed properties in this area are substantial in size, ranging from a .75 to a 1:1 FAR. Therefore, the bulk of the lodge structure will not be significantly different than the surrounding area. However, when considered with these other structures and potential multi family and duplex structures, the neighborhood begins to feel maximized leaving no sense of a mixed residential area. Only four single family homes will remain in the area if the Strong house is removed. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The application is to expand the existing 11 room lodge to 23 rooms (12 additional rooms) and 2 increase the size from 4,500 to 11,250 sq. ft. The proposal includes the existing 4,500 sq. ft. lot and adjacent 7,500 sq. ft. parcel which now contains a single family house, which would be demolished. The proposal is to rezone the adjacent 7,500 sq. ft. parcel from RMF to LP. In summary, the dimensional features of the proposal are as follows: FAR: TOT: 11,250 ADD: 6750 Guest Room: TOT: 23 ADD: 12 Employee ADD: 4 Room: Parking: ADD: 14 Setbacks: Front 10' Side 12'8" Rear 18' Open Space: 4625 sq. ft. REZONING FROM RMF TO LP The applicants are requesting to rezone the adjacent 2 1/2 lots to the east of the existing Mountain House Lodge. The proposal is to rezone from RMF zoning to LP zoning, thereby allowing the expansion of the lodge use. Section 7 -1102 requires that a proposal for rezoning meet the following criteria: 1. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: The requested rezoning appears to be consistent with the requirements of the land use code. 2. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 3. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposal to rezone is consistent with the mixed residential classification of the 1973 Land Use Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan where existing lodges are allowed to remain and expand. The proposal is also consistent with the 3 purpose of the LP zone district which encourages existing lodges to remain in their existing locations and have the ability to expand to adjacent parcels if it is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The existing RMF zoning would allow a duplex structure or multi family structure to be built which may be condominiumized and may be leased on a 6 month basis with two shorter tendencies per year. This type of development may cause the same level, if not greater, of impacts on the neighborhood during the peak season, when the units are likely to be rented. On the other hand, the units may be owned and occupied for only several weeks out of the year, creating the problem of lack of neighborhood vitality we are facing in the West End with second home owners. The intent of the LP zone district is to allow a limited expansion of small lodges if they can fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission and the Planning Office feel that the requested expansion (with conditions) can co -exist with the residential neighborhood. The bulk of the expansion is no greater than what would be allowed under the RMF zone district. The parking spaces for the new portion of the development is accommodated on site. Including the addition, the Mountain House Lodge is still within the range of a small lodge and accomplishes the goals which were the impetus for the creation of the LP zone district. Generally the Planning Office feels that a small lodge use in the area is appropriate and that the rezoning should be granted to expand the lodge use if all site planning and operational issues are adequately handled by imposing adequate conditions of approval. 4. CRITERIA: The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: Parking in the East Hopkins neighborhood is a limiting factor for the expansion of the Mountain House. A congestion problem already exists and will be increased if the applicants can not mitigate their additional impacts. The applicants have committed to 14 on -site parking spaces to be located in the alley. The Code requires 1 space /unit of the new development. The applicants are also supplying two employee spaces for 4 additional rooms. 5. CRITERIA: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. 4 RESPONSE: The Planning Office does not feel that the proposed rezoning and resulting expansion of the proposal will overload the public facilities such as water, sewer and transportation while roads in this area are congested in winter, the lodge's location is an excellent disincentive to auto use. 6. CRITERIA: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: No significant impacts to the environment will occur as a result of the lodge expansion. The mature evergreens on the western edge of the property are proposed to be maintained. 7. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: The LP zone district was created in order to maintain small lodges interspersed throughout the community. 8. CRITERIA: Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The owner of the property proposed for rezoning wishes to move and sell her property. If the parcel is sold without a rezoning it will be developed pursuant to the RMF allowed uses and area and bulk requirements. 9. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The greater public interest is to preserve small lodges in the community. SUMMARY: In summary the Planning Office recommends approval of the rezoning because it is consistent with the goal to preserve small lodge uses scattered throughout town. In addition, the alternative development of the parcel under the RMF zone district would seem to continue the already over developed duplex and multi family uses in the east end. GMQS EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING The applicants propose to place all of their required employee housing on site. There will be 4 additional employee rooms which include 2 basement rooms with private baths, one room adjacent to the front desk and a manager's studio apartment on the top floor. These rooms are proposed for employees of the lodge only and will come with the job. 5 The housing authority feels that this proposal meets the requirements of the lodge and supplies needed housing for the development. Therefore, the Planning Office recommends approval of the request for exemption for the employee units. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Planning Commission public hearings were well attended by the residents of the Mountain House Lodge neighborhood. The concerns expressed by the neighborhood were parking, congestion, bulk and general compatibility. Letters from adjacent landowners expressing their concern are attached. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Growth Management Quota System allocation for 12 additional lodge rooms and recommends approval of the rezoning of Lots A, B and 1/2 Lot C from RMF to LP with the following conditions: 1. The dining area shall be limited to the guests of the lodge, shall not be open to the general public, shall only serve breakfast and shall not request a liquor license. 2. The applicants shall provide a sidewalk along the Hopkins Street frontage which shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to permit angle parking to continue along this property line. A sidewalk shall also be provided along the West End Street frontage, which shall be coordinated with the City's repaving of this street. 3. The applicants shall provide all trash and utility needs on -site and shall pave the area used for trash access. Prior to review by City Council, the applicants shall provide the Planning and Engineering Department with a letter from BFI which states the needed amount of trash storage required for the development, based on the frequency of pick -up. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall make a cash contribution to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for improvements to the system. The amount of this payment shall be acceptable to the ACSD, based on the commitment made by the applicant in the GMQS. 5. The applicants shall make every effort to see that the log house is relocated to another site in town. The applicants shall report back to the Planning Office 45 days prior to initiating the development in order to allow the City an opportunity to find a site if the applicants have been unsuccessful. 6 6. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site units before an issuance of a Building Permit for any portion of the development. Said units shall be restricted to the then current Employee Housing Guidelines and indexed to the low income category. 7. The Owner covenants that the use and occupancy of the employee rental unit shall be limited to housing for qualified employees in accordance with the low rental guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen /Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve -month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 8. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the employee rental units shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to occupancy thereof, and reverified on a yearly basis. If the Owner does not rent the employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be made available for occupancy in accordance with the Housing Authority guidelines, provided the Owner shall have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. 9. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, or the duly authorized designee of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction of non - complying tenants during the period of the life of the last surviving member of the presently existing Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty -one years, or for a period of fifty years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be less. 7 10. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maintained on each unit. 11. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recordation. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to approve Ordinance No. 3 on 2nd Reading." "Move to approve Resolution No. to grant 12 LP Lodge Growth Managment Allotments." "Move to exempt the four (4) on -site employee units from the Growth Management Quota System." CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS: CMH:das ccmemo.mtn.house.2 8 f 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager Q_-- FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office PC (C . RE: Mountain House Lodge Growth Management Quota System Allotment, Rezoning Ordinance and a Growth Management Quota System Exemption for On -site Employee Housing Units DATE: February 13, 1989 SUMMARY: On January 10, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the Mountain House Lodge Growth Management Quota System application for a 12 guest room expansion onto an adjacent 2 1/2 lot parcel which requires a rezoning from RMF to LP. In addition, the Planning Commission approved a Special Review to increase the Mountain House Lodge FAR (FAR in LP is set by Special Review) and a Growth Management Quota System Exemption for 4 on -site employee rooms. REQUEST: Approval of GMQS Allotment for 12 guest rooms, a GMQS Exemption for 4 on -site employee units, and 1st reading of a Rezoning Ordinance to rezone Lots A, B and 1/2 C in Block 32 from RMF to LP. (Note: The allotment and GMQS Exemption issues are included in this memo,for informational purposes only and should not be acted upon - until passage of the rezoning Ordinance on Second Reading.) APPLICANT: Mountain House Lodge /John Werning and Ralph Melville ZONING: LP and RMF HISTORY: In 1986/87 the Mountain House Lodge went through a major renovation, including enlarging rooms, adding private baths and increasing the FAR to 1:1 by a prior special review (for providing on site employee housing). The existing Mountain House sits on a 4,500 square foot lot. The surrounding developed lots are of similar massing and scale, composed of multi family and duplex structures. The immediate neighborhood contains five (5) single family homes. The existing lodge includes 11 guest rooms, and houses 3.3 employees. Currently no off street parking exists on the site. SITE DESCRIPTION: The east end neighborhood has recently experienced a substantial redevelopment phase. Within the last two years, Hopkins Street between Original and the Roaring Fork River has experienced the redevelopment of five sites and has three additional sites which are currently contemplating redevelopments. This has substantial implications for the character of the East Hopkins neighborhood and has produced negative local feelings that the community is changing too rapidly. It is the Mountain House's east end neighborhood which has raised our consciousness regarding neighborhoods in transition (ghost town /second home sections of town). The east end of town is one of the few remaining areas within the City limits which is primarily composed of locally owned and occupied multi family projects. The Mountain House proposal furthers the goals of the community by expanding on a small, locally based lodge. However, there is an inherent conflict when a small, low key lodge expands into its residential neighborhood. This conflict is basically a conflict between a commercial enterprise and a residential setting. Both activities have specific elements which are not necessarily compatible. A lodge creates a space for vacationing visitors who have different agendas than a permanent resident. Vacationers are here to see the town and ski the slopes, and may also stay up late and make noise outside. While locals also partake of these activities they must balance these activities with holding down full time jobs and raising families. Permanent resident neighborhoods desire amenities such as quiet nights, light local traffic, parking spaces and a pleasant residential atmosphere. The Mountain House Lodge has co- existed with the East Hopkins neighborhood since 1963, expanding into what is today an 11 guest room lodge with small simple amenities and facilities. The enlargement of the Mountain House will no doubt produce an additional shock for the evolving East Hopkins neighborhood. The lodge use will become a dominant rather than a subordinate activity in the neighborhood between Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River. This dominance, however, will be competing with the condominium /duplex conversion of the east end lots. We must question, however, if the expansion of the lodge will further force a local neighborhood to become more of a tourist - oriented neighborhood. All of the existing developed properties in this area are substantial in size, ranging from a .75 to a 1:1 FAR. Therefore, the bulk of the lodge structure will not be significantly different than the surrounding area. However, when considered with these other structures and potential multi family and duplex structures, the neighborhood begins to feel maximized leaving no sense of a mixed residential area. Only four single family homes will remain in the area if the Strong house is removed. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The application is to expand the existing 11 room lodge to 23 rooms (12 additional rooms) and 2 increase the size from 4,500 to 11,250 sq. ft. The proposal includes the existing 4,500 sq. ft. lot and adjacent 7,500 sq. ft. parcel which now contains a single family house, which would be demolished. The proposal is to rezone the adjacent 7,500 sq. ft. parcel from RMF to LP. In summary, the dimensional features of the proposal are as follows: FAR: TOT: 11,250 ADD: 6750 Guest Room: TOT: 23 ADD: 12 Employee ADD: 4 Room: Parking: ADD: 14 Setbacks: Front 10' Side 12'8" Rear 18' Open Space: 4625 sq. ft. REZONING FROM RMF TO LP The applicants are requesting to rezone the adjacent 2 1/2 lots to the east of the existing Mountain House Lodge. The proposal is to rezone from RMF zoning to LP zoning, thereby allowing the expansion of the lodge use. Section 7 -1102 requires that a proposal for rezoning meet the following criteria: 1. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: The requested rezoning appears to be consistent with the requirements of the land use code. 2. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 3. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposal to rezone is consistent with the mixed residential classification of the 1973 Land Use Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan where existing lodges are allowed to remain and expand. The proposal is also consistent with the 3 purpose of the LP zone district which encourages existing lodges to remain in their existing locations and have the ability to expand to adjacent parcels if it is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The existing RMF zoning would allow a duplex structure or multi family structure to be built which may be condominiumized and may be leased on a 6 month basis with two shorter tendencies per year. This type of development may cause the same level, if not greater, of impacts on the neighborhood during the peak season, when the units are likely to be rented. On the other hand, the units may be owned and occupied for only several weeks out of the year, creating the problem of lack of neighborhood vitality we are facing in the West End with second home owners. The intent of the LP zone district is to allow a limited expansion of small lodges if they can fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission and the Planning Office feel that the requested expansion (with conditions) can co -exist with the residential neighborhood. The bulk of the expansion is no greater than what would be allowed under the RMF zone district. The parking spaces for the new portion of the development is accommodated on site. Including the addition, the Mountain House Lodge is still within the range of a small lodge and accomplishes the goals which were the impetus for the creation of the LP zone district. Generally the Planning Office feels that a small lodge use in the area is appropriate and that the rezoning should be granted to expand the lodge use if all site planning and operational issues are adequately handled by imposing adequate conditions of approval. 4. CRITERIA: The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: Parking in the East Hopkins neighborhood is a limiting factor for the expansion of the Mountain House. A congestion problem already exists and will be increased if the applicants can not mitigate their additional impacts. The applicants have committed to 14 on -site parking spaces to be located in the alley. The Code requires 1 space /unit of the new development. The applicants are also supplying two employee spaces for 4 additional rooms. 5. CRITERIA: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. 4 • RESPONSE: The Planning Office does not feel that the proposed rezoning and resulting expansion of the proposal will overload the public facilities such as water, sewer and transportation while roads in this area are congested in winter, the lodge's location is an excellent disincentive to auto use. 6. CRITERIA: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: No significant impacts to the environment will occur as a result of the lodge expansion. The mature evergreens on the western edge of the property are proposed to be maintained. 7. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: The LP zone district was created in order to maintain small lodges interspersed throughout the community. 8. CRITERIA: Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The owner of the property proposed for rezoning wishes to move and sell her property. If the parcel is sold without a rezoning it will be developed pursuant to the RMF allowed uses and area and bulk requirements. 9. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The greater public interest is to preserve small lodges in the community. SUMMARY: In summary the Planning Office recommends approval of the rezoning because it is consistent with the goal to preserve small lodge uses scattered throughout town. In addition, the alternative development of the parcel under the RMF zone district would seem to continue the already over developed duplex and multi family uses in the east end. GMQS E7EMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING The applicants propose to place all of their required employee housing on site. There will be 4 additional employee rooms which include 2 basement rooms with private baths, one room adjacent to the front desk and a manager's studio apartment on the top floor. These rooms are proposed for employees of the lodge only and will come with the job. 5 e . W s The housing authority feels that this proposal meets the requirements of the lodge and supplies needed housing for the development. Therefore, the Planning Office recommends approval of the request for exemption for the employee units. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Planning Commission public hearings were well attended by the residents of the Mountain House Lodge neighborhood. The concerns expressed by the neighborhood were parking, congestion, bulk and general compatibility. Letters from adjacent landowners expressing their concern are attached. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Growth Management Quota System allocation for 12 additional lodge rooms and recommends approval of the rezoning of Lots A, B and 1/2 Lot C from RMF to LP with the following conditions: 1. The dining area shall be limited to the guests of the lodge, shall not be open to the general public, shall only serve breakfast and shall not request a liquor license. 2. The applicants shall provide a sidewalk along the Hopkins Street frontage which shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to permit angle parking to continue along this property line. A sidewalk shall also be provided along the West End Street frontage, which shall be coordinated with the City's repaving of this street. 3. The applicants shall provide all trash and utility needs on -site and shall pave the area used for trash access. Prior to review by City Council, the applicants shall provide the Planning and Engineering Department with a letter from BFI which states the needed amount of trash storage required for the development, based on the frequency of pick -up. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall make a cash contribution to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for improvements to the system. The amount of this payment shall be acceptable to the ACSD, based on the commitment made by the applicant in the GMQS. 5. The applicants shall make every effort to see that the log house is relocated to another site in town. The applicants shall report back to the Planning Office 45 days prior to initiating the development in order to allow the City an opportunity to find a site if the applicants have been unsuccessful. 6 6. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site units before an issuance of a Building Permit for any portion of the development. Said units shall be restricted to the then current Employee Housing Guidelines and indexed to the low income category. 7. The Owner covenants that the use and occupancy of the employee rental unit shall be limited to housing for qualified employees in accordance with the low rental guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen /Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve -month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 8. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the employee rental units shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to occupancy thereof, and reverified on a yearly basis. If the Owner does not rent the employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be made available for occupancy in accordance with the Housing Authority guidelines, provided the Owner shall have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. 9. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, or the duly authorized designee of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction of non - complying tenants during the period of the life of the last surviving member of the presently existing Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty -one years, or for a period of fifty years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be less. 7 10. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maintained on each unit. 11. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the . Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recordation. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to read-Ordinance No. u "Move to approve Ordinance No. 3 on 1st Reading." CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS: J CMH:das ccmemo.mtn.house 8 0 0 B F I ® S stems BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES Aspen District February 6, 1989 Mr. Welton Anderson Box 9946 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Mr. Anderson, This letter is in reference to the Mountain House Lodge at 905 E. Hopkins in Aspen. Present trash service is one (1) two cubic yard container picked up twice a week. The addition of more rooms at this location should not affect the present service, other than to require one or two more pickups per week. If you have any further questions, I will be happy to attempt to answer them for you. Very truly yo rs, 1 An ' ony J Vagne V District anager 0172 PACIFIC AVENUE • P.0. BOX 7966 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • (303) 925 -6505 TO: Alan Richman FROM: Dwight Lieb 1202 Hallmark San Antonio, TX 78216 (512) 349 -6313 RE: MOUNTAIN HOUSE P &Z REVIEW Mr. Lieb, a neighbor owning a house at 906 E. Hyman phoned at 4:15 today, January 10, 1989 with three concerns: 1. Change in character of neighborhood. 2. Lack of adequate parking (addressed in detail below). 3. The architect, who is a member of P &Z who drew up the parking allotments not being accurate in the planning. In specific, his parking complaints are the plans showing 14 parking spaces in a 12' area won't work for perpendicular parking. Also a 20' driveway must be at least 28'. He says he is strongly, vehemently protesting. Prepared by Beverly Chance January 10, 1989 P &Z Actions:Mountain House:1 /10/89 A. Unanimously accepted the Planning Office scoring of project. B. Recommended by a vote of 5 -1 that Lots A, B and 1/2 of C, Block 32 be rezoned from RMF to LP. C. Unanimously granted the requested FAR increase and reduction in parking for 2 spaces for 4 affordable housing units and recommended that Council exempt the affordable housing units from GMQS, subject to the following conditions: 1. The dining area shall be limited to the guests of the lodge, shall not be open to the general public, shall only serve breakfast and shall not request a liquor license. 2. The applicants shall provide a sidewalk along the Hopkins Street frontage which shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to permit angle parking to continue along this property line. A sidewalk shall also be provided along the West End Street frontage, which shall be coordinated with the City's repaving of this street. 3. The applicants shall provide all trash and utility needs on -site and shall pave the area used for trash access. Prior to review by City Council, the applicants shall provide the Planning and Engineering Department with a letter from BFI which states the needed amount of trash storage required for the development, based on the frequency of pick -up. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall make a cash contribution to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for improvements to the system. The amount of this payment shall be acceptable to the ACSD, based on the commitment made by the applicant in the GMQS. 5. The applicants shall make every effort to see that the log house is relocated to another site in town. The applicants shall report back to the Planning Office 45 days prior to initiating the development in order to allow the City an opportunity to find a site if the applicants have been unsuccessful. 6. -11. Repeat the 6 housing conditions from pages 5 and 6, as recommended by the Housing Authority. mtnhouseconditions v5 s s Acc MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Mountain House Lodge: GMQS Application, Rezoning, Special Review to Increase FAR, GMQS Exemption. DATE: January 10, 1989 SUMMARY: On December 6, 1988 the Planning Commission tabled the Mountain House application requesting that the applicant come back with a reduced version of the initial proposal. More specifically, the Planning Commission requested that the applicants address reduction in the number of rooms and supplying adequate parking on site. In addition, the Planning Commission requested that the Engineering Dept. look into several issues; adequate turning radius for the proposed parking spaces in the alleyway, sidewalks along West End Street and drainage considerations on West End Street. The Planning Office has attached a copy of the December 6, 1988 review memorandum. The current memorandum will merely review the proposed changes and how they affect the application. The current memorandum also provides an updated version of the Planning Office recommendation of approval and an updated GMQS scoring based on the revised application. DESCRIPTION OF THE REVISED PROPOSAL: The applicants have submitted a revised site plan (see attached) which drops the request for an on site restaurant. The guest room count has been reduced to a request for 12 additional rooms from 18 additional rooms thereby making the total guest room count 23 verses 29. The open space on the site has been increased by approximately 280 sq. ft. totalling 4625 sq. ft. The FAR of the addition has been reduced to 6,750 sq ft. from approximately 7,500 sq. ft. The total square footage of the building is now proposed to be approximately 11,250 sq ft. The employee room count of (4) and the parking spaces (14) remain the same. In summary the dimensional features of the initial and revised proposals are as follows: INITIAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROPOSAL FAR TOT: appx.12,000 TOT: 11,250 ADD: 7500 ADD: 6750 GUEST RM: TOT: 29 TOT: 23 ADD: 18 ADD: 12 EMP RM: ADD: 4 ADD: 4 PARKING: ADD: 14 ADD: 14 SETBACKS: FRONT 10' 10' SIDE 6'8" 12'8" REAR 18' 18' OPEN SPACE: 4345 sq ft. 4625 sq. ft. REFERRAL COMMENTS: In a memorandum from Chuck Roth of the Engineering Dept. dated Jan. 2, 1989 the Engineering Dept. makes the following comments. These comments are in direct response the concerns raised at the Public Hearing on December 6, 1988. 1. The parking spaces have sufficient turning radii for entering and exiting the spaces. Head -in parking off of an alley is a standard usage, viz. City Hall. The turning radius is sufficient for standard passenger vehicles (the alley right -of -way is 20 feet wide). The radius would not be sufficient for limousines or other oversize vehicles. 2. West End Street is scheduled for pavement work in 1990 at which time grade corrections will be made to improve the drainage. If the applicant constructs curb and gutter, it should be at the same elevation as across the street. 3. In order to know if the proposed area is adequate for service vehicles, we would have to know dimensions of service vehicles. It looks doubtful that the area is large enough. The applicant should be required to have the parking designed by a professional. Locating a trash area in front of the service vehicle space does 2 f not appear appropriate. The length of the space may need to be longer, plus space is needed for loading and unloading. The space will probably need to be wider for this reason, and also to permit "Y" turns from the alley into the space because of the constrained turning radius. Perhaps several spaces could be permitted to be designed for compact cars in order to provide some more width for the service vehicle. It is not the City's position to design the parking, so the design must be provided by an appropriate professional for City review. We must however be careful that the design is correctly done because the City has had problems with other similar situations which were not correctly designed. 4. Concerning the size of the trash area, the applicant should be required to provide the City with a letter from BFI which states the amount of trash storage required for their floor space and use and for the frequency of pick -up. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Staff feels that the deletion of the restaurant significantly improves the use of the development in the given residential location. A reduction in the room count also reduces the overall impacts on the neighborhood such as traffic and parking. The code requires that the applicants provide for the impacts of the additional development of the site. This site plan provides 14 additional parking spaces for 12 additional guest rooms, thereby providing parking for half of the additional on site employee units. More than the required number of employee units continue to be provided on site. An option for the applicant would have been to reduce the number of on site deed restricted units since parking can not be provided on site, but we support retention of the housing. The Planning Office still feels that additional space must be provided for the service area to the lodge. The application only provides one standard parking space for a service delivery vehicle. In addition the applicants must provide an adequate trash area. The reduction in FAR since the initial application is not significant. However, the Planning Office still contends that the additional square footage is not significantly different than what would be allowed for a multi - family structure on the property and benefits the community to a greater degree. The allowed FAR on the RMF lots for a multi - family structure would be 7,500 sq. feet. The applicant are requesting to rezone to L -3 with a maximum additional sq. footage of 6,750 sq. feet. The proposed sq. footage is now 11,250 sq. feet for the total site 3 (12,000 sq. ft.). The additional 2,250 sq. feet requires a special review approval and requires that at least 33 1/2 % of that additional 2,250 sq. feet be dedicated to employee housing. Approximately 1,085 sq. feet of the lodge will be dedicated to employee housing. The Planning Office has rescored the Growth Management application based on the proposed amendments. While our score remains about the same, our comments have changed to reflect the new design. (Please see the attached score sheets.) RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the rezoning request, FAR special review request, GMQS exemption request and employee parking reduction request with the following conditions: 1. The dining area shall be limited to the guests of the lodge and shall not be open to the general public. 2. The applicants shall provide sidewalks along their property line on Hopkins Street. 3. The applicants shall provide all trash and utility needs on site. Prior to review by the City Council the applicants shall provide the Planning and Engineering Department with a letter from BFI which states the needed amount of trash storage required for the floor area and frequency of pick up. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicants shall make a cash contribution to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for improvements to the system. The amount of this payment shall be of an amount acceptable to the ACSD. 5. The log house shall be relocated in town and shall not be demolished. 6. Prior to review by City Council the applicants shall address how to handle the service delivery vehicles in the alleyway. This proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Office and Engineering Department prior to review by the City Council. CH.WELTON100 4 MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department eg Date: January 2, 1989 Re: Mountain House Review In response to your memo of December 21, 1988, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The parking spaces have sufficient turning radii for entering and exiting the spaces. Head -in parking off of an alley is a standard usage, viz. City Hall. The turning radius is sufficient for standard passenger vehicles (the alley right -of -way is 20 feet wide). The radius would not be sufficient for limousines or other oversize vehicles. 2. The street is scheduled for pavement work in 1990 at which time grade corrections will be made to improve the drainage. If the applicant constructs curb and gutter, it should be at the same elevation as across the street. 3. In order to know if the proposed area is adequate for service vehicles, we would have to know dimensions of service vehicles. It looks doubtful that the area is large enough. The applicant should be required to have the parking designed by a profession- al. Locating a trash area in front of the service vehicle space does not appear appropriate. The length of the space may need to be longer, plus space is needed for loading and unloading. The space will probably need to be wider for this reason, and also to permit "Y" turns from the alley into the space because of the constrained turning radius. Perhaps several spaces could be permitted to be designed for compact cars in order to provide some more width for the service vehicle. It is not the City's position to design the parking, so the design must be provided by an appropriate professional for City review. We must however be careful that the design is correctly done because the City has had problems with other similar situations which were not correctly designed. 4. Concerning the size of the trash area, the applicant should be required to provide the City with a letter from BFI which states the amount of trash storage required for their floor space and use and for the frequency of pick -up. cc: Jay Hammond Elyse Elliott CR /cr /memo_89.1 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMP COMPETITION - LP ZONE DISTRICT Project: Mountain House Lodge Date: January 10, 1989 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 10 points) Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with respect to the impact of the proposed development or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development can be handled by the existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general. 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. The following public facilities and services shall be rated accordingly. a. WATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the water system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The proposal can be serviced by the existing water system. The proposal benefits the project only and not the area in general. b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install and sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.5 COMMENTS: The application can be serviced by the existing Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District system. however. the applicants have committed to providing their fair share of future improvements to the system by making a cash payment to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. c. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires the use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The applicants will provide retention of 100% of their historic site drainage. This will be done by the use of drywells. This serves the proiect only and not the area in general. d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection facilities and services according to its established response standards, without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire - fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide those fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The proiect is within a 3 minute response time 2 terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighborhood development. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 COMMENTS: The proposed design breaks up the massing of the 11.250 square foot structure by providing a central courtyard as seen from Hopkins Street. The proposal maximizes the allowed FAR on -site for the LP Zone District. which is consistent with the allowed multi family FAR in the surrounding RMF zone district. The building materials are consistent with the existing redeveloped Mountain House Lodge. b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and character of the proposed development and its improvements to existing landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, bike racks, bus shelters etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development, and for snow storage areas. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 COMMENTS: The site maintains the existing mature fir trees on the western portion of the parcel and develops the open space for the site in a courtyard between the two guest wings of the building. This provides private space for the guests but only allows an architectural relief from the structure as it is seen head on. The applicant commits to providing (38 %) open space which is the minimum requirement for the zone district. No public amenities such as bike 4 and adequate water pressure to available for the use of the project. All fire safety improvements to the lodge benefit the project only and not the area in general. e. ROADS (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system, or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Considering the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The proposal will improve a poor angled parking situation within the public right -of -way by providing off street parking spaces. There will be additional traffic on Hopkins Street which is already congested in this dead end street. 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design (maximum 36 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design. 1 -- A major design flaw. 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- An excellent design. The following design features shall be rated accordingly. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the compatibility of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in 3 racks. benches. etc. are provided in the application. c. PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal traffic circulation and parking system for the proposed development or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public view. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 3 COMMENTS: The application does not supply the required number of on -site parking spaces for the additional development. (2 employee unit spaces) thereby the project does not mitigate its own impacts on traffic /parking and circulation problems in the area. The application does not elaborate on the service area in the alley way. There is one designated parking space for service deliveries which seems inadequate for large service trucks delivering restaurant supplies. d. VISUAL IMPACTS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto, to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 COMMENTS: There are no designated view planes which are infringed upon by this proposal. It appears that the structure will be the maximum allowable height in the zone district. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points). Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to 5 the degree to which it includes resource conservation techniques, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources. 1 -- Proposed development meets the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in a standard level of resource conservation. 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation. a. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development uses passive and /or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) 1.5 COMMENTS: The proposal exceeds the energy requirements of the Code but does not significantly exceed these requirements. b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures and /or wastewater reuse systems in its design. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) 1.5 COMMENTS: The application commits to using water saving fixtures but does not state what level of savings will be accomplished. 6 c. AIR (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 2): Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measure are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (2) 4 COMMENTS: The application will remove one existing woodburning fireplace in order to place a new gas log fireplace in the new lobby area. 4. Amenities Provided for Guests (maximum 21 points) Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto, by the assignment of points according to the following standard. 0 -- A total lack of guest amenities and services. 1 -- Services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following amenities shall be considered in this review and rated accordingly. a. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE COMMON MEETING AREAS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) 7.5 COMMENTS: New common areas have been added to the lodge including lobbies. dining room /conference area and external 7 courtyard and sundeck space. The proposal adds approximately 1,920 square feet of common space in the lodge for a total of 2.782 square feet out of a 12.000 square foot facility. b. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE DINING FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (2) 4 COMMENTS: The on site dining facilities have been expanded but will not be open to the General public. The dining facilities will be for the use of the guests only. c. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2.5 X MULTIPLIER (2) 5 COMMENTS: On -site recreational health facilities are expanded by 448 square feet. for a total of 698 square feet. These facilities include a health spa. jacuzzi and exercise area. 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points): Each development application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City and with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. Points shall be assigned as follows: Zero (0 %) to sixty (60 %) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; One (1) point for each six (6 %) percent housed; Sixty -one (61 %) percent to one hundred (100 %) 8 percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; one (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent housed. If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. RATING: 15 COMMENTS: The application meets the threshold of providing 60$ of on site employee housing. however. the applicant commits to housing at least 100% if employees generated. The employee generation of the additional lodge units is 4.9. The replacement of the log home would generate the requirement for housing 1.5 employees (50% of the bedrooms of the existing 3 unit home) if the displacement ordinance were adopted with a detached residential dwelling unit requirement. 6. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points): Development applications for projects located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District only shall be assigned points for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units. Points shall be assigned as follows. Zero (0 %) to fifty (50 %) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each ten (10 %) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. Fifty (50 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each five (5 %) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: 15 COMMENTS: The lodge was 100% remodeled in 1987. An 9 affidavit itemizing the expenses for the previous 24 months indicates applicants spent in excess of $400,000 in remodeling costs. 7. Bonus Points (maximum 5 points). When it is determined that a proposed development has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Secs. 8- 106(G)(1) through (6) but has also exceeded the provision of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, additional bonus points not exceeding five (5 %) percent of the total points awarded under these sections may be made. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: 0 COMMENTS: REQUIRED SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS: POINTS: 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.5 4.0 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 21.0 14.4 3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION 7.0 3.2 4. AMENITIES FOR GUESTS 16.5 8.4 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 15.0 9.0 6. REHABILITATION /RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS 15.0 9.0 7. BONUS POINTS 0 0 TOTAL POINTS: 80.0 63.0 Name of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Office mtnhouse.ss 10 A M iY MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Public Hearing /Mountain House Lodge Project DATE: December 6, 1988 REQUEST: Approval of GMQS Allotment (LP Zone District) /Rezoning/ Special Review (FAR Increase and Parking Reduction) /GMP Exemption for Employee Housing/ Conditional Use for a Restaurant. APPLICANT: Mountain House Lodge /John Werning and Ralph Melville APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Welton Anderson LOCATION: 905 East Hopkins; Lots A B C and D Block 32, East Aspen Addition. ZONING: LP and RMF HISTORY: In 1986/87 the Mountain House Lodge went through a major renovation enlarging rooms, adding private baths and increasing the FAR to 1:1 by a prior special review (for providing on site employee housing). The existing Mountain House sits on a 4,500 square foot lot. The surrounding developed lots are of similar massing and scale, composed of multi family and duplex structures. The immediate neighborhood contains five (5) single family homes. The existing lodge includes 11 guest rooms, and houses 3.3 employees. Currently no off street parking exists on the site. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicants propose to purchase the adjacent lots ( A, B and the west 1/2 of C) from Emma Strong in order to expand the lodge. The proposal is to rezone the Strong property from RMF to LP. The existing log house on the property would either be demolished or relocated. The proposal entails building a 18 guest room addition and accommodations for 7 additional employees. The proposed site plan offers an open space area between the wings of the lodge which opens out onto Hopkins Street. This gives the lodge user a private courtyard area as well as serves to break up the mass of the building as seen from a direct front view off of Hopkins Street. The following is a summary of the existing and proposed uses and dimensional requirements. TABULATED DATA: DIMENSIONAL & USE REQUIREMENTS Current Lodge Provosed Lodge Addition Tot Zoning LP LP (Rezone for RMF) LP Uses Lodge Lodge & restaurant Lodge & restaurant Lot size 4500 s.f. 7500 s.f. 12000 s.f. Front setback 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Side setback 5 ft. 6 ft. 8 in. -- Rear setback 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. Open Space required -- -- 4200 (35 %) Open Space provided -- -- 4345 External FAR 1:1 0.99.1 0.99.1 Square footage 4500 s.f. 7353 11953 Internal FAR See Appendix 6 Off street parking 0 14 14 Guest rooms 11 18 29 Employees housed 3.3 7 10.3 2 SITE DESCRIPTION: The east end neighborhood has recently experienced a substantial redevelopment phase. Within the last two years, Hopkins Street between Original and the Roaring Fork River has experienced the redevelopment of five sites and has three additional sites which are currently contemplating redevelopments. This has substantial implications for the character of the East Hopkins neighborhood and has produced negative local feelings that the community is changing too rapidly. It is the Mountain House's east end neighborhood which has raised our consciousness regarding neighborhoods in transition (ghost town /second home sections of town). The east end of town is one of the few remaining areas within the City limits which is primarily composed of locally owned and occupied multi family projects. The Mountain House proposal furthers the goals of the community by expanding on a small, locally based lodge. However, there is an inherent conflict when a small, low key lodge expands into its residential neighborhood. This conflict is basically a conflict between a commercial enterprise and a residential setting. Both activities have specific elements which are not necessarily compatible. A lodge creates a space for vacationing visitors who have different agendas than a permanent resident. Vacationers are here to see the town and ski the slopes, and may also stay up late and make noise outside. While locals also partake of these activities they must balance these activities with holding down full time jobs and raising families. Permanent resident neighborhoods desire amenities such as quiet nights, light local traffic, parking spaces and a pleasant residential atmosphere. The Mountain House Lodge has co- existed with the East Hopkins neighborhood since 1963, expanding into what is today an 11 guest room lodge with small simple amenities and facilities. The enlargement of the Mountain House will no doubt produce an additional shock for the evolving East Hopkins neighborhood. The lodge use will become a dominant rather than a subordinate activity in the neighborhood between Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River. This dominance, however, will be competing with the condominium /duplex conversion of the east end lots. We must question, however, if the expansion of the lodge will further force a local neighborhood to become a second home neighborhood. All of the existing developed properties in this area are substantial in size, ranging from a .75 to a 1:1 FAR. Therefore, the bulk of the lodge structure will not be significantly different than the surrounding area. However, when considered with these other structures and potential multi family and duplex structures, the neighborhood begins to feel maximized leaving no sense of a mixed residential area. Only four single family homes will remain in the area if the Strong house is removed. 3 REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. Engineering: In a memorandum dated November 8, 1988, Elyse Elliott of the Engineering Department made the following comments: a. Sewer: The applicant has committed to make a cash contribution towards a future sewer district. The amount of the contribution should be decided upon before points are scored in this category. b. Storm Drainage: The project must maintain the historic drainage for the site according to Section 7- 1004- C -4 -f. We do not want more than the historic rate to be contained on site due to impacts on the water table. One point should be awarded for maintaining the historic rate. If the applicant is seeking additional points, improvements must be made to a neighborhood drainage problem. c. Roads /Parking: The roads in the area are sufficient to serve this project. However, the on- street parking in the area makes circulation difficult, therefore, we do not support a reduction in on -site parking. d. Sidewalks: According to Resolution 19, Series of 1975, a sidewalk is required on the Hopkins Street frontage. This must be at least 5' wide and conform to the City's Streetscape Guidelines. e. Trash /Utility Area: The existing Mountain House Lodge does not appear to have this area on site, therefore, we request that the new addition accommodate the trash and utility area for their own needs plus those of the existing lodge. The area for trash shown on the application is not adequate and there is no utility area shown. 2. Environmental Health: In a memorandum dated October 24, 1988 Lee Cassin of the Environmental Health Department made the following comments: a. Air Quality: Under existing laws, this new building is allowed a total of two gas -log- containing fireplaces if it has no woodstove. The new gas -log- containing fireplace can be added if the entire building has only one existing woodburning device. The applicant is required to register the new (and existing) devices. Complete plans must be submitted for the new restaurant. If it has a charbroiler, an electrostatic precipitator (or equivalent control device) is required. The restaurant must comply with the Aspen Clean Indoor Air Act. 4 b. Noise: The applicant should be aware that amplified noise may cause violations of the Aspen Code, and should ensure that noise levels will be within the allowed levels. c. Conformance With Other Laws: If the spa facilities contain a pool or hot tub, the applicant should consult the Regulations and Standards Governing Swimming Pools, Swimming Areas, September 19, 1973. d. Asbestos: In removing or demolishing the existing house, it should be determined that there is no asbestos prior to demolition. The only sure method of determining the presence of asbestos is through product sampling and analysis by a certified laboratory. If any is present, it must be removed by a qualified asbestos removal firm. Chapter 25 Article 7 C.R.S. 1973 - Air Quality, and Reg. 8 Sec. 2 Air Quality Control Regulations and Standards. 3. Water Department: Service can be provided to this project upon payment of fees. 4. Housing Authority: Jim Adamski, Housing Director made the following recommendation in his November 30, 1988 memorandum: 18 Room Addition - Approve this portion of the application with the following conditions: 1. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site units before an issuance of a Building Permit for any portion of the development. Said units shall be restricted to the then current Employee Housing Guidelines and indexed to the low income category. 2. The Owner covenants that the use and occupancy of the employee rental unit shall be limited to housing for qualified employees in accordance with the low rental guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen /Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve -month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 3. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the 5 employee rental units shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to occupancy thereof, and reverified on a yearly basis. If the Owner does not rent the employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be made available for occupancy in accordance with the Housing Authority guidelines, provided the Owner shall have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. 4. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, or the duly authorized designee of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction of non - complying tenants during the period of the life of the last surviving member of the presently existing Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty -one years, or for a period of fifty years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be less. 5. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maintained on each unit. 6. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recordation. 1220 s.f. of Restaurant and Bar Addition - The Housing Office recommends denial of this portion of the application and suggest that if the applicant believes that the proposed new Mountain House Lodge operation will be operated with less than the minimum employee housing standards that they provide information to the Housing Authority in accordance with the Employee Housing Guidelines for Commercial -Other category. 5. Historic Preservation Planner: Roxanne Eflin, the staff Historic Preservation Planner, makes the following comments regarding the log house proposed for purchase by the applicants: The existing log structure (Lots A, B, and part of C) does not appear on the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as it was constructed in 1947. However, the structure is important as it architecturally represents Aspen's first decade as a ski resort. Staff is preparing a "Ski Context" amendment to the National Register Multiple Resource Nomination, which will 6 include structures representing the first ten years of Aspen's ski history. Structures from this era are fast disappearing in Aspen. This log structure appears to be in very good condition. Its preservation and relocation within the City is highly recommended. STAFF COMMENTS: This application involves the following type of land use reviews: - GMQS Allotment - Rezoning from RMF to LP - GMQS Exemption for employee housing - Special Review for FAR increase - Conditional review for a restaurant - Special review for parking reduction (Not allowed by the Code) The Planning Staff comments will look at each review separately providing a summary of each and an overall summary at the end of the staff comments section. GMQS ALLOTMENT The Planning Office has scored the project and found the application to meet the minimum threshold requirements. Fundamentally, the Planning Office feels that it is important to maintain a balance of small lodges scattered throughout the community. The owner has purchased additional land in order to expand the lodge use, thereby taking that land out of the market for a duplex /condominium type use. In recent years the duplex /condominium has begun to define the east end of town and is beginning to tip the scales with regard to a mix use residential area. In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the GMQS allotment, however, we recommend that several modifications be made to the site plan and proposed operation. These areas are discussed below. The Land Use Code provides a maximum of 15 lodge units per year to be built in the LP zone district competition (LP /O /RMF /R -6 /and R -15). The application requests a multi -year allotment pursuant to section 8 -103 D, however, the Planning Office feels it is more appropriate to allow the use of past year allotments which have been carried over. Prior to 1988 the allotment quota in the LP zone district was 10 units. In 1988 that was changed to allow projects to compete for 15 units per year. In 1986 the Brass Bed was allowed to borrow 3 units from the next years allotment. There were no applications in 1987, thereby leaving an available 7 unit allotment. The Mountain House application is requesting an 18 unit allotment, 3 of which must either be taken from the 7 yy..q w r V past or future allotments. The Planning Office recommends that the Mountain House be given 3 allotments from the 1987 quota and that the remaining four allotments be rescinded. it seems impractical to leave the construction of the additional 3 rooms until a future year. The applicants propose to build this spring and feel that coming back for 3 rooms in next year's competition is unnecessary. The phasing of the construction over several years would be more detrimental to the neighborhood than completing the construction during one construction season. REZONING FROM RMF TO LP The applicants are requesting to rezone the adjacent 2 1/2 lots to the east of the existing Mountain House Lodge. The proposal is to rezone from RMF zoning to LP zoning, thereby allowing the expansion of the lodge use. Section 7 -1102 requires that a proposal for rezoning meet the following criteria: 1. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: The requested rezoning appears to be consistent with the requirements of the land use code. 2. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 3. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposal to rezone is consistent with the mixed residential classification of the 1973 Land Use Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan where existing lodges are allowed to remain and expand. The proposal is also consistent with the purpose of the LP zone district which encourages existing lodges to remain in their existing locations and have the ability to expand to adjacent parcels if it is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The existing RMF zoning would allow a duplex structure or multi family structure to be created which may be condominiumized and may be leased on a 6 month basis with two shorter tendencies per year. This type of development may cause the same level, if not greater, of impacts on the neighborhood during the peak season, when the units are likely to be rented. On the other hand, the units may be owned and occupied for only several weeks out of the year, creating the problem of lack of neighborhood vitality we are facing in the West End with second home owners. Generally the Planning Office feels that a small lodge use in the area is appropriate and that the rezoning should be granted to 8 expand the lodge use if all site planning and operational issues are adequately handled by imposing adequate conditions of approval. 4. CRITERIA: The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: As mentioned throughout this memorandum parking in the East Hopkins neighborhood is a limiting factor for the expansion of the Mountain House. A congestion problem already exists and will be increased if the applicants can not mitigate their additional impacts. The additional traffic impacts resulting from a restaurant use would be too great for the neighborhood to handle. 5. CRITERIA: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: The Planning Office does not feel that the proposed rezoning and resulting expansion of the proposal will overload the public facilities such as water, sewer and transportation. 6. CRITERIA: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: No significant impacts to the environment will occur as a result of the lodge expansion. The mature evergreens on the western edge of the property are proposed to be maintained. 7. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: The LP zone district was created in order to maintain small lodges interspersed throughout the community. 8. CRITERIA: Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The owner of the property proposed for rezoning wishes to move and sell her property. If the parcel is sold without a rezoning it will be developed pursuant to the RMF allowed uses and area and bulk requirements. 9. CRITERIA: Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and 9 intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The greater public interest is to preserve small lodges in the community. SUMMARY: In summary the Planning Office recommends approval of the rezoning because it is consistent with the goal to preserve small lodge uses scattered throughout town. In addition, the alternative development of the parcel under the RMF zone district would seem to continue the already over developed duplex and multi family uses in the east end. GMQS EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING The applicants propose to place all of their required employee housing on site. There will be 4 additional employee rooms which include 2 basement rooms with private baths, one room adjacent to the front desk and a manager's studio apartment on the top floor. These rooms are proposed for employees of the lodge only and will come with the job. The housing authority feels that this proposal meets the requirements of the lodge and supplies needed housing for the development. Therefore, the Planning Office recommends approval of the request for exemption for the employee units. FAR INCREASE IN LP ZONE DISTRICT The applicants are requesting a special review for additional FAR. This section requires that the applicants dedicate 60 % of the additional square footage to employee housing. This would mean that 625 square feet must be dedicated to employee housing. The application commits to well in excess of that by providing an additional 1,051 square feet of employee space. Section 7 -404, Special Review, deals with the issues of compatibility. The Planning Office feels that the issue of compatibility is the biggest issue for the East Hopkins neighborhood. The surrounding RMF zoned parcels are able to develop multi family structures at a 1:1 FAR whereas single family and duplex developments are subject to a sliding scale. The proposed 1:1 FAR for the site does not appear to be inconsistent with the surrounding uses especially since the applicants are required to provide 35 % open space on the site consistent with the RMF requirement. Please see the Conditional Use section for additional comments regarding compatibility. An additional issue is that the Planning Commission Resolution #11 is in effect and would presently apply to the demolition of the log house on the adjacent parcel. The development (without the restaurant) has provided the required employee housing on site. 10 CONDITIONAL USE FOR A RESTAURANT IN THE LP ZONE DISTRICT A restaurant which serves guests and others in the LP zone district is a conditional use which is reviewed in accordance with section 7 -304 of the Land Use Code. 1. CRITERIA: The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; and RESPONSE: The proposed project is located in an area designated "Mixed Residential " on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, 1973. The Mixed Residential classification is defined as an area which is primarily residential containing interspersed professional offices which do not generate a great deal of traffic. In addition this classification notes that only existing lodges shall be allowed to expand. The Mountain House Lodge has been in existence since 1963 (as the Falcon Inn). In 1983 the property was zoned to LP in order to recognize its use as a small lodge existing in the community. The purpose of the LP zone district is: " to preserve existing lodges in their existing locations and to permit the limited expansion of these lodges when such expansion is compatible with neighboring properties and provide an incentive for upgrading of the existing lodge on- site or onto adjacent properties." It is obvious from the above stated purpose that the requested maintenance and some form of expansion of the Mountain House is encouraged by the community in order to maintain a more personal experience for the visitor. Additionally, it was contemplated in the above purpose statement that there would be expansions of existing lodge facilities which might incorporate adjacent parcels. It is also implied that an expansion may be in the form of a restaurant facility. However, in the case of the Mountain House, the Planning Office feels that a restaurant open to the public in the East Hopkins neighborhood would create unmitigatable impacts with regard to parking and activity levels. It appears that the applicants already have difficulty dealing with the required parking for the lodge portion of the Mountain House. Dining areas which serve only the guests of the lodge are a permitted use and it is the recommendation of the Planning Office that the Mountain House be limited to serving only the guests of the lodge due to the limited amount of parking and the potential conflicts between a residential neighborhood and the activities associated with a commercial restaurant business. 11 2. CRITERIA: The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and RESPONSE: It appears that the neighborhood is already impacted by the lodge use with regard to parking, hours of activity and noise. The existing lodge does not offer any on site parking. All parking is along Hopkins in front of the lodge. The new proposal incorporates on site parking to the rear of the parcel off the alley. There are 14 parking spaces proposed. This is less than the required 18 spaces for the new rooms, and provides no spaces for the commercial square footage (restaurant use). At a minimum, the Planning Office feels that the applicants are required to provide parking for the additional unit and restaurant space. This means that the applicants would be required to provide 22 off street parking spaces. Generally speaking, a lodge type use can be in conflict with a residential neighborhood since visitors are on vacation and tend to keep later hours than permanent residents. A restaurant use would only seem to exacerbate this conflict. The East Hopkins neighborhood area, however, has a mixture of short term condominiums (which function very similarly to a lodge), permanent residents and the Mountain House Lodge. The Planning Office feels that the desire to maintain small lodges in the community is a community wide goal which, in this case, may have neighborhood specific impacts. Balancing the desire to have a livable neighborhood for permanent residents and the desire to provide small lodge accommodations in the community can only be handled if in fact the proposed lodge expansion can mitigate the impacts of its development. In this case that requires providing parking, creating a site plan which gives the surrounding neighborhood the maximum buffer from the less desirable features of the lodge (parking, common area, bar and restaurant areas) and producing a structure which is compatible with the neighborhood setting. The restaurant is proposed off of West End Street at the southwest corner of the lodge. It is proposed as a garden level dining facility which enters from the main lobby of the lodge off of Hopkins. Once again, the balance between the community goal to maintain small lodges and providing livable neighborhoods requires a delicate balance. The Planning Office feels that this requested public restaurant use would tip the scales too far, thereby decreasing the permanent resident quality of life in the East Hopkins neighborhood. 3. CRITERIA: The location, size, design and operating charac- teristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and 12 vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and RESPONSE: We discussed some of the operational and design characteristics in Criteria 2 above. The Engineering comments further elaborate on the need for sidewalks in the area, the need for adequate off street parking for the lodge due to an existing congestion /parking problem in the neighborhood and the concern that the lodge adequately handle all of their trash, utility and service needs on site. The applicants have not addressed these concerns to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. All of the above stated needs would be amplified by the existence of a restaurant in the lodge. Service delivery trips would be increased as well as private vehicular traffic, once again degrading the neighborhood. 4. CRITERIA: There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protec- tion, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and RESPONSE: There are adequate public facilities to serve the needs of the development. 5. CRITERIA: The proposed conditional use complies with all addi- tional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: If the applicants can satisfy the concerns of the Engineering Department and meet all the minimum standards for parking, the Planning Office feels that the lodge use is appropriate and can fit in with the neighborhood while helping reach a community goal to maintain small lodges. SUMMARY: The Planning Office feels, however, that a restaurant open to the public, would create too many conflicts with the neighborhood. We feel it is unnecessary to potentially aggravate the neighborhood when the commercial core is only 3 to 4 blocks away offering dozens of restaurant facilities. RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicants shall provide 18 off street parking spaces. If an encroachment permit is required for use of City right -of -way then this shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit for the lodge. 2. The dining area shall be limited to the guests of the lodge and shall not be open to the general public. 13 a fvr . .. w " Prior to issuance of a building permit this dining area shall receive approval by the Housing Authority with regard to an adequate supply of employee housing. 3. The applicants shall provide sidewalks along their property line on Hopkins Street. 4. The applicants shall provide all trash and utility needs on site. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicants shall make a cash contribution to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for improvements to the system. The amount of this payment shall be of an amount acceptable to the ACSD. 6. The log house shall be relocated in town and shall not be demolished. ch.welton 14 ASPEN IPITKIN EmmirtmlnAENrrAL HEALTH DEPARTMiNT MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben Planning Office �/ From: Lee E. Cassin Jlf C Environmental Health Department Date: October 24, 1988 Re: Mountain House Lodge GMP Parcel ID # 2737- 182 -06 -001 The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above - mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this is granted to this office by the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers ". ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23 -55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system ". AIR OUALITY: Under existing laws, this new building is allowed a total of two gas -log- containing fireplaces if it has no woodstove. The new gas - log- containing fireplace can be added if the entire building has only one existing woodburning device. The applicant is required to register the new (and existing) devices. Complete plans must be submitted for the new restaurant. If it has a charbroiler, an electrostatic precipitator (or equivalent control device) is required. The restaurant must comply with the Aspen Clean Indoor Air Act. NOISE: 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81511 303/925 -2020 ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONSENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMrt^NT The applicant should be aware that amplified noise may cause violations of the Aspen Code, and should ensure that noise levels will be within the allowed levels. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: If the spa facilities contain a pool or hot tub, the applicant should consult the Regulations and Standards Governing Swimming Pools, Swimming Areas, September 19, 1973. The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials of f- site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. ASBESTOS In removing or demolishing the existing house, it should be determined that there is no asbestos prior to demolition. The only sure method of determining the presence of asbestos is through product sampling and analysis by a certified laboratory. If any is present, it must be removed by a qualified asbestos removal firm. Chapter 25 Article 7 C.R.S. 1973 - Air Quality, and Reg. 8 Sec. 2 Air Quality Control Regulations. and Standards. /mtnlodge.lur 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81511 303/925-2020 MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Date: November 8, 1988 Re: Mountain House Lodge GMP 1988 The Engineering Department has the following comments on the above application: 1. Water - The applicant has stated that the project will hook up the water on Hopkins Street instead of the existing water tap on West End Street. This is preferable because we would like to abandon the line on West End Street. 2. Sewer - The applicant has committed to make a cash contribution towards a future sewer district. The amount of the contribution should be decided upon before points are scored in this category. 3. Storm Drainage - The project must maintain the historic drainage for the site according to Section 7- 1004- C -4 -f. We do not want more than the historic rate to be contained on site due to impacts on the water table. One point should be awarded for maintaining the historic rate. If the applicant is seeking additional points, improvements must be made to a neighborhood drainage problem. 4. Roads - The roads in the area are sufficient to serve this project. However, the on- street parking in the area makes circulation difficult, therefore, we do not support a reduction in on -site parking. 5. Sidewalks - According to Resolution 19, Series of 1975, a sidewalk is required on the Hopkins Street frontage. This must be at least 5' wide and conform to the City's Streetscape Guidelines. 6. Trash /Utility Area - The existing Mountain House Lodge does not appear to have this area on site, therefore, we request that the new addition accommodate the trash and utility area for their own needs plus those of the existing lodge. The area for trash shown on the application is not adequate and there is no utility area shown. 7. Plat - A plat shall be submitted prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that meets the requirements of the Engineering Department. r , CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMP COMPETITION - LP ZONE DISTRICT Project: Mountain House Lodge Date: December 6, 1988 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 10 points) Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with respect to the impact of the proposed development or the addition thereto upon public facilities and services, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development can be handled by the existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general. 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. The following public facilities and services shall be rated accordingly. a. WATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the water system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The proposal can be serviced by the existing water system. The proposal benefits the project only and not the area in general. b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install and sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.5 COMMENTS: The application can be serviced by the existing Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District system, however, the applicants have committed to providing their fair share of future improvements to the system by making a cash payment to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. c. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires the use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The applicants will provide retention of 100% of their historic site drainage. This will be done by the use of drywalls. This serves the project only and not the area in general. d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection facilities and services according to its established response standards, without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an existing station; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire - fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide those fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The project is within a 3 minute response time 2 and adequate water pressure to available for the use of the project. All fire safety improvements to the lodge benefit the project only and not the area in general. e. ROADS (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system, or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Considering the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1 COMMENTS: The proposal will improve a poor angled parking situation within the public right -of -way by providing off street parking spaces. There will be additional traffic on Hopkins Street which is already congested in this dead end street. The parking for the new units is expected to encroach into the right -of -way, counteracting the improvement from removing the angled parking. 2. Quality of or Improvements to Design (maximum 36 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the quality of its exterior and site design and any improvements proposed thereto, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design. 1 -- A major design flaw. 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- An excellent design. The following design features shall be rated accordingly. 3 P a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the compatibility of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto (in terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighborhood development. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 COMMENTS: The proposed design breaks up the massing of the 12.000 square foot structure by providing a central courtyard as seen from Hopkins Street. The proposal maximizes the allowed FAR on -site for the LP Zone District, which is consistent with the allowed multi family FAR in the surrounding RMF zone district. The building materials are consistent with the existing redeveloped Mountain House Lodge. b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and character of the proposed development and its improvements to existing landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches, bike racks, bus shelters etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the development, and for snow storage areas. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 COMMENTS: The site maintains the existing mature fir trees on the western portion of the parcel and develops the open space for the site in a courtyard between the two guest wings of the building. This provides private space for the guests but only allows an architectural relief from the structure as it is seen head on. The applicant commits to 4 r r -' providing (35 %) open space which is the minimum requirement for the zone district. No public amenities such as bike racks, benches. etc. are provided in the application. c. PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal traffic circulation and parking system for the proposed development or any addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and service vehicle access and loading areas, and the design features to screen parking from public view. RATING: 1 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 3 COMMENTS: The application does not supply the required number of on -site parking spaces for the additional development, thereby the project does not mitigate its own impacts on traffic /parking and circulation problems in the area. The application does not elaborate on the service area in the alley way. There is one designated parking space for service deliveries which seems inadequate for large service trucks delivering restaurant supplies. d. VISUAL IMPACTS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development or any addition thereto, to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6 COMMENTS: There are no designated view planes which are infringed upon by this proposal. It appears that the structure will be the maximum allowable height in the zone district. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points). 5 Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the degree to which it includes resource conservation techniques, and shall be assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources. 1 -- Proposed development meets the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in a standard level of resource conservation. 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal Code, or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation. a. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development uses passive and /or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) 1.5 COMMENTS: The proposal exceeds the energy requirements of the Code but does not significantly exceed these requirements. b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 1): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conserving plumbing fixtures and /or wastewater reuse systems in its design. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) 1.5 COMMENTS: The application commits to using water saving fixtures but does not state what level of savings will be accomplished. 6 c. AIR (maximum 2 points times multiplier of 2): Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measure are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. RATING: 2 X MULTIPLIER (2) 4 COMMENTS: The application will remove one existing woodburning fireplace in order to place a new gas log fireplace in the new lobby area. 4. Amenities Provided for Guests (maximum 21 points) Each Development Application shall be rated with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto, by the assignment of points according to the following standard. 0 -- A total lack of guest amenities and services. 1 -- Services which are judged to be deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. 2 -- Services which are judged to be adequate in terms of quality and spaciousness. 3 -- Services which are judged to be exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness. The following amenities shall be considered in this review and rated accordingly. a. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE COMMON MEETING AREAS (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 3): Shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) 7.5 COMMENTS: New common areas have been added to the lodge 7 including lobbies, dining room /conference area and external courtyard and sundeck space. The proposal adds approximately 1,920 square feet of common space in the lodge for a total of 2.782 square feet out of a 12.000 square foot facility. b. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE DINING FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars and banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (2) 3 COMMENTS: The on site dining facilities have been expanded to 1,250 square feet. The proposal is to open this area up to the public for dining. The facility is too large for the guest use only. c. AVAILABILITY OF OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ON -SITE ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points times multiplier of 2): Shall be considered, such as health clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any addition thereto. RATING: 2.5 X MULTIPLIER (2) 5 COMMENTS: On -site recreational health facilities are expanded by 448 square feet. for a total of 698 square feet. These facilities include a health spa. iacuzzi and exercise area. 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points): Each development application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City and with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. Points shall be assigned as follows: Zero (0 %) to sixty (60 %) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development 8 are provided with housing; One (1) point for each six (6 %) percent housed; Sixty -one (61 %) percent to one hundred (100 %) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development are provided with housing; one (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent housed. If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. RATING: 15 COMMENTS: The application meets the threshold of providing 60% of on site employee housing, however, the applicant commits to housing at least 100% if employees generated. but neglected to factor in the employees generated by a commercial restaurant. The employee generation of the additional lodge units is 4.9. The replacement of the log home generates the requirement for housing 1.5 employees (50% of the bedrooms of the existing 3 unit home) and a public restaurant would generate between 6.1 and 12.2 employees. If a restaurant remains on the site, the applicants must provide additional on site housing for 6 employees. The Planning Office is recomendinq denial of the public restaurant facility. This would delete the need for the additional housing and allow the applicant to meet the 100% commitment without providing any more units than now proposed on -site. 6. REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 15 points): Development applications for projects located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District only shall be assigned points for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing units. Points shall be assigned as follows. Zero (0 %) to fifty (50 %) percent of the total 9 ! "1 existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each ten (10 %) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. Fifty (50 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the total existing unit inventory or non -unit space in the lodge which the applicant agrees to rehabilitate or reconstruct: one (1) point for each five (5 %) percent rehabilitated or reconstructed. RATING: 15 COMMENTS: The lodge was 100% remodeled in 1987. An affidavit itemizing the expenses for the previous 24 months indicates applicants spent in excess of $400,000 in remodeling costs. 7. Bonus Points (maximum 5 points). When it is determined that a proposed development has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Secs. 8- 106(G)(1) through (6) but has also exceeded the provision of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, additional bonus points not exceeding five (5 %) percent of the total points awarded under these sections may be made. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: 0 COMMENTS: 10 REQUIRED SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS: POINTS: 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.5 4.0 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 21.0 14.4 3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION 7.0 3.2 4. AMENITIES FOR GUESTS 15.5 8.4 5. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 15.0 9.0 6. REHABILITATION /RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING UNITS 15.0 9.0 7. BONUS POINTS 0 0 TOTAL POINTS: 79.0 63.0 Name of P &Z Commission Member: Planning Office 11 ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 December 11, 1988 TO: Cindy Houben - Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford - Director RE: Comments on GMP Application - Mountain House Lodge Energy Conservation Comments Replacing the old single glazed windows with new double glazed units will reduce 50% of the heat loss that was attributed to the windows. Increasing the insulation levels in the old walls will help reduce energy consumption. But, without knowing the exact R value of the improvements we can not tell just how energy efficient it will be. It is hard to tell the exact level of insulation in the attic, as well, as the GMP application only states that "current standards" will be met. The insulation levels specified for the new construction of R -20+ for the walls and R -32+ for the "roofs" is quite adequate. It is good to see that the project will specify water - saving fixtures for all new toilets and showers. Again, we can only assume the exact water use of these new fixtures. There is no mention of the mechanical heating system for the new space. We recommend that the project consider a high - efficiency heating system, such as a gas -fired boiler, hydronic baseboard system. Overall, the project has a good intent to conserve energy and resources but the details on how they will accomplish this goal are sketchy. We would like to see the re- insulation levels and the mechanical heating system specified. Further, we would like to see their intent of building the new addition with attention paid to air sealing techniques. DEC 13 December 8, 1988 Gideon I. Kaufman 315 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Gideon, The Planning Commission has tabled the Mtn. House application until January 10, 1988. The reason is to allow the applicants to prepare a revised version of the Mtn. House Lodge expansion application. It is my understanding that the planning commission is looking for a reduction in the number of rooms, all on site parking, a reduction in the bulk of the building (less FAR) on site. It is also my understanding that the applicants have deleted the commercial restaurant from the proposal. The Planning Office and Engineering Dept. must have adequate time to review the application and the other issues which were brought up at the meeting by the public. In order to have time, the revised application must be submitted to the Planning Office no later than December 20th. If this is not acceptable, please call me. We may need to continue the hearing to another date. Sincerely, Cindy Houben Senior Planner CH /bc ch.mh2 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Tele. (303) 925 -2537 November 21, 1988 Cindy Houben Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co 81611 RE: Mountain House Lodge GMP Dear Cindy: The District has sufficient line and treatment capacity to service this project at this time. District regulations do require that a District approved grease inter- ceptor be installed for the dining room addition. Also, as a reminder, any outside floor drains or roof drains cannot be connected to the sanitary sewer system. Sincerely Bruce Matherly District Manager BM /ld ; 2 2 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: MOUNTAIN HOUSE LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held at on Tuesday December 6, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 PM before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider and score an application from Mountain House Lodge requesting Development Review Approval in order to construct an 18 unit expansion on the lodge. In order to accomplish this the applicant is requesting the following approvals: Rezoning of Lots A, B, and 1/2 of C, Block 32, East Aspen Addition, from Residential Multi /Family to Lodge Preservation zone, multi -year GMQS allotment for 18 new lodge units with accessory common meeting areas, dining and recreational facilities, Conditional Use Approval for a restaurant in the LP Zone, Special Review approval to increase internal FAR, and Special Review approval for reduction of parking requirements. Mountain House Lodge is located at 905 E. Hopkins Avenue. For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office at 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (303) 920 -5090. s /C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on November 15, 1988. City of Aspen Account. Referral comment from Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner, regarding the Mountain House The existing log structure (Lots A, B, and part of C) does not appear on the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as it was constructed in 1947. However, the structure is important as it architecturally represents Aspen's first decade as a ski resort. Staff is preparing a "Ski Context" amendment to the National Register Multiple Resource Nomination, which will include structures representing the first ten years of Aspen's ski history. Structures from this era are fast disappearing in Aspen. This log structure appears to be in very good condition. Its preservation and relocation within the City is highly recommended.