HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Crestahaus Lodge.79A-89Crestahaus Lodge GMQS, Rezoning
2737-181-047 & 014 79A-89
�CIA -s>C/
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE
APPLICATION FEES
City
/
00113
-63250-134
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136
GMP/FINAL
-63280-137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139
SUB/FINAL
-63310-140
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
00125
REFERRAL FEES:
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
o?
00115
-63340-163
ENGINEERING
00 • �Z7
SUBTOTAL
County
00113
-63160-126
GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127
GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
GMP/FINAL
-63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131
SUB/FINAL
-63220-132
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00113
-63360-143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
OFFICE SALES
00113
-63080-122
CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123
COMP. PLAN
-63140-124
COPY FEES
-69000-145
OTHER
Name:
C'
Address:
-J ,
Cn
Check #
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Phone:
Project: f
Date:
Additional billing #of Hours:
AN EXPANSION OF
THE CRESTAHAUS LODGE
LP Lodge GMQS Submission
and Request for Rezoning
August 1, 1989
Submitted to: The City of Aspen and
The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
Applicant: Harley Baldwin Associates, Inc.
205 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (303) 920-1800
FAX: (303) 920-3602
Prepared by: Joseph Wells, AICP
Doremus & Wells
130 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (303) 925-8080
FAX: (303) 925-8275
CONTSULT NT TEAM
Municipal Services and Utilities Parking and Traffic Circulation
A. J. Zabbia
Rea, Cassens and Associates,
Consulting Engineers
2902 State Hwy 74, Suite 101
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
Phone: (303) 670-1406
FAX: (303) 670-1410
Surveying
James Reser
Alpine Surveys
Licensed Surveyors
P. 0. Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Phone: (303) 925-2688
FAX: (303) 670-1410
Architecture
Design Architect:
Wayne Poulson
Wayne Poulson, Architect
c/o The Brand
205 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (303) 920-1800
Associate Architect:
David Leahy
Inc. Transportation Development
Associates, Inc.
Transportation Planners
1675 Larimer Square, Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: (303) 825-7107
FAX: (303) 893-6553
Rod Dyer
Dyer & Associates
415 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (303) 925-7149
Legal
Andy Hecht
Garfield & Hecht
Attorneys at Law
601 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (303) 925-1936
FAX: (303) 925-3008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa ge
I. INTRODUCTION
1
A.
Project Description
1
B.
The Crestahaus in Relation to Other LP Lodges
5
C.
A Review of Accommodations Growth in the
Aspen Metro Area
8
II. TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMQS SUBMISSION (Article 8)
11
A.
General Application Requirements
11
B.
Description of Proposed Development
12
C.
Tourist Accommodations Development Standards
18
(1) Availability of Public Facilities and
Services
18
(a) Water
18
(b) Sanitary Sewer
19
(c) Storm Drainage
20
(d) Fire Protection
22
(e) Roads
26
(2) Quality of Improvements to Design
28
(a) Architectural Design
28
(b) Site Design
48
(c) Parking and Traffic Circulation
51
(d) Visual Impact
52
(3) Resource Conservation Techniques
54
(a) Energy Conservation
54
(b) Water and Wastewater
57
(c) Air
57
(4) Amenities Provided for Guests
59
(a) Availability of or Improvements to
On -Site Common Meeting Areas
59
(b) Availability of or Improvements to
On -Site Dining Facilities
60
(c) Availability of or Improvements to
On -Site Accessory Recreational
Facilities
61
Pa ge
(5) Provision of Affordable Housing 62
(6) Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of
Existing Units 72
(7) Bonus Points 75
III. OTHER REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
76
A. Special Review of Requested FAR Square
Footage (Art 7, Div 4) 76
B. Special Review of Parking for Affordable
Housing (Art 7, Div 4) 77
C. GMQS Exemption Request for Change in Use
(§8-104B) 78
IV. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-15 (PUD) TO LP FOR A
PORTION OF THE SITE 81
V. APPENDICES
A. General Application Requirements
1.
Application Form
2.
Letter of Consent, Harley Baldwin
Associates
3.
Letter of Consent, Guido Meyer
4.
Site Survey
5.
Disclosure of Ownership
6.
Vicinity Map
B. Parking
and Circulation Analysis
TDA
Associates, Inc.
C. Storm
Water Drainage Report
Rea,
Cassens and Associates, Inc.
D. Prior
Actions Affecting the Site
1.
P&Z Resolution 82-8
2.
City Council Ordinance 28, 1982
3.
City Council Ordiance 68, 1982
4.
City Council Resolution 1, 1986
5.
Affordable Housing Deed Restricts
6.
Architectural Plans of Prior GMQS Approval
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description.
This application requests approval of a lodge GMQS allotment
under Article 8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for 18
new lodge units to be built in conjunction with the improvement
of 29 existing lodge units, the construction of 1 additional
lodge unit through a change in use procedure and the expansion of
guest amenities and affordable housing at the Crestahaus Lodge.
Specifically, the Crestahaus project consists of the remodeling
of 14 of the existing lodge rooms, the reorganization and
reconstruction of the remaining 15 and the addition of
9 one -bedroom suites -&n �$, two -bedroom suites.
There are a total of � lodge bedrooms and 48 lodge units in the
proposal, including 2 guest dormitory rooms.
The philosophy of this project is to create an environment for
personal physical and mental health. As presented in the
accompanying drawings, the project will allow the guest an
opportunity to enjoy an experience while in Aspen that is clearly
unique.
11
J
The guests will be accommodated in rooms and suites that are
energy efficient, and designed to a high level of finish.
Throughout the remodeled portion of the project, the common areas
and each room will be upgraded with new finishes on the walls and
ceilings, new carpet, paint, fixtures and bathroom appliances.
A typical week will be as follows. The guests are picked up at
the airport by Lodge personnel and brought to the Lodge. They
are given the opportunity to have a rigorous physical exam and a
personalized health program written specifically for them. A
nutritional evaluation will be conducted and a diet prepared.
The opportunity for personal physical training, utilizing the
facilities on -site as well as the off -site recreational
opportunities in the area will be heavily emphasized in the
lodge's marketing efforts.
The Crestahaus will become a lodge that promotes sports, physical
and mental health, creating a haven from the everyday stresses
that the guest normally encounters. By providing the guest with
an opportunity to exercise in a relaxed atmosphere, an environ-
ment will be offered from which to consider the past while
creating a more exciting future. Landscaped grounds will provide
a restful atmosphere for the guest to pause and enjoy the
mountain setting.
2
The philosophy of the Crestahaus will be unique -- an intimate
lodge that is devoted to the Paepcke ideals of health, music and
creative thinking. -
Guests will be informed in lodge brochures and whe they make
their reservations that they will not need to bring their cars; a
van service provided by the Lodge will be available to shuttle
guests to and from all activities on request.
As discussed in Chapter III of this Submission, the applicant is
applying for special review to establish the allowable external
floor area ratio for the project. Under §5-216D of the Code, an
external floor area ratio of up to 1:1 is allowed upon special
review approval in the LP zone.
In order to address any concerns that rezoning the remainder of
the site to LP could result in considerably more square footage
than that permitted under present zoning, the applicant has
agreed to limit the FAR square footage which will ever be built
on the property to no more than that permitted under the two
current zone designations (subject to continued special review
for any further increase.) As discussed in more detail in
Chapter IV, the allowable FAR square footage has been calculated
as up to 95,772 square feet.
3
10
In 1985, the previous owner requested approval to expand the
Lodge to its present plan and design. As approved (See City
Council Resolution 1, 1986 and plans, Appendix D) 9 lodge rooms
were retained in the existing building and a new wing was added
which includes 20 replacement and GMQS lodge rooms.
The existing lodge building also contains a dining area and kit-
chen, two lounge areas, an exercise room and affordable housing.
The area deed -restricted for housing includes a 625 square foot
dorm room (amended to include lodge room #7 on the second floor
of the Gibson & Reno plans) ) and a 270 square foot room for the
Manager. A copy of the Deed Restriction Agreement is included in
Appendix D.
The three -bedroom house to the east of the lodge was retained
under the plan which received final approval. A GMQS Exemption
is requested in Chapter III to change the use to a 3-bedroom
lodge suite to be located in the original lodge building.
4
i
B. The Crestahaus in Relation to Other LP Lodges.
The Crestahaus is the eastern most of the LP -zoned lodges within
the City. Despite perceptions to the contrary, however, the
lodge is as close or closer to skiing and commercial services as
a number of the other LP lodges.
As the map on the following page illustrates, the Crestahaus is
approximately 3,000 feet from the Aspen Mountain Gondola and from
the 100% corner of commercial activity at Galena and Cooper.
(The 100% corner is the location of highest pedestrian activity
in the commercial core.)
Eleven of the remaining LP lodges are located 3,000 feet or
further from the Gondola. They include:
1. The Hotel Aspen
2. The Molly Gibson (now including the Aspen Ski Lodge)
3. The Tyrolean Lodge
4. The Christmas Inn
5. The Innsbruck Inn
6. The Shadow Mountain Lodge
7. The Aspen Bed and Breakfast
8. The St. Moritz Lodge
9. The Boomerang Lodge
10. The Christiania Lodge
ll. The Bavarian Inn
5
E IF
O�!i
O
= 3000' TO I E EJ=
- COOPER & GALENA M�'
gig
m 3000 TO GONDOLA-
ISI E
53,
L!rSr —ol
N
Ara
lit Ul
CA
Y
iTLn
.�K4.
00, c
00
Qq
I
In addition, six of the LP lodges are located approximately 3,000
feet or more from the Galena/Cooper intersection. They are:
1. The Christmas Inn
2.
The
Innsbruck
Inn
3.
The
Aspen Bed
and Breakfast
4.
The
Boomerang
Lodge
5.
The
Christiania
Lodge
6.
The
Bavarian
Inn
Because the site is immediately adjacent to Highway 82, traffic
impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhoods can be avoided,
perhaps more successfully than if the site were subdivided into
single-family or duplex sites; because of site topography such a
solution would very likely require access from Riverside Drive to
serve a portion of the lots.
7
C. A Review of Accommodations Growth in the Aspen Metro Area.
Studies and growth data assembled over the past decade by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office which contain information regarding
short-term accomodations include The Short Term Accommodations
Report, prepared in 1982, various Planning Office Memoranda on the
subject and the Aspen/Pitkin County Annual Growth Reports. The
1989 Annual Growth Report is the most recent document presented by
the Planning Office to update the growth picture in the County.
Lodge growth prior to 1983 was considerably below that permitted
under the City's GMP regulations. However, as a result of recent
building activity there is a growing perception that perhaps the
need to upgrade short-term accommodations no longer exists.
The Short Term Accommodations Report in 1982 included the following
observation:
"In the years since the implementation of the GMP, the
City has not experienced any of the lodge development it
anticipated. The policies of down zoning and GMP quotas
have, in effect, frozen our inventory, in terms of both
quality and quantity at their mid-1970's levels. We have
witnessed the attrition of many of the smaller lodges to
other growth pressures, such as employee housing and
other uses."
The attrition of many of Aspen's older lodging facilities over the
past decade has had an important impact on the lodging inventory, a
fact that the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office has failed to adequately
N
consider in its Annual Growth Reports. Table 1 on the following
page (which does not include the Aspen Manor and the Northstar
Lodges) illustrates the number of lodges and lodge units (other
than those to be reconstructed) which have been lost to the
short-term accommodations inventory since the mid-70s.
Another important trend has been occurring recently which has not
been taken into consideration in these reports; that is an
attrition in the number of single family and condominium units
available for short-term rental because of the dramatic increase in
the value of those units; there has been a resultant increase in
occasional second -home use of units which were previously rented.
All approved lodge development under the GMQS (in both the LP as
well as all other lodge zones) has not exceeded the cumulative GMQS
allotments available through 1988. Further, actual construction of
many of these units has lagged well behind the award of allotments.
0
TABLE 1
LODGES AND LODGE UNITS REMOVED FROM INVENTORY
LODGES
UNITS
1.
Agate Lodge
25
2.
Alpina Haus*
42
Continental Inn*
13
3.
Copper Horse*
14
4.
Cortina Lodge*
17
5.
Edelweiss Lodge
18
6.
Floradora Lodge
15
7.
Garrett House
6
S.
Gastof Eberli
20
9.
Hillside Lodge
15
10.
Holiday House*
27
11.
Hungarian Lodge
15
12.
Kitzbuhel Lodge
12
13.
Mouse House
7
14.
Norway Lodge
30
15.
Paragon Dormitory
30
16.
Pines Resort
15
17.
Viking Lodge
15
18.
Villas Lodge
48
TOTAL 18 LODGES AND 374 Units
*Removed from inventory since December 1983.
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
and Doremus & Wells
10
II. TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GMQS SUBMISSION
A. General Application Requirements.
The following information is included in Appendix A.
1. Completed application form is attached as Exhibit 1.
2. Applicants' letter of consent is attached as Exhibit
2 and 3.
3. The address and legal description for the site are
included on Exhibits 4 and 5.
4. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 5.
5. A vicinity map of the subject parcel is attached as
Exhibit 6.
6. Compliance with relevant review standards.
The information included in this Chapter II will
establish compliance with the review standards.
11
B. Description of Proposed Development.
1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services.
(a) Water System.
Discussions with the City Water Department indicate that the pro-
posed development can be supplied by the existing water system.
There is sufficient excess capacity available from the City to
supply the proposed development.
The project area is currently served by an 8" main in Highway 82
adjacent to the northerly boundary of the property. Service in
the area is reinforced by a 14" DIP water transmission main which
is a direct feed to the 1.0 M.G. Aspen Grove Reservoir; this main
is also located in the highway right of way.
A 2" line currently services the existing lodge. Water pressure
in these lines is approximately 70 P.S.I. The anticipated
increased water demand is expected to be 6,200 gallons per day,
as discussed in IIC(1)(a).
(b) Sewage Treatment System.
Discussions with the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District indi-
cate that the District has sufficient excess capacity available
to serve the proposed development.
12
The project is presently served by an existing 12" VCP sewer
collection line in Highway 82, adjacent to the property.
Discussions with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District personnel
indicate that the existing sewage collection system, trunkline
sewers, and treatment facility have the capacity to handle the
additional 6,200 gpd of sewage as discussed in IIC(1)(b).
(c) Drainage System.
An analysis of the 100 year historic and 100 year developed flows
from the proposed expansion has been performed, by Rea, Cassens
Associates, using standard drainage procedures. Currently the
historic undeveloped runoff flows in a northwesterly direction
and enters a shallow ditch on the southerly side of Highway 82;
runoff eventually enters the Roaring Fork River.
(d) Fire Protection.
Fire protection is discussed beginning on page 22.
(e) Development Area.
The site includes approximately 160,000 square feet of land.
Building coverage is approximately 60,000 square feet. Forty-
eight lodge units are proposed with a total of 59 lodge bedrooms,
including 27 lodge rooms, 2 guest dorm rooms, 9 1-bedroom suites,
13
9 2-bedroom suites and 1 3-bedroom suite, and 25,000 square feet
of private health club facilities for guests. FAR square footage
is 59,000 square feet (.37:1). Approximately 5,700 square feet
of affordable housing is provided.
Permitted uses in LP which are relevant to this Submission are as
follows:
1. Lodge units;
2. Accessory use facilities intended for guests, which are
commonly found in association with tourist accommoda-
tions including lounge, kitchen, dining room, laundry
and recreational facilities;
3. Affordable housing for employees of the Lodge;
4. Accessory buildings and uses.
Dimensional requirements in LP with which the
application is in
compliance
are as
follows:
1.
Minimum
front yard:
10,
2.
Minimum
side yard:
5'
3.
Minimum
rear yard:
10,
4.
Maximum
height:
25'
5.
Minimum
distance between principal
and
accessory buildings:
10,
6.
Minimum
open space required:
35%
14
7. External FAR:
Established by Special Review, not to exceed 1:1
8. Internal FAR:
Lodge rental space (unit space):
Maximum of 0.5:1; can be increased to .75:1 if
33-1/3% of the additional square footage is
affordable housing.
Lodge Non -Unit Space:
Minimum of 0.25:1
9. Off -Street Parking:
a. Lodge Use: 1 space/bedroom
b. Residential Use: Not Applicable
(Parking for affordable housing to be established
by Special Review, as required under §5-301B)
C. All other uses: 4/1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable
( f ) Traffic.
The property is serviced by Highway 82. TDA Colorado has esti-
mated that trip generation at the existing driveway will be
reduced from 11 to 10 peak hour trips; there would be 13 new
trips from the lower garage (See Appendix B). The hours of
principal daily usage will be consistent with typical lodge use
in the City of Aspen. A total of 59 on -site parking places are
supplied. Existing and proposed bicycle routes and paths are
shown following page 49. A bicycle storage room will be
15
provided on the property. The Mountain Valley bus route runs on
30 minute headways on Highway 82. The site is within easy
walking or bicycling distance of essential commercial and retail
services and activities. A bike path is proposed to be
constructed this fall along the paved shoulder of Highway 82.
In addition, there is a bike path along Ute Avenue that extends
to Highway 82 through the Aspen Club area. The applicant will
�! assist the City in building the bike path along the entire
Highway 82 frontage of the property through a contribution of
l _
$5,000.00. On demand van service will be provided. A snow
storage area is provided at the upper parking lot.
(g) Affordable Housing.
Affordable housing is discussed in detail beginning on page 62.
(h) Woodburning Devices.
The two existing woodburning fireplaces will be retrofitted with
gas logs. No additional gas fireplaces are anticipated at this
time.
(i) Public Facilities.
The proposed project is located about 3,500 square feet from
Wagner Park and about two miles from the school campus and the
16
hospital and an additional 3 miles from the airport. Two exist-
ing transit routes extend past the site. Peak population of the
project is estimated to be approximately 110 and usage of the
above facilities will be commensurate with that population.
(j)
Commercial Services.
The project is located 3,000 feet from the center of the commer-
cial core. Demand on these facilities is expected to be
commensurate with the projected population of 110.
(k) Effects of Proposed Development on Adjacent Land
Uses.
The proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses in
the neighborhood. The eleven unit Alpine Lodge is across the
street. The surrounding land is zoned R-15. In the Riverside
Subdivision, lots range from 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. Along
Mayflower Drive, Aene Park and the Ferguson cabins to the north,
lots are 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. The present build -out
FAR on the adjacent R-15 lots is .20 to .40.
(1) Construction Schedule.
Upon GMQS approval, construction is projected to commence in the
spring of 1990, and be completed as GMQS allocations permit.
17
C. Tourist Accommodations Development Standards.
1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services.
(a) Water.
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.
The existing City water system has sufficient capacity to provide
for the needs of the proposed development and will be able to
supply water to the development without system extensions and
without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. The
applicant commits to the payment of fees associated with
additional water -consuming fixtures as a result of the project.
Since the health club and other lodge amenities will only be
available to lodge guests, water usage has been estimated by Rea,
Cassens & Associates based on the population of the project.
At projected peak occupancy, the population of the lodge has been
conservatively estimated as 113; the expanded population
represents an increase of 62 people. Additional peak demand on
the water system would be 6,200 gallons per day. The total daily
demand would be 11,300 gallons per day including both current
usage and future demand. The 11,300 GPD usage when calculated
over a 12 hour primary usage day represents a flow rate of 15.7
gallons per minute. Utilizing a factor of 6 to convert average
W
flow to peak hour flows, the peak usage would be 94.16 gallons
per minute.
The City water system has the excess capacity and the proposed
expansion can be served by the existing mains adjacent to the
property. Under Fire Protection, below, the applicant has
committed to provide 2 fire hydrants in locations identified by
the Fire Marshal and Water Department. If there is a location in
the area for one of these hydrants which would benefit from a
water line extension, the applicant will commit $2,000 toward the
construction of such extension, provided that the score awarded
in this category reflects the commitment to improve water
facilities in the area.
(b) Sanitary Sewer.
Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install
any sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other
facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development.
The Metropolitan Sanitation District sewer system has sufficient
capacity to accommodate the proposed development and will be able
to serve the development without system extensions or other
facility upgrading. The applicant commits to pay any fees
associated with increased sewer service to the project.
According to Rea, Cassens & Associates the total sewage flow
anticipated from the project is expected to equal the in-house
kv]
water usage as developed in the section Water preceeding. The
total sewage flow is anticipated to be 11,300 gallons per day of
which 5,100 gpd is currently being generated by existing units
and 6,200 gpd would be "new sewage".
Discussions with the Aspen Consolidated Santitation District
indicate that the main outfall sewer line to the sewer treatment
plant has infiltration problems downstream to the connection of
the 12" sewer main in Highway 82.
The district has stated that rehabilitation of approximately 400
feet of the outfall line by inserting a polyethylene liner inside
the pipe would greatly improve the total system and would merit
the award to the applicant of an additional point for providing
facilities or improving the total system over and above that
which is necessary to serve the proposed project.
The applicant will contribute $5,000 (one-half the estimated cost
of the improvement) toward this system upgrade, provided that the
score awarded in this category reflects the commitment to improve
sewer facilities in the neighborhood.
(c) Storm Drainage.
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
20
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
Rea, Cassens and Associates has considered the extent of roofs,
impervious areas and landscaped areas for the proposal to
establish developed runoff for the project. The developed runoff
will be redirected to retain the difference between the 100-year
historic and 100-year developed flows on site by means of
detention ponds or dry wells. This volume has been calculated to
be 2,500 cubic feet of storage. Detention of this runnoff will
improve the quality of runoff to the Roaring Fork River by
decreasing sediment. The City's drainage system does not
presently extend to the site.
As discussed in Site Design, page 34, bikeways are presently
proposed by the City along both sides of Highway 82 in the area
of the project. The construction project (presently out for bid)
anticipates drainage improvements in the area as well, including
a minor rerouting of the Riverside Ditch and a new drainage
culvert under Midland Avenue. The latter improvement will
eliminate a reoccurring problem of storm sheet flow which deposit
rocks and other sediment on the road surface and creates a
hazardous condition for traffic at this already hazardous
intersection.
21
In order to assist in the installation of these drainage improve-
ments which will improve public facilities and services in the
area, the applicant will cooperate in the installation of any of
these facilities which are located outside of the right of way on
the applicant's property as shown on the bid documents and will
contribute $5,000 toward this construction, provided that the
score awarded in this category reflects the commitment to improve
drainage facilities in the neighborhood.
(d) Fire Protection.
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.
Fire protection for the Project will exceed Building Code
requirements. Because of the site topography and a desire to
minimize impacts on the neighboring residences to the south and
west, vehicular access to the site has been limited to two
locations along Highway 82.
In order to address access concerns raised by the Fire Marshall,
the new lodge suites and health club will be fully sprinklered,
to provide immediate fire suppression for these facilities. In
conformance with the Code, smoke detectors will be furnished
22
throughout for added protection and fire extinguishers will be
installed in key locations.
In addition, a compacted gravel path 12 to 14 feet in width will
be provided for emergency access only onto the southwest corner
of the site to provide access to the lodge suites from Riverside
Drive. This access will be be chained off to prevent regular
use. This commitment is based on information from the Engineer-
ing Department that Riverside Drive is a public street.
An identification of fire hydrants in the area of the site
initially appears to indicate that there is adequate coverage of
the site, given a coverage radius for hydrants of 300 feet. (See
Fire Protection Map, following page). It should be noted,
however, that coverage for the northeastern part of the site is
provided by hydrants located on the opposite side of the highway.
There are presently no hydrants on the southwest side of the
Highway between Riverside Drive and Riverside Avenue, a distance
of approximately 1,100 feet.
Therefore, fire -fighting from the existing hydrants in this area
would significantly disrupt traffic movement on the highway, if
not require closure of the road. The applicant proposes to
address this problem by installing a new hydrant at the
approximate location shown on the Fire Protection Map. This new
hydrant will not only provide improved fire protection for the
23
'y � . 1 1mob. - : J -• .t':. . 1L•.'''.'.•: .f :'.:': .':.r.'� • . �� 1
l Y ::TIC;:: ..... •
I_ � ! ��'"".• •• • � .•:.:•�'�+': i i?: r .Yti;.; a4JG::. i .�i:•atit? :•:•:v}r, • - \ \, 1, ` \ - �
X.
r Y/. .'>. lam''' �•••�J� ��:':' ` :':1':'; J.':': :':. \\
roc. ♦ ,
lr
Xi
Mxi
�.
I. ::yam }; •? :�:� :' i}:
}
a_ ;:j{: '•:{ _� S�l�L �:�:•+�.�:�}%�-ii}:•�'�: •%•: •7?•.�:'..• :�{�:• _.,'fit
ir.
•.t
_ yyp
d! p
`L ice.. 1 - i• '•:,;.'•-Y':':: �;. ;.i-l:•::•:':'' ,�..�y .., .. F;.. •�'.;:•• ':'�:::':"' _ _ _
.1 _ _ -may 1 - , •\�-"......-- � _ .-
FIRE PROTECTION PREPARED FOR
CRESTAHAUS LODGE EXPANSION 20ARS GALENA ST ASPEN, ASSOCIATES CO
5
PREPARED BY
LrixOremus & weLL.s
0 50100 200 400 608 e hyman avenue
aspen colorado 81611
project, but will enhance protection for the surrounding
neighborhood. In addition, the applicant will pay for the
installation of a second hydrant in another location in the
neighborhood as recommended by the Fire Marshal and the Water
Department.
If the Fire Marshal believes that hydrant coverage is adequate in
the area of the Project and that traffic on the highway will not
be unnecessarily disrupted in the event of a fire, the applicant
will pay for the installation of two hydrants in alternate
locations deemed to be better suited for improved coverage.
The Fire Marshal has confirmed that the District is presently
able to provide fire protection to the site according to its
established response standards without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major
equipment to the existing station. Available water pressure and
capacity are more than adequate to provide for fire fighting
flows.
The project is approximately 4,000 feet from the Aspen Fire
Station and the response time is estimated to be under three
minutes.
25
(e) Roads.
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.
The road network can easily provide for the needs of the proposed
development without substantially altering the existing traffic
patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the existing
street system. The property is served by Highway 82, a state
highway. The minimal increased usage attributable to the
proposed development will not necessitate any road system
improvements. The project is within 3,000 feet of the City's
commercial and retail facilities and a bus line stops beside the
project.
TDA Colorado, Inc. Transporation Consultants was retained to
analyze the potential traffic impact associated with the
proposal. Their report is included in Appendix B. Traffic
conditions at the upper intersection will be improved by the
following factors:
I. The number of parking spaces in the existing surface lot is
reduced from 33 to 15 spaces, thereby reducing the number of
trips generated.
OW
2. The bikeway project currently being undertaken by the City
will result in the centerline of Highway 82 being shifted 2
feet to the north in the area of the retaining wall beside
the existing Lodge. This will improve the sight line
condition in this area. The applicant has committed $5,000
toward the trail improvements and $5,000 toward the drainage
improvements and has agreed to accommodate reasonable
construction outside of the right of way as required for the
project.
3. The applicant will remove, at his expense, approximately
four feet from the top of the retaining wall for a distance
of approximately 60 feet and create a 'step' in the wall of
7 feet or so, to further enhance sight distance in this
area.
27
2. Quality of or Improvements to Design.
(a) Architectural Design.
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.
The renovation of the Crestahaus which was undertaken in 1986
established its present design character; the proposal was a
straightforward solution which removed the 'Swiss Chalet'
gingerbread and established a clean but simple appearance.
It is the current applicant's intent to renovate the Lodge in the
tradition of a small western hunting lodge. The existing lodge
structures will continue to be the focal point of the project, as
a large majority of the new structures proposed to be added will
be limited to one and two levels. An exception to this is the
indoor pool building which will be slightly taller than two
stories but nonetheless within the 25 foot height limit in both
the LP and R-15 zone districts. Large areas of glass will
provide a greater degree of transparency for this building to
lessen its visual impact.
The concept established for the new buildings provides for a
series of smaller buildings linked by exterior covered walkways
rather than a single large structure. The health facilities step
up the hillside and are set into the hillside to reduce the
PAM
I
le"
1)
i
A-�
KEY TO STRUCTURES
1-RENOVATED AND EXPANDED LODGE
2-ONE BEDROOM LIVING UNITS
3-TWO BEDROOM LIVING UNITS
4-WEIGHT ROOM WITH SPA BELOW
5-AEROBICS ROOM WITH LOCKERS BELOW
6-SPA ADMINISTRATION
7-ESTHETIC SERVICES
8-AEROBICS ROOMS WITH 25 METER POOL BELOW
9-TENNIS COURTS WITH WET SPA BELOW
10-TENNIS COURT WITH PARKING BELOW
11-EMPLOYEE HOUSING
7990 -�
SNOW STORAGE
N
SITE PLAN - CRESTAHAUS ADDITIONS 1" - 30'
m
Z
O
Q
LU
J
Lli
2
F-
0
Z
w
0
0
z
L
O
M
Z
O
U
W
W
J_
LL
0
cr
CL
H
0
J
oil
SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 / 16'- 1'-0"
I BEDROOM
PROPOSED SUITE PLAN 1 / 16"=1 `-0"
FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4 111 =1 1 -0 11
BEDROOM
DN
DRESSI
OPEN TO BELOW
SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/4 U= i I-o%%
LEVEL 1 PLAN 1/16"=1'-o%
POOL -
LEVEL 2 PLAN 1 / 1 C - 1'-0"
POOL SUBWAY
BELOW lamw TO LODGE
In"N
NM r
loom
MED.
NN
N�
N
_ r
�- ww_
MM��N���•MN�••�M
STHETI
U
SPA WAITINGP i
LADIES
LOUNGE
CON IERGE
LADIES
MEN.
MA
S GE
LOCKERS]
G ENS
LOUNGE LOCKERS
LOUNGE
O S
MAKE-UP
TOILETS
SHAVING
TOW
S
AU
A
OW
SAU
A
STEAM
AM
BATH
ERB
THALA
HYDRO-
I HER,
THER,
E S
THERAPY
Z-HYDRO-
T OL
THERAPY
MOT
OL
WATERFALL--' WATERFALL
LEVEL 3 PLAN 1 / 16"=1'-0"
LEVEL 4 PLAN 1 / 16° m 1'-0"
apparent mass of the buildings. The new wing of suites are
located beyond the existing knoll away from the highway.
The new buildings will be of concrete and heavy timber construc-
tion. Wood and stucco are the predominant finish materials for
the proposed renovation.
The existing single-family residence, which is to the west of the
Lodge and which is out of character with the other facilities,
will be demolished.
The FAR square footage of the project has been limited to
approximately 59,000 square feet, or an FAR of .37:1 for the
160,000 square foot parcel. This compares with buildout on
adjacent single-family lots of .2 to .4:1 FAR.
(b) Site Design.
Considering the quality and character of the proposed develop-
ment 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 for 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.
The area to the east of the Lodge presently includes a gravel
parking lot of approximately 16,000 square feet extending along-
side the south wing of lodge rooms.
0U:
The provision of underground parking for approximately 43 cars
has permitted a reduction in surface parking to 16 cars; coverage
is reduced to approximately 11,000 square feet with a resultant
increase in landscaped area. Site coverage of the buildings is
60,000 square feet. Any new utility installations will be
underground.
Open space to be provided in compliance with the regulation will
be in excess of the requirement of 35% of the site, or 56,000
square feet. Walls proposed along the public way will be limited
in height to three and a half feet or less as required to assure
compliance.
As a result of the recently announced program to build bike and
pedestrian paths on both sides of Highway 82, the applicant will
provide benches at both the east and west end of the property to
provide rest stops for those using the path. While these are not
located precisely on the site plan, they will either be installed
within the right of way or on the property as determined by the
final location of the trail and the relationship to existing
walls along the property line.
The applicant will
contribute an
additional $5,000
toward the
construction of the
south path.
A contribution of
$4,000 was
previously made by the prior owner.
49
-_ - •� •,` it �'- ' - ' "7 r ... ,, rr �' •- - - - - _ /�--- ---1 ` r
POSED FOR-,
I or
-- •� �, �`. � ,_- _ 1", � - ram. .ram
lob
w
DESIGNATED TRAILS IN THE AREA OF THE SITE PREPARED FOR
CRESTAHAUS LODGE EXPANSION 20ARS ASSOCIATES GALENA A ST ASPEN, CO 5
PREPARED BY
DMMM & weLLs
0 50100 200 400 608 e hyman avenue
aspen. colorado81611
The applicant will also contribute $2,000 towar3 the construction
of a bus shelter in the area of the project or at an alternate
location at the preference of the City and RFTA.
A temporary snow storage area to the east of the entry has been
identified on the Site Plan; in the event snow storage
requirements occasionally exceed the capacity of the area, snow
will be removed from the site by truck.
Rather than provide bike racks on the exterior of the project, an
indoor bike storage area at the entry level of the lodge has been
identified.
(c) Parkinq and Traffic Circulation.
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.
TDA Colorado has examined the parking program proposed for the
project. Their report is included in Appendix B.
There are a total of 59 bedrooms in the proposal. Therefore
parking of 1 car per bedroom, or 59 cars, is required as there is
no mechanism for consideration of a lower number. This is
unfortunate because experience indicates that parking demand is
51
no more than .7 cars per lodge bedroom, particularly for a
facility with a strong on -demand shuttle system. No parking is
presently anticipated for employees, although additional surface
spaces can be added back into the plan if required.
To accommodate this requirement, surface parking is reduced from
33 to 16 spaces and structured parking has been increased to 43
cars. To reduce air quality impacts and improve safety, the
entry driveways will be paved.
As a result of the reduction of surface parking, the landscaped
buffer along the highway is increased so that additional
screening can be accomplished in this area. The most effective
screening device, however, is the construction of underground
spaces for 75% of the required spaces.
Trash storage is provided just outside the parking structure
where it can be screened most effectively by high walls.
(d) Visual Impact.
Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the
proposed development or any addition thereto, to prevent
infringement on designated scenic viewplanes.
The project is not located in the vicinity of any of the City's
designated scenic viewplanes. However, new construction will
minimize visual impact in the following ways:
1. The new buildings have been grouped around the perimeter of
the site, thereby framing an open space area in the central
portion of the site which is kept open to view from the
highway and which provides a visual focus.
2. Setback requirements are complied with in all cases except
for the original lodge which had a non -conforming front yard
for many years.
3. The height of the buildings have been limited to within the
25 foot limit in all cases and most are 1- and 2-stories
maximum. Along the south property line the majority of
suites have been limited to 1 story.
4. Flat roofs are utilized for almost all of the new structures
to further limit the perceived height of the structures.
5. Small scale massing elements are joined together with exter-
ior walkways, creating more of a feeling of a village,
rather than one single building.
53
3. Resource Conservation Techniques.
(a) Energy Conservation.
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.
The applicant is committed to energy -efficient building design
and construction standards beyond those required by the Building
Code. Performance criteria have been specified for the energy -
saving measures to be utilized in the project as follows:
(1) Insulation:
Thermal resistance values of the new buildings will exceed
criteria mandated by the Energy Code Amendment to the Uniform
Building Code. Exterior surfaces of all heated spaces will
conform to the following minimum specifications for composite
cross -sections:
Walls (above grade) R-27
Walls (below grade) R-15
Roof R-40
Slab -on -grade R-15 to 2 ft. depth below grade
Floors
(over unheated spaces) R-27
(alternatively crawl space walls may be insulated with R-11
to footing)
54
(2) Glazing and Passive Solar Design:
A significant number of the new lodge units have been oriented on
the site in a manner to maximize use of the solar access
available at each site.
(a) Glazing (non -south facing:)
All glazing which is greater than 15 degrees from true South will
have a maximum U-value of 0.3 Btu/hr/sgft/F. The total area of
non -south facing glazing will not exceed 12.5% of the heated
floor area of the new buildings.
(b) Glazing (south facing):
South -facing glazing will be utilized for passive solar gain.
The total south facing glazing (within 15 degrees of True South)
will be limited to 25% of the heated floor area of the new
buildings. South -facing glazing in excess of 10% of the
habitable floor area will have a U-value no greater than 0.3
Btu/hr/sgft/F.
(c) If metal window frames are used in the
new structures, frames with thermal breaks will be specified.
(3) Infiltration:
All penetrations of exterior and interior walls, roof and floor
will be sealed with expanding foam prior to installation of
insulation and interior wall coverings. All door and window
55
openings will be sealed, insulated and weather-stripped.
Electrical outlets will be sealed and insulated. Air -lock
entryways will be provided at all major entries to both the new
and existing structures.
Upon completion of each of these entryways, a blower door
analysis will demonstrate an equivalent air leakage area (ELA) of
no greater than 2 square inches per 100 square feet of exterior
building surface.
(4) Performance Standard:
In lieu of the above prescriptive standards for insulation and
glazing, an overall thermal performance criterion may be complied
with. The thermal performance criterion is a design heat loss no
greater than 15 Btu/hr/sgft of heated floor space when calculated
for a design temperature of -10F.
(5) Mechanical:
All space heating and domestic water heating equipment will be
rated with AFUE efficiencies of 90% or greater. All heating
distribution ductwork and piping in unheated spaces will be
insulated to a minimum of:
R-8 Duct insulation;
R-3.7 Pipe insulation;
R-6 Insulation on recirculation hot water pipes
56
Programmable set -back thermostats will be used for each heating
zone. Outdoor swimming pools and hot tubs will be provided with
insulated covers.
(b) Water and Wastewater.
Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use
water -conserving plumbing fixtures and/or wastewater reuse
systems in its design.
Water conservation will be achieved by utilizing water -efficient
shower heads, faucet aerators and flush toilets in the new
structures. Maximum flow criteria for water using appliances in
these facilities are as follows:
Shower heads 2.5 Gpm
Faucet aerators 2.5 Gpm
Toilets 2.5 Gallons per flush
In addition, native landscape materials will be utilized through-
out the project, except for limited areas of intensive plantings
at the entry and adjacent to the buildings, pools and walks.
These areas will be watered with a programmed drip irrigation
system where such a system will conserve water.
(c) Air.
Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's
air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or clean-
er 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
measures are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any
special emission control devices are used.
57
The applicant will take steps to limit air quality impacts
resulting from the expansion to below that permitted under City
regulations as well as below that presently experienced at the
site.
Parking for approximately 33 cars is presently provided at the
Crestahaus in a large gravel surface lot. Roughly one-third of
the surface parking is eliminated under the proposal and the
reorganized entry drive will be paved, thereby reducing the
airborn dust currently created by vehicles entering and leaving
the parking area. The entry to the parking structure will also
be paved. Courtesy vans will be available on demand for the
guest's benefit.
The applicant will utilize natural gas -fired boilers as the
heating source in all of the'new buildings. Natural gas is a
cleaner, more efficient fuel than electricity, typically
generated by coal-fired plants in western states.
Current City regulations permit 2 gas -log fireplaces per building
and an unlimited number of gas appliances throughout the
project, but no woodburning fireplaces. There are presently 2
existing wood -burning fireplaces in the lodge, both of which are
located in the original lodge building. Both of these fireplaces
58
will be retrofitted with gas logs so that there will be no wood -
burning fireplaces in the proposed project. -To additional
gas -log fireplaces or appliances are presently anticipated.
4. Amenities Provided For Guests.
(a) Common Meetinq Areas.
Availability of or Improvements to On -Site Common Meeting Areas
shall be considered, such as lobbies and conference areas, in
relation to the size of the proposed lodging development or any
addition thereto.
Presently, guests arriving at the lodge check into the lodge in a
narrow hallway immediately inside the entrance door. In the
revised plan, the entrance lobby has been shifted to the south of
the present lobby to a location more central to the plan for the
convenience of guests. The existing ground level common areas
will gain increased privacy as a result of the relocation of the
lobby; these areas will be used at various times of the day
during the week-long programs for seminars and other
presentations.
Additional meeting space has been provided through the removal of
three entry level rooms in the original lodge building and the
enclosure of the area between the two existing buildings. The
resultant space will include a small movie theatre which will be
59
used to show films relevant to the health programs offered at the
lodge as well as for films for entertainment.
(b) Dininq Facilities.
Availability of or Improvements to On -Site Dining Facilities
shall be considered, including any restaurants, bars and banquet
facilities, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
development or any addition thereto.
Currently the larger of the two common rooms near the lobby func-
tions as a breakfast room for guests of the Crestahaus. It is
serviced from a kitchen immediately adjacent to the reception
desk. Lunch and dinner are presently not served at the lodge,
although wine and cheese service is provided in the evenings.
All of the guests typically drive into town for lunch and dinner,
as well as for entertainment, as there is no bar or lounge in the
lodge; no shuttle service is provided.
Upon completion of the renovation, guests of the facility who
choose to participate in the nutritional program will be served
all of their meals on -site. Meals will be very specialized and
designed in response to the exercise program prescribed for the
individual guest.
The present dining room of approximately 700 square feet will be
used exclusively for food service under the proposal. The
.N
existing kitchen will be expanded by approximately 200 square
feet.
(c) Accessory Recreational Facilities.
Availability of or Improvements to On -Site Accessory Recreational
facilities 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.
Presently recreational facilities at the Crestahaus are limited
to a 400 square foot exercise room, sauna, outdoor pool and
jacuzzi.
Approximately 25,000 square feet of private health club
facilities for guests of the lodge will be added under the
proposal. These facilities include aerobics rooms, weight
training, squash and handball, a new indoor pool as well as a new
outdoor lap pool and two outdoor tennis courts (for daytime use
only)-.
In addition, bikes, cross-country skis and other outdoor
recreational equipment will be available for the use of lodge
guests.
61
5. Provision of Affordable Housing.
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.
The employee generation of the project has been examined in terms
of three components -- lodge operations, food and beverage and
the health club staff.
Lodge operations includes the functions of housekeeping, reserva-
tions, front desk, parking attendants, maintenance, van drivers
and administration.
Food and beverage includes the waitpersons and kitchen staff
associated with the food preparation and service.
The health club staff includes fitness instructors, masseurs,
therapy personnel and part-time medical staff.
Under the 1989 Affordable Housing Guidelines, the employee
generation range established for projects in the Lodge zones is
0.2 to 2.0 employees/room, based on review by the Housing
Authority.
DIK
By establishing such a wide range for employee generation, the
Housing Authority apparently anticipated that
applicants
would
investigate
other projects to establish a more
firm factor
to be
applied to
a specific proposal. It is safe to
say, however,
that
this range
was intended to account for the full
range of
uses
that could
be expected on a Lodge site and was
not intended
to be
applied to
only the lodge operation portion of
a proposal.
As further evidence of this fact, the generation factor that was
previously utilized for the Crestahaus expansion program was .22
employees/room. At the upper end of the scale, the factor agreed
upon for the Ritz -Carlton lodge operation proposal was .36
employees/room.
Based on these two examples, it would seem reasonable to utilize
a generation factor of .3 employees/room for Lodge Operations for
this application. Existing rooms are proposed to be credited at
their original factor of .22 employees/room. Note that the 3-
bedroom suite which is the subject of a GMQS Exemption Request
for a Change is Use (Chapter III) is nonetheless included in
these calculations as if a new unit.
63
New lodge bedrooms (29 U)
New 1-BR suite bedrooms (9 U)
New 2-BR suite bedrooms (9 U)
New 3-BR suite bedrooms (1 U)*
Living rooms (@ 25% of 19)
Total Rooms
Employees/room
Employee generation
Existing lodge rooms
Employees/room
Employee credit
New FTE employees, Lodge Operation:
29
9
18
3
4.75
63.75
.30
19.13
29
.22
6.38
12.75
* Exemption from GMQS for Change in Use requested for this unit.
For Food and Beverage service, although only a minor increase is
proposed in the amount of square footage over that existing,
nonetheless it is clear that the level of service is increasing
by virtue of the addition of lunch and dinner service.
Utilizing the upper end of the range adopted in the 1989
Guidelines for the Commercial Core, where most restaurants are
expected to cccur, and crediting for the existing operation at
20% of the same factor results in a net generation of 4.47
employees:
Proposed Food & Beverage
Dining square feet:
Kitchen square feet:
Employees @ 5.25/1,000:
675
1,033 square feet
5.42
64
Existing Food & Beverage
Dining square feet:
Kitchen square feet:
Employees @ 1.05/1,000:
Net New FTE employees,
Food & Beverage
675
228
903 square feet
.95
4.47
In order to establish employee generation for the health club,
Megan Reilly, Athletic Director of the Grand Champion's Club was
interviewed.
Ms. Reilly provided the information in the following three charts
regarding annual employee hours and annual guest visits at the
Grand Champions health facilities.
For purposes of this comparison only, occupancy of the Crestahaus
has been assumed to be 100% during November, December, January,
February and March, 95% during June, July and August and 58%
during April, May, September and October. These percentages are
very conservative (e.g. optimistic) but they correlate with
guests visits at Grand Champions.
Peak guest occupancy is assumed to be 92, based on an average of
1.5 guests in each of the lodge's bedrooms and 3.0 guests in each
of the 2 guest dorm rooms. Seventy-five percent, or 69, are
65
HEALTH CLUB - Aerobic Equipment and Weights
Employee Hours
Off -Peak (April, May, September, October)
1 Athletic Director 40 hrs/wk x 16 weeks* = 640 hours
1 Fitness Instructor 35 hrs/wk x 16 weeks* = 560 hours
Subtotal: 1,200 hours
Winter Peak (November, December, January, February, March)
1 Athletic Director 40 hrs/wk x 21 weeks = 840 hours
1 Fitness Instructor 35 hrs/wk x 21 weeks = 735 hours
4 to 6 Part-time Fitness Instructors
32 hrs/week x 21 weeks = 672 hours
Subtotal: = 2,247 hours
Summer Peak (June, July, Auqust)
1 Athletic Director 40 hrs/wk x 13 weeks
1 Fitness Instructor 35 hrs/wk x 13 weeks
4 to 6 Part-time Fitness Instructors
48 hrs/wk x 13 weeks
Subtotal:
Total Annual Hours:
* Adjusted for vacation time.
520 hours
455 hours
= 624 hours
1-,777 hours
5,046 hours
HEALTH CLUB
Guest Visits
Daily Visits
Off
-Peak
Winter Peak
Summer Peak
Time:
(Apr, May,
Sept, Oct)
(Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar)
(Jun, Jul, Aug)
7 AM - 10 AM
15
- 20
20 - 30
20 - 30
LOAM-12Noon
2-
3
6-10
10 15
12 PM - 2 PM
5
- 6
10 - 15
10 = 15
FMZ •11F1
v
2 - 3
15 - 20
39 - 52
(ave of 46/day)
Total Annual Visits:
6 - 10
20 - 30
62 - 95
(ave of 79/day)
Off -Peak 46 guests/day x 7 days x 16 weeks
Sumer Peak: 75 guests/day x 7 days x 13 weeks
Winter Peak: 79 guests/day x 7 days x 21 weeks
Total Visits:
67
5 - 10
Merkel
60-90
(ave of 75/day)
= 5,152
6,825
11,613
23,590 guests
HEALTH CLUB - MASSAGE THERAPY & AEROBICS INSTRUCTION
Annual Hours
Massage Therapy
Aerobics Instruction
January
110
117
February
100
104
March
110
116
April
100
100
May
35
107
June
90
111
July
90
114
August
90
116
September
35
103
October
35
105
November
65
103
December
90
108
950 Hours
1,304 Hours
68
assumed to be active participants in the health program who will
visit the health facilities each day.
Therefore total annual visits at the Crestahaus can be estimated
as follows:
Off -Peak: 58% x 69/day x 7 days x 16 weeks
Summer Peak: 95% x 69 day x 7 days x 13 weeks
Winter Peak: 100% x 69 day x 7 days x 21 weeks
Total Visits:
4,482
5,965
10,143
20,590
Employee hours required to provide aerobic equipment and weight
training based on Grand Champions experience of 4.67 visits per
employee hour is:
20,590 visits x 4.67 visits/employee hour = 4,409 employee hours
Aerobics class instruction is assumed to be in the same propor-
tion as experienced at Grand Champions:
1,304 hrs aerobics/5,046 hours equipment = 25.84%
25.84% x 4,409 hrs = 1,139 employee hours
CS']
Massage is assumed to be in the same proportion as experienced at
Grand Champions:
950 hrs aerobics/5,046 hrs equipment
18.83% x 4,409 hrs
Therapy is assumed to equal massage:
Medical Staff time is assumed to be:
1 nurse at full-time:
1 doctor at 25% time (2,080 x 25%):
Subtotal:
Total employee hours for the Health Club:
Equipment training: 4,409
Aerobics classes: 1,139
Massage: 830
Therapy: 830
Medical Staff: 2,600
TOTAL 9,808
= 18.83%
830 employee hours
830 employee hours
2,080 employee hours
520 employee hours
2,600 employee hours
New FTE employees Health Club: 4.72 employees
70
Total net full-time equivalent employee generation is therefore
21.94 employees:
Lodge Operation: 12.75
Food & Beverage: 4.47
Health Club: 4.72
TOTAL 21.94
On -site affordable housing to be provided includes a 320 square
foot manager's room housing 1 employee and 5,400 square feet of
net livable dorm space adjacent to the health club, housing 18
employees, for a total of 19 to be housed under low-income
guidelines.
Deed restrictions for affordable housing were previously placed
on 625 square feet of dorm space above the existing lobby housing
3 employees and a manager's unit of 270 square feet adjacent to
registration (See Appendix D, Exhibit 5).
Therefore, the net increase to be housed on -site is:
19-4 = 15 employees
Based on the calculations contained in this section, the
applicant is proposing to provide on -site housing for 68.4% of
the additional employees generated by the project.
71
The applicant is prepared to analyze in more detail the possibi-
lity of increasing the affordable housing square footage to be
provided on -site if the P&Z and City Council believe that such
study is merited. Parking for the employees will be discussed at
special review as provided in Chapter III.
6. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Existing Units.
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.
It is the applicant's intention to remodel the existing lodge
completely, including the exterior of the facility as well as the
interiors of the public spaces and all of the rooms, as
illustrated on the architectural drawings.
Under the proposal, 14 of the 29 existing lodge rooms will be
totally remodeled in the style of the renovation. These include
Rooms 11, 12, 14 through 18, 21, 22 and 24 through 28, as
illustrated on the Gibson & Reno plans in Appendix D.
The orientation of four of the rooms (Rooms 19, 20, 29 and 30)
which was subsequently changed following approval will be
reoriented back as shown on the Gibson -Reno plans in order to
facilitate the four -room addition proposed to the south. The
bathrooms for these rooms will be relocated and the rooms will be
remodeled as discussed below.
72
Rooms 1, 2 and 3 will be converted to other uses; these rooms
will be replaced with totally new rooms and suites in the style
of the design.
Rooms 4, 5 and 6 will be expanded and converted to a 3-bedroom
suite. Room 8 will be expanded to a 2-bedroom suite. Rooms 9
and 10 will be combined into 1 room.
Rooms 13 and 23 will be converted to four rooms by an expansion
to the west; new bathrooms will be added for these rooms.
To summarize then, 14 of the existing rooms will remain in their
original configuration but will be extensively remodeled, the
layout of 4 rooms will be significantly changed prior to
remodeling, 6 will be expanded and remodeled as 4 new rooms and 2
new suites, 2 will be converted to 1 room, 3 will be converted to
other uses and 4 will be rebuilt in a new location adjacent to
the existing lodge.
The following conceptual program identifies the proposed
improvements to be made to the lodge:
1. Remove existing 3-bedroom single family unit adjacent to the
east property line.
73
2. Reorganize and expand the existing lodge rooms as proposed
and renovate to the upgraded standards as depicted on the
drawings and in the narrative.
3. Construct the new rooms and suites, including four rooms,
nine 1-bedroom suites and eight 2-bedroom suites.
4. Construct accessory health facilities and structured parking
for 43 cars.
5. Construct 5,400 square feet of employee housing adjacent to
the health facilities.
6. Install landscaping improvements at the site of the existing
and proposed facilities, including the walkways and trails
as illustrated on the drawings.
The rebuilt units and non -unit space will comply with all
relevant provisions of the Municipal Code and will be suitable
for occupancy prior to or at the same time as the new units for
which the allotment is being requested.
Because the applicant will be rehabilitating or reconstructing
all of the existing units and non -unit space in the existing
facility, the proposal should be awarded 15 points under this
section.
74
7. Bonus Points.
When it is determined that a proposed development has not only
incorporated and met the substantive criteria of Sections
8-106(G)(1) through (6) but has also exceeded the provisions 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.
75
III. OTHER REN-iEw REQL-IRE�IE\TS
A. Special Review of Requested FAR Square Footage
(Art 7, Div 4).
The purpose of Special Review in the LP zone is to ensure site
specific review of one of the dimensional requirements of the
zone -- the FAR floor area to be allowed on the site on which
development approval is sought.
Special review for 59,000 square feet of FAR floor area is
requested for the 160,000 square foot site, an FAR of .37:1.
Review Standards for Special Review
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open
space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development
are designed in a manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone
District.
These issues have been addressed in Chapter II, GMQS
procedures.
76
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development
will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will
mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking
in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane.
Traffic and parking have been addressed in Chapter II, GMQS
procedures. No shading should result on adjacent properties
as a result of the proposal, with the possible exception of
early in the morning or late in the evening. There are no
designated viewplanes affecting the site.
B. Special Review of Parking for Affordable Housing
(Art 7, Div 4).
No additional parking is presently proposed on -site for the 19
employees to be housed. With the strong van program which is
proposed, it is anticipated that parking demand for guests will
not exceed .7 spaces per bedroom or 42 spaces. This would free
up 17 spaces for use by employees (although it is not assumed
that 17 of the 19 employees will have cars. In the alternative,
additional surface spaces will have to be provided adjacent to
the existing lodge.
OA
Review Standards for Special Review
1. In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Commercial
Lodge (CL) or Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone
districts, the applicant shall make a one-time only payment -
in -lieu of parking to the City.
The project is not within any of these zone districts.
2. In all other zone districts, the applicant shall demonstrate
that the parking needs of the residents, guests and
employees of the project have been met, taking into account
potential uses of the parcel, its proximity to mass transit
routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such
as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees.
Additional parking for employees is unnecessary based on
past analyses of programs with a strong shuttle service.
Bus service and trails are immediately adjacent.
C. GMQS Exemption Request for Change in Use (§8-104B).
Development which may be exempted from GMQS procedures includes
any change in use of an existing structure between the
residential, commercial/office and tourist accommodations
categories for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued
78
for at least two (2) years, provided that it can be demonstrate3
that the change in use will have minimal impact upon the City.
A determination of minimal impact shall require a demonstration
that:
1. A minimal number of additional employees will be generated
by the change in use and that employee housing will be
provided for the additional employees generated:
The 3-bedroom suite has been included in employee generation
calculations as if a new unit.
2. A minimal amount of additional parking spaces will be
demanded by the change in use and that parking will be
provided;
The 3-bedroom suite has also been included in parking demand
calculations.
3. There will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood from
the change in use;
The visual impact will be less than that resulting from the
existing single family residence.
79
4. Minimal demand will be placed on the City's public facili-
ties from the change in use.
Chapter II, GMQS procedures, has addressed the impact of the
proposal on public facilities.
80
IV. REQUEST FOR REZO\I\G FROM R-15 (PUD) TO LP
FOR A PORTION OF THE SITE
A. General Application Requirements (§6-202)
The following information is contained in Appendix A:
1. Completed application form is attached as Exhibit 1.
2. Applicants' letters of consent are attached as Exhibit
2 and 3.
3. The address and legal description are included in
Exhibit 4 and 5.
4. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 5.
5. A vicinity map of the subject parcel illustrating
current and requested zoning is attached as Exhibit 6.
6. Compliance with relevant review standards is addressed
below.
In 1988, the applicant acquired the Crestahaus Lodge, an existing
29 lodge unit facility. The applicant has recently purchased the
undeveloped parcel adjacent and to the west of the existing
lodge. Approximately 77,660 square feet of the site is currently
zoned LP - Lodge Preservation and the balance (approximately
82,771 square feet) is zoned R-15 (PUD).
The applicant proposes to rezone the balance of the subject
parcel presently zoned R-15(PUD) to LP - Lodge Preservation. As
81
mentioned previously, the applicant will agree to limit the FAR
floor area which can ever be constructed on the parcel to that
allowed under the two current zone designations.
The allowable FAR square footage for both parcels under current
zoning has been calculated as up to 95,772 square feet,
determined in the following manner:
The square footages of the two zone designations is:
LP parcel 77,660
R-15 (PUD) parcel
TOTAL SITE:
82,771
160,431 sq.ft.
The R-15 (PUD) zoned parcel is approximately 82,771 square feet.
The land used to determine allowable density must exclude land
under water and must also be reduced for slope considerations
under the provisions of Section 7-903(B)(2)(b), as follows:
Site
% Available
Site Square Footage
Slope
Square Footage
for Density
Available for Density
0-20%
57,635
100%
57,635
21-30%
12,712
50%
6,356
31-40%
4
25%
1,126
Over 40%
6,520
0%
0
Subtotal 65,117
Land Under Water 1,400 0% 0
Total: 82,771 sq.ft. 65,117 sq.ft.
82
Under R-15 zoning, up to 4 detached dwelling units (single-
family) or 6 duplex dwelling units would therefore be permitted
on that portion of the site:
For detached units: 65,117-15,000 sq.ft. per DU = 4 units
For duplex units: 65,117-10,000 sq.ft. per DU = 6 units
In order to determine the allowable FAR square footage for the
R-15 parcel it is first necessary to determine the average lot
size:
Average lot size, SF units: 61,894-4 = 15,474 sq.ft.
Average lot size, Duplex units: 61,894-6 = 10,315 sq.ft.
Using these average lot sizes, it is then possible to determine
the allowable FAR square feet for the R-15 parcel:
Single -Family alternative:
4,500 + (6 x 4.74 = 28.44) = 4,528 sq.ft./DU x 4 EU's = 18,112 square feet
Duplex alternative:
4,500 + (7 x 13.16 = 92.12) = 4,592 sq.ft./Duplex x 3 = 13,776 square feet
The LP portion of the site includes 77,660 square feet of land.
83
Far permitted in LP is determined by Special Review, up to a
maximum allowed FAR of 1:1. Maximum FAR square footage allowed
for the LP portion of the property is therefore approximately
77,660 square feet. Under current zoning, then, the maximum
allowable FAR square footage on the entire parcel is
approximately 95,772 square feet.
Standards for Review
1. Consistency with applicable provisions of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code.
The purpose of the Lodge Preservation zone district is to pre-
serve existing lodges in their existing locations and to permit
the limited expansion of these lodges when such expansions are
compatible with neighboring properties and to provide an
incentive for upgrading of the existing lodge on -site or onto
adjacent properties.
The LP zone district was originally applied only to parcels on
which existing lodges were located. Therefore, so that
"upgrading of the existing lodge on adjacent property" can occur,
it is clear that the City anticipated that rezoning of adjacent
properties would occur when the LP zone district was established.
W
2. Consistency With the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Under the 1973 Land Use Plan, the site proposed for rezoning was
designated for single-family residential use, as was the site of
both the Crestahaus and Alpine Lodge in the area. The 1973 Plan
included a statement that it was to serve as a guide to the Aspen
Planning Commission in reviewing applications for building
permits until a new zoning code and a new zoning district .-map
were adopted; this was subsequently accomplished in 1975.
Under the 1975 rezoning, the area was rezoned from R-15 to R-15
(PUD); the Crestahaus and Alpine Lodge were non -conforming uses.
However, as the condition of the small lodges in Aspen
deteriorated, in part because of their non -conforming status, the
City eventually acknowledged their importance to the fabric of
the community and in 1980 created what was at first called the
L-3 zoned district to encourage their preservation. This zone
designation was later changed to LP.
3. Compatibility With Surrounding Zone Districts and Land Uses.
The parcel proposed for rezoning from R-15(PUD) to LP is bordered
by R-15 zoning to the south, R-15 and R-6 to the west, R-6 and
R-15A(PUD) zoning to the north and LP zoning for the existing
Aline Lodge and Crestahaus to the east.
85
Single family, duplex, and scattered multi -family development is
typical to the south, west and north of the property. The two
existing lodges are located immediately to the east of the site.
The requested rezoning will accommodate the applicant's intention
to request a limited expansion of the existing Crestahaus Lodge
while complying with the dimensional limitations of the two zone
districts presently applied to both parcels.
4. Effect on Traffic Generation and Road Safety.
Upon approval of the proposed development, the applicant will
relocate 43 parking spaces to a parking garage on the western
part of the site, onto the parcel proposed for rezoning. This
location is both closer to the commercial core and is safer as
well, as the present access provides limited visibility to on-
coming eastbound traffic.
Excellent RFTA bus service to the site will be supplemented with
additional on -demand van service for guests. The existing trail
system in the area is an important element of the proposal.
It is anticipated that road safety can be improved and traffic
generation increases can be minimized to a level that would com-
pare favorably to residential buildout under current zoning. It
is important to note that traffic impacts on adjacent property
can be significantly reduced from that which would result from
traditional residential lotting.
86
5. Demands on Public Facilities.
It is the applicant's intention to bear the cost of any upgrading
of utilities necessary to service the project. The ability of
various utility providers to provide service has been confirmed.
The impact of the expansion anticipated on other public
facilities has been demonstrated to be minimal.
6. Identification of Adverse Impacts on the Natural
Environment.
The site is the only undeveloped parcel in the immediate area and
is surrounded by various projects ranging from single-family to
multi -family densities on relatively small parcels. The two
adjacent lodges have been discussed previously. While no
investigation of hazards has been completed for the site, there
is no indication that significant hazards exist, given the
pattern of development use surrounding the site. The parcel does
not lie within an environmentally sensitive area, as defined
under the Code.
7. Compatibility With the Community Character in the City of
Aspen.
Upon creation of the L-3 (LP) zone district, recognition of the
importance of Aspen's small lodges to the character of this
87
community was acknowledged. As stated elsewhere, this proposal
is clearly consistent with the intent of the LP zone district.
8. Identification of Changed Conditions Affecting the Subject
Parcel and the Surrounding Neighborhood.
The most significant changed condition affecting the subject
parcel and the surrounding neighborhood was the adoption in 1980
of the L-3 zone district by the City and in its application to
the two lodges adjacent to the parcel. This previous action
acknowledged the appropriateness of limited expansion of existing
lodges onto adjacent properties.
9. Consistency With the Public Interest, and the Purpose and
Intent of the Land Use Code.
The applicant intends to work closely with the residents of the
area to address their concerns regarding the impacts on the
neighborhood resulting from the project. Although the rezoning
to LP theoretically would permit greater buildout on the parcel
to be rezoned, the applicant intends to restrict future develop-
ment so that the overall buildout does not exceed that permitted
under the two existing zone districts for the two parcels. Every
effort will be made to assure that the massing of the buildings
and their relationship to the surrounding property have less
impact than would more traditional lotting and residential
buildout as permitted under current zoning.
88
APPENDIX A
General Application Requirements
FXHTATT 1
UND USE A=C MON FUN
1) Project Name Crestahaus Lodge Expansion
2) Proj ect location 1301 E . Highway 82 and adjacent parcel
(see attached legal descriptions in Appendix 1)
(indicate street address, lot & block amber, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoni_mg LP & R - 15 (P U D) 4) lot Size 1 3.7 acres
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # H a r l e y B a l d w i n Associates . Inc .
205 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-1800
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells. A I C P
130 Midland Park Place, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-8080
7) 'Iype of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use Co SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
X Special Review Final SPA Final Iistoric Dev.
8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Iistoric Dev.
Stream Margin Final HID historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision historic Designation
Qondcminiu i zation X Tl xt/Map Amendment X C MQS Allotment
lot Split/Lot Line CmQS Exemption
Adjustment
ment
8) Description of besting Uses (number and type of existing ng structures;
approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedracros; any previous approvals granted to the
property) -
Existing lodge, including 29 lodge roars and accessory uses of 17,000 sq.ft.
Restricted housing of approximately 900 sq.ft.
9) Description of Development Application
Request for GMQS approval for new lodge suites and accessory health
facilities as described herein. Total FAR square footage limited to
approximately 59,000 sq.ft.
10) have you attached the following?
yes Response- to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
yes Respor>se to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
v e s Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
FXHTRTT 7
August 1, 1989
Mr. Thomas Baker, Acting Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tom:
This letter is to confirm that I own the Crestahaus Lodge and
presently have under contract for purchase the adjacent
undeveloped parcel described in Exhibit 4, of Appendix A. We
have requested that the attached application be prepared on our
behalf.
Joe Wells will be our representative in Aspen during the City's
review of this submission.
2Sincerel ,
ley Ba dwin
President
Harley Baldwin Associates, Inc.
HB/b
The Brand Building 205 S. Galena Street Aspen Colorado 81611 303 925 2209
PVWTRTT 7
"!R. HARLEY BALDW I N °< BALL' 11 N ASSCC I TES. INC.9
-205 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 91611
RE: CRESTAHAUS GMOS APPLICATION
DEAF HARLEY ,
AS THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
CRESTAHAUS, !SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DE_CRIPTTr'NI WHICH UNDER
CONTF'ACT TO YOU. I HEREBY -CONSENT 1 O THE }= I L I .NG +F 7HE ui^:i,iS
APPLICATION BY MR. 30E wELLS ON YOUR BEHALF.
SINCERELY,
GU I DO MEYER
O'6S1 'STATE HIGHWAY S?
BASALT, COLORADO 51601
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX
PARCEL, B
EXHIBIT "A"
A TRACT SITUATE Ir4 R IVCRS IDE
AC'DITltilt, ASPEN, COLORADJ, 6EIN(; MORE
_FULLY [IEJCJ3CPP_AS F_0.1-1-011-'S:
ALL OF BLOCK 21 LYING EAST OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
_BEC.._A.T_ A POI.NT.._U �... !lE .ij0R..THI'll E5T...LINE
OF VICK AVENJE 17H THE EASTERLY CORNER
OF LOT R, BLOCK ?1, RIVERSIDE AODITIJN
_1 .BARS L QR TH 75 .30.'-- EAST 235.7 FEE!;...--,-
TH NORTH 10 09' iIEST 226.81 FT; TH NOR
TH 37 41' E 12U FT MORE OR LESS TO
_THE._SOUTI� n IGHT_�E ►'SAY LINE . OF COLD-.
RADO HIGII:VAY NO 62; AIJD ALL STREETS•
ALLEYS, ANC' PAkK'riAYS LYING EAST OF SAI
LINE_ AIIU BET fiEEN.,.COLURADO ILIGHvsAY
r�0 li? AIJU NICK AVENUE. SAID TRACT.
CUIITAINS 1.20 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
BOOK1g3�-PA'4E..2.7, .PITKI.N COUNTY_ ,
kECUI__\1DS.
SEE DEEDS IN BJOK 492 PAGE q05
AND PAGE 908 PITKIN CUUNTY RF-CURDS.
Christina M. Davis
Vice President
--
2
}
}E
r. •s-� ; a, _r7 _ -;; 1
it _ .X _,?_i_ � _
�}r
� _;a
3it
-
.r
fi i t:
'. \\ �\ __•C„.w ..+iG Acw��a Z.rn l' 2AW /JIYY• IIYM 1CV7 iYn /,/ _ 1
-
�
it---� •% \ / r'— -'1__ \ .tl'J..� - z
�•` \r � I rcft
.T •
OF
EXHIBIT S �., ..,. ..,.L.,�....�., ..,.�....
LawyersTtle
Insurance Crporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective date: 10/03/88 AT 8:00 A.M.
2. Policy or policies to be issued:
(a)ALTA Owner's Policy -Form B-1970
(Rev. 10-17-70 & 10-17-84) or 10/21/87
PROPOSED INSURED: HARLEY BALDWIN
(b)ALTA Loan Policy,
(REV. 10-17-70 & 10-17-84) or 10/21/87
PROPOSED INSURED:
(c)Alta Loan Construction Policy, 1975
(Rev. 10-17-84)
PROPOSED INSURED:
Case No. PCT-2669C2
Amount $
Premium $
Amount S
Premium S
Amount $
Premium $
Tax Cert. $ 5.00
3. Titleito the (1) FEE SIMPLE As to the Real Property (2)
Improvements estate or interest in the land described or referred to in
this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in:
LEONARD W. KOVAL and BARBARA W. KOVAL, As to the Real Property,
and CRESTAHAUS LODGE INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, As to the
Improvements
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG.1
601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid
ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring
303-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Authoriz officer or agent
� G
rm tpp Llth! In U.S.A.
L4awyers)Title
insurance Cip
oration
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
"A" parcel of Land being part of the Riverside Addition to Aspen,
Colorado. Said parcel is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point being a plastic cap on a No. 5 rebar stamped
L. S. 2376 whence corner 8 of the Riverside Placer U.S.M.S. No. 3905
A.M. being a brass cap dated 1954 bears North 85.08' West 554.05 feet;
thence North 15.41' West 92.08 feet;
thence North 14006159" West 122.02 feet;
thence North 13013132" East 40.54 feet;
thence North 78.22105" East 33.31 feet;
thence North 37034104" East 56.45 feet;
thence North 68024'15" East 27.55 feet;
thence South 50037' East 77.76 feet;
thence South 34.21' East 150.08 feet;
thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 760.00
feet (the chord of which bears South 24*03' East 93.00 feet);
thence South 77045150" West 235.32 to the point of beginning.
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule A -Section 1 PG.2
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-2669
A and B are attached.
L4awyersTtle
Insurance Crporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B-SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors
of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
Insured must be executed and duly filed for record to -wit:
Real Property:
1. Deed from : Leonard W. Koval and Barbara W. Koval
To : Harley Baldwin
Improvements:
2. Deed executed by the President, Vice President or other designee,
authorized by the Board of Directors,'
From : Crestahaus Lodge Inc., A Colorado Corporation
To : Harley Baldwin
3. Release by the Public Trustee of;
Deed of Trust from : Crestahaus Lodge, Inc. A Colorado Corporation
Leonard W. Koval and Barbara W. Koval
To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
For the use of : Central Bank of As_Den
To secure : $1,000,000.00
Dated : December 15, 1987
Recorded : December 22, 1987 in Book 553 at Page 765
Reception No. : 296037
NOTE: Assignment of Rents and Leases given in connection with the
above Deed of Trust by instrument recorded in Book 553 at
Page 781.
4. Certificate of Nonforeign Status of Individual Transferor signed
by Leonard W. Koval and Barbara W. Koval.
5. Certificate of Nonforeign Status of Corporate Transferor signed
by an Officer of Crestahaus Lodge Inc.
6. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer
Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been
paid or exempted.
7. Good and Sufficient Indemnification Agreement delivered to and
approved by Pitkin County Title, Inc., and Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation.
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 1 PG.1
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-2669
A and B are attached.
,,m 100 Litho in U_S.A.
aw ers it
le
y
insurance o oration
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B-SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public
records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area,
encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection
of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public
records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material
heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by
the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if
any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching
subseg42ent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the
proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest
or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or
lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special
taxing district.
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the United States
Patents recorded October 21, 1955 in Book 180 at Page 455 and
recorded in June 17, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 246 as follows:
Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his
ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect
the premises hereby granted; and right of way for ditches or canals
constructed by the authority of the United States.
8. Terms, conditions, restrictions, reservations and obligations as
set forth in occupancy and Rental Deed Restrictions and Agreement
recorded December 16, 1987 in Book 553 at Page 206.
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 PG.1
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-2669
A and B are attached.
L4aiwyers)Tide
jnsurance Corporation
• NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE B-SECTION 2
CONTINUED
Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted.
The Owner's/Mortgage Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the
following items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1.
(2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents
or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or
title to water.
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-2669
A and B are attached.
Lde
. Iniurance Corooration
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable
consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the
proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land
described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor: all subject to the provisions
of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or
policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this
Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue. whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the
fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is
effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if
the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and
Stipulations.
Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss
incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the
Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
1.auywrs 111k jnsu Gporalkm
President
Attest: ^
�_ w Secretary.
HH 1mr
1EXHIBIT "A "
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 1^ 4 9 0 C 2
t. Effective date: January 6 , 1969 At 8 : 00 A. M.
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:
A. ALTA Owner's Policy
Prqposed Insured:
D Be Determined
B. ALTA Loan Policy
Proposed Insured:
C.
Commitment Number:
Amount of Insurance
$ TBLt
s
S
Premium
TBD
3. The estate or interest in the land desenbed or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is at the effective date hereof
vested in:
131-lido Patsl Mever
4 The land referred to in this commitment is descnbed as follows:
ee Attached Exhibit "A"
Authon�te0 tersgnatwe
t652,75t.4 11/871
Page 2 STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Order NumbeI;, 4 a 1-1 2
SCHEDULE B - Section t
Requirements
Commitment Number:
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest
to be insured.
Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record,
to wit:
1. E,ridence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company,
furnished by the office of the Director of Finance, City of
Aspen, that the real estate transfer tax pursuant to City
Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), has been paid or that
conveyance is exempt from said tax.
Z. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in >`urchaser(s).
STEWART TITLE
1653125M 11 87) Page 3 GUARANTY COMPANY
SCHEDULE B — Section 2
Exceptions
Order Number:
Commitment Number:
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the
satisfaction of the Company:
1 . Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
�. Inv and all unpaid taxes and assessments and anv unredeemed
tax Sales.
7. The effect of i.n�-lusions in any general or specific water
^_onservancv, fire protection, soil conservation or other
ii.;trie7t or in'_Lusion in anv Glater service or street
impr ':•ement a,-e1.
8. ?.nv veiri or l,Dde of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold,
silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposit
-:laimed or known to exist on March 23, 1885, and the riciht of
the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore
therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect
the premises, as reserved by Patent recorded June 17, 1949 in
Book 175 at Page 246.
(`TOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms,
conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1987 Policy
Eorm. Copies of the 1987 form Policy Jacket, setting forth
said terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available
upon request.
Exceptions numbered
1654 125M 11187)
are hereby omitted.
Page 4
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
CONTINUATION SHEET
SCHEDULE 1,NC,. 4
Order Number: lh,} ar' = 2 Commitment Number:
Exhibit "a''
FAF'=EL 1:
z. tract _f land 1•rin,7 in the Riverside Additi^n, Aspen, Ccicradc,
being mere f'.111-T described as Lollcws.
All •-�f BL:ck 21 lying East of the f-Dil^wing described line:
BeginninrT at a point the Northwest line of Vick Avenue whence
the ra_ter17 Corner of Lot 8, Block 21, Riverside Addition, bears
[I_rt.t� 5'30* East �35., fAet; thence North 10°04' West 226.81
feet, tht-nce Ilorth 37041' East 120 feet, more or Less to the
Sok.ir,r, ri.jht of wav line of '=oloradc• High:.7av No. 82, and all
trAer_, alleys , andr-ark-:a�_�s lying East of said line and between
Hi--Thwa;tl 32 and Vick Avenue.
PAprEr B .
A tract -_)f land lc„=ated in the Fiver:ide Addition, including all
•Df Blocks 21, 22 and 23 including the East half of Fark Avenue
Erom .%Lck Avenue 325 feet North, and all streets, alleys and
r_arkways lying on a line North of Vick Avenue between Park
?venue and Coloradc Highway No. 82, said Tract being more fully
described as folloars:
Beginning at a point on the North line of Vick Avenue whence
Corner No. 5 of the Riverside Placer, U.S. Mineral Survey No.
7905, bears North 50013'17" W. 766.96 feet; thence N. 75130'
E. 242.22 feet to the South right of way line of Colorado
Hizhwav No. 82; thence along said South right of way line N.
24°C3' W. 16.h? feet; thence N. 06056' W. 48.7 feet; thence
starting on a bearing of N. 24053' W. around a curve to the
left whose radius is 357.00 feet a distance of 160.34 feet;
thence N. 50037' FI. 137.1 feet; thence around a curve to the
left whose radius is 1407.5 feet a distance of 225 feet more
-Dr less to the intersection with the East line of the railroad
right of way; thence Southwesterly along the railroad right of
wav 105 f?et more or less to the East line of Fark Avenue;
thence S. n4°16 E. 7':� feet more or less along the East line of
Fark Avenue to a point 325.00 feet North of Vick Avenue; thence
On°1,-' E. 325.n() feet, thence N. 89044' E. 293.3 feet to
the r.,, tnr cif beginning.
=AID PPCIPERTZ 1 !�THEPWL-SE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A tract of
land being all of Blocks 21, 22 and 23 of said Riverside
?onddition, bounded n the West by Park Avenue, bounded on the
mouth by dick Avenue, bounded on the North and Wes*_ by the
.zZee Continuation Page
Page
OOSS ISOM %/W
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
CONTINUATION SHEET
-ri,. 1
SCHEDULE
Order Number: 167,490r2
Commitment Number:
-enterline of the cld Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way and
bounded on the East and North by State Highwav No. 82.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Railroad right-of-wav through said
Block 22.
EXCEPTING a parcel of land being part of the Riverside Addition
to Aspen, Colorado. Said parcel is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point being a plastic cap on a No. 5 rebar stamped
L.S. 2376 whence corner ?'of the Piverside placer U.S.M.S. No.
,905 A M. bein-7 a brass cap dated 1954 bears N 85008' W, 554.05
feet; thence K 15041' W, 92.08 feet; thence N 14006'59" W, 122.02
feet:; thence N 13°13 37." E, 40.54 feet; thence N 78022'05" E,
33.71 feet; thence N 37*1d'04" E, 56.45 feet; thence N 68024'15"
E, 27.55 feet; thence S 50'37' E, ,-.76 feet; thence S 34021' E,
150.08 feet; thence 93.50 feet along a curve to the right having
a radius of 260.00 feet (the chord of which bears S 24003' E,
?3.00 feet); thence S 77045'50" W, 235.32 feet to the point of
beainninri.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Page
STEWA RT TITLE
0055(50M 9MI GUARANTY COMPANY
C.Xtl l b l l' O
_ F.�
ODG
"'.-R �- �/ ,\
CRESTAHAUS
LODGE
—. .....,� {\/ _ • ' � :. ! Qom-- _ ' !/' 1 r I : �.
Rill
• .r - : r �` _�.%-� / � ' �;fi -max r \,,\ i� 1
VICINITY MAP PREPARED FOR
;RESTAHAUS LODGE EXPANSION HARLEY BALDWIN ASSOCIATES
205 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO
i PREPARED BY
DOMMUS & WeLL.S
0 50100 200 400 608 e hyman avenue
APPENDIX B
Parking and Circulation Analysis
TDA Associates, Inc.
� DA July 31, 1989
�OLORADO
r INC.
Joe Wells, band Planner
130 Midland Park P1. F-2
Aspen, Co 81611
�nsportotlon
,nsultonts RE: Crestahaus Lodge Traffic Analysis
This report discusses the potential traffic impact associated
with proposed redevelopment of the existing Crestahaus Lodge.
The existing 29-unit lodge now functions as a typical commercial
lodging facility in Aspen, e.g. catering primarily to skiers
during the winter months and vacationers during summer months.
The redevelopment proposal would expand the present
accommodations to 48 units and add an on -site complement of
amenities to offer a fully -contained Spa/Health Club. The new
Crestahaus Spa would cater to year around guests seeking a
health -related vacation in a world -class mountain resort setting.
This report addresses anticipated traffic conditions upon
redevelopment relative to existing traffic conditions.
Existing Conditions
The existing lodge is located just inside the east corporate
limits of the City of Aspen along the south side of Cooper
Avenue. The two-lane road is also State Highway 82. This
highway connects I-70 in Glenwood Springs 42 miles northwest with
US 24 south of Leadville. SH 82 is closed over the winter months
several miles east of Crestahaus Lodge at the foot of
Independence Pass. For this reason traffic volumes on SH 82 at
Crestahaus are highest during summer months as motorists travel
over Independence Pass and between Aspen and the numerous
recreation opportunities offered in White River National Forest.
During winter months traffic passing Crestahaus is generated
primarily by motorists from private homes and accommodations just
east of Crestahaus Lodge.
The existing road, State Highway 82, is posted for 30 mph travel
west of the site and 35 mph east of the site. SH 82 climbs
quickly and curves to the right for eastbound motorists after
crossing over the Roaring Fork River bridge about 0.2 mile west
of the single Crestahaus entry drive. Although continuing to
climb, the grade of SH 82 flattens out somewhat at the Crestahaus
entrance drive. This drive is situated at the east end of the
property. Because of the horizontal curvature in SH 82,
1671)lanmwS1. I it Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets",
Dultier. Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Gur rv(+r. CO BC209
Csca> n?5-»07 1985,
u 71 1 ` . _ - -I , I L L 1 '1 V . '. V 'd V J 'J V -1 � V " :) _ L .. - _ . _
Joe Wells
July 31, 1989
Page 2
Crestahaus guests leaving the site have somewhat restricted
visibility (about 220 feet) for vehicles approaching from the
west. Field measurements, done in accordance with national
standards (1) indicate 220 feet of sight distance is available to
the left and virtually unlimited sight distance is available to
the right. Sight distance to the left (west) is limited by the
masonry retaining wall that lies within the 50 foot -wide State
Highway right-of-way. The wall varies from a height of 2 feet at
either end to a maximum of about seven feet in the center section
of ed
the 8afeet frombthe paintedof the scenteryofatherexistingetwo-lane) wall ls
ab The
about 1
road.
Besides vehicular traffic, SH 82 is a popular bicycle and hiking
route through all but the winter months. During a manned traffic
count on the afternoon of Saturday, July 22, 1989 between 4:00
and 5:0o pm, a total of 44 bikes traveled the road -- 28
westbound, 16 eastbound. Vehicular traffic during this period
was 278 westbound trips and 224 eastbound trips for a total of
502 vehicle trips. Tncluded in this total were 10 left turns out
of Crestahaus Lodge access drive and one right turn in. There
were no driveway turns to or from the east. Crestahaus Lodge was
fully occupied during the evening of July 22nd. one person was
observed arriving via an eastbound RFTA public transit bus. The
RFTA eastbound and westbound stops are just east of Crestahaus
Lodge. RFTA provides free shuttle connection to downtown Aspen
on half-hour frequencies on the Mountain valley route.
Previous traffic studies in this area indicate one car -motorcycle
injury accident occurred in 1979. The car involved was turning
left onto SH 82 and was struck broadside by a motorcycle
approaching from the left. Presumably, the limited sight
distance played a role in this occurrence. Per State Highway
Department guidelines (2), the minimum safe sight distance for
this left turn maneuver is 240 feet. This is based on vehicles
travelling at or below the 30 mph posted speed on wet pavements.
The field -measured sight distance available is 220 feet when
using the national standard of a 4.25 foot high vehicle
approaching from the left. A motorcycle approaching from the
left, since it would be lower than the typical car, would not be
visible as soon to a motorist turning left out of the Crestahaus
driveway. This, coupled with the speed of the motorcycle may
have contributed to this particular accident.
2. State Highway Access Code, 8/15/85, Tables 4.93 and 4.85
Joe Wells
July 31, 1989
Page 3
The proposed Crestahaus health spa would consist of 27 lodge
rooms, eight 2-bedroom suites, nine 1-bedroom suites and four 4-
person dormitory -style rooms. This compares with the existing 29
standard lodge rooms plus one 3-bedroom housing unit that exists.
As part of the 2.4 acre expansion proposed for development as a
health spa, a new parking deck is planned at the north end of the
development.
A two -level structure could accommodate 40 cars. Parking
structure access would be directly to SH 82 as topography and the
development plan preclude internal vehicular connection to the
existing upper access drive. This proposed access drive would
not have the sight distance limitations the existing driveway
has.
Health Club facilities would be used only by guests of
Crestahaus. These guests would stay for one or two -week periods,
typically. The majority of guests are expected to arrive via air
at Sardy Airport. Guests and their baggage will be transported
to and from the airport via a Crestahaus courtesy van. courtesy
van service will be available on request for guest travel within
or around Aspen. During their leisure time guests could use the
planned bikelane to walk or bike into downtown as an alternative
to driving. This program describes a circumstance of relatively
low anticipated private vehicle trip generation as compared to
conventional overnight lodging. we would expect guests who do
arrive via private or rental car would rarely use their car once
it has been parked in the proposed parking deck.
The eleven peak hour vehicle trips counted recently for 29
occupied rooms translates to a =ate of .38 vehicle trips per
occupied unit. Considering the nature of the proposed guest
activities provided on site and the inconvenience of remote
parking for most guests, we would expect the future trip
generation rate to be 1/3 to 1/2 that of the existing lodging
particularly if the courtesy van service is quick and reliable.
On this basis we estimate at full occupancy guest vehicle trip
generation rate would be 60% or .23 vehicle trips in the p.m.
peak hour. For a total of 48 units this would result in 13 peak
hour vehicle trips. The 40-space parking structure would account
for nine of these trips and the 16 surface spaces in the existing
courtyard would generate four vehicle trips. Assuming the new
van service adds another six vehicle trips (three in, three out)
during the peak hour, the existing driveway count would reduce by
Joe Wells
July 31, 1989
Page 4
one trip to ten peak hour trips. Moreover, the number of left
turns out could reduce to seven (3 vans, four cars) from the ten
counted recently.
Conclusion
Redevelopment of the existing crestahaus Lodge into a guest -
oriented health club/spa could result in a slightly higher
generation of peak hour site traffic. However, with future
guests parking primarily in a proposed parking structure accessed
separately from SH 82, the existing access drive would remain at
or slightly below current volumes. By paving the existing
shoulders and slightly reorienting SH 82 to the north as part of
the Town's upcoming bikelane safety project, safety will be
somewhat improved at this driveway intersection.
To gain an additional 50 feet or so of sight distance for left
turns out, the top portion of a 60-foot section of the existing
retaining wall could be set back a maximum of seven feet to
provide the necessary 30 mph sight line between driver and
approaching vehicle, see Figure 1 attached. These improvements
can be fully evaluated after the Town/State safety project is
completed this fall.
I trust this traffic impact assessment is sufficient for your
needs at this time. Please feel free to call me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
TDA COLORADO INC.
David D. Leahy, P.E.
Principal
9-
pm
Q
APPENDIX C
Storm Water Drainage Report
Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc.
■ REA, CASSENS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
July 31, 1989
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
c/o Mr. Joe Wells
608 E. Hyman
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Wells:
This letter is to confirm my conversations with the below listed utility companies and their
initial commitments to serve the Crestahaus Expansion project contingent on
compliance with individual rules and regulations, payment by the owner for all costs to
extend service lines, and payment by owner of all appropriate fees and charges:
Water
City of Aspen
Sewer
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Gas
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
Telephone
U.S. West Communications
T.V.
Canyon CableT.V.
Electricity
Holy Cross Electric Association
Each of the above companies requires review of the final site plan prior to entering into a
formal commitment to serve.
If further information is required, please advise.
AJZ/mbf
Enclosure
Sincerely yours,
Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc.
A.J. Zabbia, Jr., Manager
Western Slope Operations
Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 189 ■ 30616 Bryant Drive, Suite 200 ■ Evergreen, Colorado 80439 0 (303) 670-1406
WATER
The project area is currently served by an 8" main in State Highway 82 adjacent to the
property on the northerly boundary. The property is reinforced by a 14" DIP water
transmission main, also in Highway 82, and is a direct feed to the 1.0 M.G. Aspen Grove
Reservoir.
The expanded population represents an increase of 62 people at projected peak
occupancy of 113 and an additional demand on the water system of 6200 gallons per
day. The total daily demand would be 11,300 gallons per day for both current usage and
future demand. The 11,300 usage when calculated over a 12 hour primary usage day
represents a flow rate of 15.7 gallons per minute. Utilizing a factor of 6 to convert average
flow to peak hour flows, the peak usage would be 94.16 gallons per minute.
The water system has the excess capacity and with existing mains adjacent to the
property, the proposed expansion can be served with existing facilities. Domestic
water conservation will be achieved by specifying water saving shower heads and
toilets. Such water conservation techniques will reduce water consumption by between
20% and 30%.
SEWER
The total sewage flow anticipated from the project is expected to equal the in-house
water usage as developed in the section WATER preceding. The total sewage flow is
anticipated to be 11,300 gallons per day of which 5100 gpd is currently being generated
by existing units and 6200 gpd would be 'new sewage".
The project will be served by an existing 12" VCP sewer collection line in State Highway
82 adjacent to the property. Discussions with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
indicates that the existing sewage collection system, trunkline sewers, and treatment
facility have capacity to handle the additional 6200 gpd of sewage.
STORM DRAINAGE
An analysis of the 100 year historic and 100 year developed flows for the propose
expansion was performed using standard drainage procedures. Currently the historic
undeveloped runoff flows in a north westerly direction and enters a shallow ditch on the
southerly side of State Highway 82 and eventually enters the Roaring Fork River.
The proposed project consists of roofs, impervious areas and landscaped areas. The
developed runoff will be redirected to retain the difference between the 100 year historic
and 100 year developed flows on site by means of detention ponds or dry wells. This
volume has been calculated to be 2500 cubic feet of storage and will improve the
quality of runoff to the Roaring Fork River by decreasing sediment loading and its
transport.
Retaining on site the difference between the 100 year historic and the 100 year
developed runoff is currently the City of Aspen policy.
EXTRA SEWER POINTS
Discussions with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District indicates that the main outfall
sewer line to the sewer treatment plant has infiltration problems downstream to the
connection of the 12" sewer main in Highway 82. The district feels that rehabilitation of
approximately 400 feet of the outfall line by inserting a polyethylene liner inside the pipe
would greatly improve the total system. This upgrade would cost about $ 10,000 and the
District feels this upgrade would be a basis for awarding the applicant additional points
for providing facilities or improving the total system over and above that which is
necessary to serve the proposed project.
APPENDIX D
Prior Actions Affecting the Site
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING NONCONFORMING LODGES
Resolution No. 82-8
WHEREAS, as a result of zoning actions taken by the City of Aspen in
Ordinance 11, Series of 1975, there are presently approximately 28 lodges
which are classified as nonconforming uses in Aspen, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that based on the
data contained in the Planning Office's Draft Short Term Accommodations Report,
it is essential that actions be taken to support the existing mix of types and
locations of short term accommodations in Aspen, including the provision of
incentives for existing facilities to be preserved and upgraded, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the 1973
Aspen Land Use Plan designates the Shadow Mountain and East Aspen neighbor-
hoods, in which virtually all of these lodges are located, as "mixed residential",
a category whose intent is "to allow for a mix of residential uses interspersed
with limited amounts of professional office and visitor accommodation uses in
areas where these conditions presently exist. Only existing lodges should be
considered for expansion in order to provide additional guest rooms...", and
WHEREAS, the Commission did hold a work session at a regular meeting on
June 22, 1982 to consider a series of alternative actions designed to remove
the stigma of nonconformity from the lodges and to encourage their renovation
and did conclude that the alternative known as "zoning to use" be pursued
further by the Planning Office, and
WHEREAS, the Commission did hold a public hearing at a regular meeting on
July 6, 1982 to consider the proposed code changes designed to implement the
zoning to use alternative and did direct the Planning Office to prepare this
resolution reflecting the recommendations of the Commission.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the City of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby recommend that City Council
adopt the following amendments to the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 1
That Section 24-2.1 of the Code be amended for the purposes of creating an L-3
zone district, as follows:
(28) L-3 Lodge Preservation.
Section 2
That Section 24-3.2 of the Code be amended for the purposes of establishing
the intent and uses for the L-3 zone district, as follows:
Intent: To preserve existing lodges in their existing locations and to permit
the limited expansion of these lodges wherever appropriate on -site and/or onto
adjacent properties.
Permitted Uses: Lodge units, lodge units having pre-existing kitchens with
cooking facilities, boarding houses, dormitory; accessory use facilities
intended for guests only commonly found in association with tourist accomoda-
tions including uses such as an office, lounge, kitchen, dining room, laundry
and recreation facilities; deed restricted housing for employees of the lodge.
Conditional Uses: Restaurant included within a lodge operation serving guests
and others.
Section 3
That Section 24-3.4 of the Code be amended for the purposes of establishing
area and bulk requirements for the L-3 zone district, as follows:
Minimum Lot Area: See floor area ratio requirements.
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: No requirement.
Minimum Lot Width: No requirement.
Minimum Front Yard: 10.
Minimum Side Yard: 5.
Minimum Rear Yard: 10.
Maximum Height: 25.
Minimum Distance Between Principal and Accessory Building: 10.
Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: 35.
External Floor Area Ratio: Established by Special Review, not to exceed
1:1.
Internal Floor Area Ratio: Rental space 0.5:1 - 0.75:1, nonunit space
0.25:1, provided that 33-1/3 percent of all
rental space above the FAR of 0.5:1 must be
devoted to employee housing.
Section 4
That Section 24-3.5(a) of the Code be repealed and re-enacted for the purposes
of revising the special review criteria which are applied to the determination
of area and bulk requirements, as follows:
(a) Whenever it shall be indicated on the Area and Bulk Requirements
Chart that the application is subject.to Special Review (SR), the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall allow or deny the development after considering the
following criteria as they may apply to the particular application in question,
although the Commission need not make findings relative to each of these
criteria:
(1) The compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses
and zoning, including area and bulk requirements, on -site
characteristics and visual impacts such as viewplanes;
(2) Whether there will be provided sufficient off-street parking as
determined by (a) the intended use of the property, (b) the
walking distance to the downtwon area and, (c) the availability
of public transportation;
(3) The adequacy of access to the site as measured by the width,
grade, visibility and intersection safety of adjacent streets
and the entrance into the lot to be developed;
(4) The existent water pressure in the area and the ability to
supply domestic needs and provide fire protection, including
access to the water supply system for fire protection;
(5) The impact of the development considering the potential for
stream and air pollution and the availability of public or
private facilities to serve the development, including sewer,
drainage and other services;
(6) Whether the development otherwise complies with the zoning,
subdivision, building and other land use regulations of the
City of Aspen.
Section 5
That Section 24-3.7(k) of the Code be repealed and re-enacted for the purposes
of consistency in the limitation on maximum density in zone districts in which
a Special Review is required to determine the appropriate area and bulk require-
ments, as follows:
(k) Maximum residential density in zone districts. Whenever within the
RMF, 0, SCI, NC, C-1, L-1 and L-2 districts multi -family structures
are constructed, there shall be permitted no more than one bedroom
per one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area, nothing herein to
the contrary notwithstanding. This restriction shall not apply to
sites or areas upon which the Residential Bonus Overlay district has
been applied in accordance with Article X of this chapter.
Section 6
That Section 24-4.2(a) of the Code be repealed and re-enacted for the purposes
of establishing the characteristics of off-street parking spaces in the L-3
zone district, as follows:
(a) Each off-street parking space in all zone districts within the City
of Aspen shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one-half
(81,) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high.
Each parking space shall have a public unobstructed area for access
to a street or alley. Off-street parking must be paved with all-
weather surfacing or be covered with gravel and be maintained in a
useable condition at all times.
Section 7
That Section 24-4.5 of the Code be amended for the purposes of establishing
off-street parking requirements for the L-3 zone district, as follows:
Lodge Uses: 1/Bedroom
Residential Uses: Review
All Other Uses: Review.
Section 8
That Section 24-13.10 of the Code be repealed and re-enacted for the purposes
of including nonconforming structures within the provisions of the lodge
preservation regulations, as follows:
(a) All single-family, duplex, multi -family, lodge and hotel uses that
were lawfully established and continually so used thereafter but
located within a zoning district where such use is currently not
either a permitted or conditional use are by definition nonconforming
uses, but, pursuant to the provisions of this section, are to be
considered conforming uses and are not subject to the provisions of
Section 24-13.2, 24-13.4 and 24-13.5, provided:
(1) All new construction and reconstruction of a structure shall
meet the area and bulk requirements of the underlying district.
If renovation of a structure is to be performed it shall not
increase the nonconformity of the structure. For the purpose
of this section, the investment of less than fifty (50) per-
cent of the appraised value of the structure, net of land value,
is considered renovation and the investment of fifty (50)
percent or more of the value of the structure is considered
reconstruction;
(2) No increase in the number of units or square footage shall
be allowed;
(3) Any change in use shall not be to a use of a lower or less
restrictive classification, but rather to a use of the same or
higher classification;
(4) If any such use of land ceases for any reason for a period
of more than one year, any subsequent use of land shall conform
to the regulations specified by the code for the district in
which such land is located The act of obtaining a building
permit within the one-year period shall be considered suffi-
cient to meet this deadline, and the use may be re-established
at the completion of construction.
(b) All multi -family, lodge and hotel structures that were lawfully
established and continually so used thereafter but located within a
zoning district where such structure does not comply with the restrictions
on area, lot coverage, height, yards, its location on the lot or
other requirements on the structure are by definition nonconforming
structures, but pursuant to the provisions of this section, are to
be considered conforming structures and are not subject to the
provisions Section 24-13.3 and 24-13.5 provided:
(1) All new construction and reconstruction of a structure shall
meet the area and bulk requirements of the underlying district.
If renovation of a structure is to be performed it shall not
increase the nonconformity of the structure. For the purpose
of this section, the investment of less than fifty (50)
percent of the appraised value of the structure, net of land
value, is considered renovation and the investment of fifty
(50) percent or more of the value of the structure is considered
reconstruction;
(2) If any such structure or nonconforming portion of a structure is
destroyed by any means and shall not have been repaired or replaced
within two (2) years from the date of its loss, it shall not be
reconstructed except in conformance to the regulations specified by
the Code for the district in which such land is located. The act of
obtaining a building permit within the two (2) year period shall be
considered sufficient to meet this deadline and the structure may be
reestabished at the completion of construction.
Approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular
meeting on August 3, 1982.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By: /Q/ z-e
Perry Ha ey, Chairman
I;,
ATTEST:
C erk
ci
PYRTRTT 7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ORDNIANCE NO. 3 ?
(Series of 1982)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO
CREATE AN L-3 ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ZONING EXISTING
LODGES TO USE IN ASPEN
WHEREAS, as a result of zoning actions taken by the City of
Aspen in Ordinance 11, Series of 1975, there are presently 28
lodges which are classified as non -conforming uses in Aspen, more
specifically identified in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incor-
porated herein by this reference, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that based on the data
contained in the Planning office's Draft Short Term Accommoda-
tions Report, it is essential that actions be taken to support the
existing mix of types and locations of short term accommodations
in Aspen, including the provision of incentives for existing
facilities to be preserved and upgraded, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Coucil finds that the 1973 Aspen Land
Use Plan designates the Shadow Mountain and East Aspen neighbor-
hoods, in which virtually all of the these lodges are located, as
"mixed residential", a category whose intent is "to allow for a
mix of residential uses interspersed with limited amounts of pro-
fessional office and visitor accommodation uses in areas wnere
these conditions presently exist. Only existing lodges should be
considered for expansion in order to provide additional guest
rooms ...", and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did con-
sider a series of alternative actions designed to remove the
stigma of nonconformity from the lodges and to encourage their
renovation and did conclude that the alternative known as "zoning
to use" be pursued further by the Planning Office, and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
WHEREAS, the Commission did adopt Resolution 82-8 recommend-
ing that the Aspen City Council adopt amendments to the Municipal
Code to create an L-3 zone district for the purpose of zoning
existing lodges to use in Aspen, and
WHEREAS, the City Council does wish to accept the recommenda-
tions of the Commission by creating an L-3 zone district for the
purpose of zoning existing lodges to use in Aspen.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That Section 24-2.1(a) of the Code be and the same is hereby
amended by the creation of a new subsection (28), as follows:
(28) L-3 Lodge Preservation
Section 2
That Section 24-3.2 of the Code be and the same is hereby
amended by the establishment of the intent and uses for the L-3
zone district, as follows:
"Intent: To preserve existing lodges in their existing loca-
tions and to permit the limited expansion of these
lodges wherever appropriate on -site and/or onto
adjacent properties.
Permitted Uses: Lodge units, lodge units having pre-existing
kitchens with cooking facilities, boarding
houses, dormitory; accessory use facilities
intended for guests only commonly found in
association with tourist accommodations in-
cluding uses such as an office, lounge, kit-
chen, dining room, laundry and recreation
facilities; deed restricted housing for
employees of the lodge.
Conditional Uses: Restaurant included within a lodge opera-
tion serving guests and others."
Section 3
That Section 24-3.4 of the Code be and the same is hereby
amended by the establishment of area and bulk requirements for the
L-3 zone district, as follows:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
"Minimum Lot Area: See floor area ratio requirements.
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: No requirement.
Minimum Lot Width: No requirement
Minimum Front Yard: 10.
Minimum Side Yard: 5
Minimum Rear Yard: 10.
Maximum Height: 25
Minimum Distance Between Principal
and Accessory Building: 10.
Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: 35.
External Floor Area Ratio: Established by Special Review,
not to exceed 1:1.
Internal Floor Area Ratio: Rental space 0.5:1 - 0.75-1, non -
unit space 0.25:1, provided that
33-1/3 percent of all rental
space above the FAR of 0.5:1 must
be devoted to employee housing."
Section 4
That Section 24-3.5(a) of the Code be and the same is hereby
repealed and re-enacted as follows:
"(a) Whenever it shall be indicated on the Area and Bulk
Requirements Chart that the application is subject to
Special Review (SR), the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall allow or deny the development after considering
the following criteria as they may apply to the particu-
lar application in question, although the Commission
need only make findings relative to criteria (1) for
applications in the L-3 zone district:
(1) The compatibility of the development with surround-
ing land uses and zoning, including size, height
and bulk, proposed site design characteristics,
including landscaping and open space and visual
impacts such as viewplanes;
(2) Whether the applicant has documented the availa-
bility and adequacy of water supply (for domestic
and fire protection needs), sewage treatment, storm
drainage, roads and parking facilities to serve the
proposed development."
Section 5
That Section 24-3.7(k) of the Code be and the same is hereby
repealed and re-enacted as follows:
"(k) Maximum residential density in zone districts. When-
ever within the RMF, 0, SCI, NC, C-1, L-1 and L-2 dis-
tricts multi -family structures are constructed, there
shall be permitted no more than one bedroom per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area, nothing here-
in to the contrary notwithstanding. This restriction
shall not apply to sites or areas upon which the Resi-
dential Bonus Overlay district has been applied in
accordance with Article X of this chapter."
Section 6
That Section 24-4.2(a) of the Code be and the same is hereby
repealed and reenacted as follows:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
"(a) Each off-street parking space in all zone districts
within the City of Aspen shall consist of an open area
measuring eight and one-half (8 1/2) feet wide by eigh-
teen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high. Each park-
ing space shall have a public unobstructed area for
access to a street or alley. Off-street parking must be
paved with all-weather surfacing or be covered with
gravel and be maintained in a useable condition at all
times."
Section 7
That Section 24-4.5 of the Code be and the same is hereby
amended by the establishment of off-street parking requirements
for the L-3 zone district, as follows:
"Lodge Uses: 1/Bedroom
Residential Uses: Review
All Other Uses: 4/1,000 square feet"
Section 8
That Section 24-13.10 of the Code be and the same is hereby
repealed and re-enacted as follows:
"(a) All single-family, duplex, multi -family, lodge and hotel
uses that were lawfully established and continually so
used thereafter but located within a zoning district
where such use is currently not either a permitted or
conditional use are by definition non -conforming uses,
but, pursuant to the provisions of this section, are to
be considered conforming uses and are not subject to the
provisions of Section 24-13.2, 24-13.4 and 24-13.5, pro-
vided:
(1) All new construction and reconstruction of a
structure shall meet the area and bulk require-
ments of the underlying district. If reno-
vation of a structure is to be performed it shall
not increase the non -conformity of the structure.
For the purpose of this section, the investment of
less than fifty (50) percent of the appraised value
of the structure, net of land value, is considered
renovation and the investment of fifty (50) percent
or more of the value of the structure is considered
reconstruction:
(2) No increase in the number of units or square foot-
age shall be allowed:
(3) Any change in use shall not be to a use of a lower
or less restrictive classification, but rather to a
use of the same or higher classification;
(4) If any such use of land ceases for any reason for a
period of more than one year, any subsequent use of
land shall conform to the regulations specified by
the code for the district in which such land is
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
located. The act of obtaining a building permit
within the one-year period shall be considered suf-
ficient to meet this deadline, and the use may be
re-established at the completion of construction.
(b) All lodge and hotel structures that were lawfully estab-
lished and continually so used thereafter but located
within a zoning district where such structure does not
comply with the restrictions on area, lot coverage,
height, yards, its location on the lot or other require-
ments on the structure are by definition non -conforming
structures, but pursuant to the provisions of this sec-
tion, are to be considered conforming structures and are
not subject to the provisions of Section 24-13.3 and 24-
13.5 provided:
(1) All new construction and reconstruction of a struc-
ture shall meet the area and bulk requirements of
the underlying district. If renovation of a struc-
ture is to be performed it shall not increase the
non -conformity of the structure. For the purpose
of this section, the investment of less than fifty
(50) percent of the appraised value of the struc-
ture, net of land value, is considered renovation
and the investment of fifty (50) percent or more of
the value of the structure is considered recon-
struction;
(2) If any such structure or non -conforming portion of
a structure is destroyed by any means and shall not
have been repaired or replaced within two (2) years
from the date of its loss, it shall not be recon-
structed except in conformance to the regulations
specified by the Code for the district in which
such land is located. The act of obtaining a
building permit within the two (2) year period
shall be considered sufficient to meet this dead-
line and the structure may be re-established at the
completion of construction.
Section 9
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 10
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the
day of 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall
be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the
City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by
the City Council of he City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular
meeting held / 1982.
, lol
Herman Edel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S r
och, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
1982.
Herman Edel, Mayor
ATTEST; ,
Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
EXHIBIT A
EXISTING NON -CONFORMING LODGES IN THE CITY OF ASPEN
1. Bavarian Inn
2. Ullr Lodge
3. Christiana Lodge
4. Boomerang Lodge
5. Swiss Chalets
6. Copper Horse
7. Applejack Inn
8. St. Moritz
9. Christmas Inn
10. Tyrolean Lodge
11. Innsbruck Inn
12. Coachlight Chalet
13. Nugget Lodge
14. Aspen Ski Lodge
15. Molly Gibson Lodge
16. Fireside Lodge
17. Hearthstone House
18. Little Red Ski Haus
19. Snow Queen Lodge
20. Cortina Lodge
21. Bell Mountain Lodge
22. Buckhorn Lodge
23. Endeavor Lodge
24. Brass Bed Inn
25. Alpina Haus
26. Northstar Lodge
27. Alpine Lodge
28. Crestahaus
PYTHTRTT g
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1982)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN EXISTING
LODGES TO L-3 LODGE PRESERVATION
WHEREAS, on September 13, 1962, City Council did adopt Ordin-
ance No. 38, Series of 1982, establishing the L-3 zone district
for the purpose of preserving existing lodges which had been zoned
to non -conforming status by action of City Council during the
1970's; and
WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of said ordinance, City
Council did direct staff to initiate the rezoning of all lodges
which had been affected by the prior zoning zction and to proceed
with their rezoning as a class action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office did identify 30 lodges which are
presently in operation and are non -conforming uses and did contact
their owners to determine whether they wished to be considered as
part of the zoning action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office did follow the suggestion of the
City Attorney that the notification of the public concerning the
rezoning action meet and substantially exceed the standards of
Section 24-12.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code, entitled "Rezoning of
Entier City"; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did hold a
public hearing on November 2, 1982, to consider the rezoning of 30
lodges to L-3, Lodge Preservation; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing the owner of the Buckhorn Lodge
did request that his lodge be excluded from the remainder of the
group and not be zoned L-3, Lodge Preservation; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of information presented by the Plan-
ning Office, the Planning Commission did find that the rezoning of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
the remaining 29 lodges to L-3, Lodge Preservation, is justified
and did recommend that City Council adopt said rezoning; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 1982, at the time of the introduc-
tion of this ordinance, City Council did decide that any lodge
owner who wishes to be exempted from the rezoning to L-3 must
request said exemption in writing, prior to the public hearing on
this ordinance scheduled for December 27, 1982.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That Section 24-2.2 of the Municipal Code entitled "Zoning
District Map" is hereby amended by zoning those lodges listed in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference, as
L-3, Lodge Preservation, subject to those zoning regulations
applicable to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of
the Aspen Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be
amended).
Section 2
That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed to amend the
Zoning District Map consistent with the requirements of the Aspen
Municipal Code and as described in Section 1 above.
Section 3
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por-
tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti-
tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining por-
tions thereof.
Section 4
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the•a177'
day of , 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15
days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published
once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the O� day of
1982.
Herman Edel, Mayor
ATTEST:
zxz;o� '�L�
Kathryn Koc , City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this a 7 day of
1982.
Herman Edel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Coch, City Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
EXHIBIT A
LODGES INCLUDED WITHIN ZONING ACTION
Name Legal Description
1. Bavarian Inn Lots D,E,F,G,H,J, Block 12
T,
3. Christiana Lodge Lots A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,J, Block 31
4. Boomerang Lodge Lots K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S, Block 31
5.shaiet wr ,Biaek
6.
Copper Horse
Lots East of L and All of M, Block 44
7.
Applejack Inn
Lots East of D and All of E,F,G,H,J, Block 45
8.
St. Moritz Lodge
Lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 46
9.
Christmas Inn
Lots K,L,M and West � of N, Block 51
10.
Tyrolean Lodge
Lots R,S, Block 51
11.
Innsbruck Inn
Lots A,B,C,D,E, Block 52
12.
Coachlight Chalet
Lots K,L,M,N, Block 53
13.
Nugget Lodge
Lots F.G,H,J,P,Q,R,S, Block 58
14.
Aspen Ski Lodge
Lots E,F,G,H,J, Block 59
15.
Molly Gibson Lodge
Lots P,Q,R, Block 59
16.
Holiday House
Lots C,D,E,F,G, and the east 7;1 feet of Lot B,
Block 60
17.
Fireside Lodge
Lots K.L,M,N,O,P, Block 61
18.
Hearthstone House
Lots Q,R,S, Block 68
19.
Little Red Ski Haus
Lots 0, West � of P, Block 69
20.
Snow Queen Lodge
Lots East � of P, All of Q, Block 69
21.
Cortina Lodge
Lots P, Q, Block 73
22.
Edelweiss Chalet
Lots A,B,C, Block 75
23.
Bell Mountain Lodge
Lots K,L,M,N,O.P and Part of Q, Block 105
24.
Endeavor Lodge
Lots East � of C, All of D, Block 32
25.
Brass Bed Inn
Lots P,Q,R, and S, Block 118 in the City and
Townsite of Aspen. And a strip of land 18 feet
in width with all points being parallel to and
lying easterly of and adjacent to Lot S in Block
118, in the City of Aspen, bounded on the north
by the extension easterly of the southerly line
of the alley through said Block 118 and bounded
on the south by the northerly line of Durant Ave.
part of vacated Cleveland Street lying
west of and adjacent to Block 124, City and
Townsite Aspen. Colorado described as: Beginning
at a point w is the NW corner of Lot A, said
Block 124, from w e corner No. 2 of Aspen
Townsite bears N. 81 92.12 feet; thence
N 75 09,11" West 15.32 fed thence S. 14 50'49"
W. 110 feet; thence S. 75 09' 75.32 feet;
thence N. 14050'49"E. along the We ide of
Lot A, 110 feet to the point of beginni
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Name
Legal Description
27. Northstar Lodge
Lots M,N,O, Block 119
28. Alpine Lodge
East '; of Lot 17, All of Lots 18,19,20,21 and 22
All in Block 17, Riverside Addition to the City
of Aspen
29. Crestahaus Lodge
A tract of land lying in the Riverside Addition,
Aspen, Colorado, described as follows. All of
Block 21 lying east of the following described
line: Begin at a point on the northwest line of
Vick Avenue where the easterly corner of Lot 8d
Block 21, Riverside Addition beanorth 75 30
r
east 235.7 feet; then Borth 10 09 west 226.81
feet; then north 37 41 east 120 feet more or
less to the south right-of-way line of Colorado
Highway 82; and all streets, alleys and parkways
lying east of said line and between Colorado
Highway 82 and Vick Avenue.
OIJr
1)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
STATE. OF COLORADO )
ss CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I, Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado, do
hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was
introduced, read in full, and passed on
reading at a regular meeting of the/ City ouncil of the
City of Aspen on ✓�4� 19 and published
in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of
19,0.07 , and was finally adopted
and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on
19 p and ordered published as
Ordinance No. !;/4? , Series of 19041 , of said City, as
provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado this /gyj�' day
ofQkz��
, 19.
Kathryn 3 Koch, City Clerk
S E A L
Deputy City Clerk
EXHIBIT 4
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Inn Leaves
RESOLUTION NO. t
(Series of 1986)
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 1985 L-3 CITY OF ASPEN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.6(a) of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, as amended, October 1 of each year is
established as the deadline for submission of applications for lodge
development allotments within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, one application was submitted
in the L-3 lodge category of competition, by Crestahaus Lodge Inc.
(hereinafter "Applicant"), consisting of a request for a total of fourteen
(14) new lodge units, a change in use of one (1) residential to one (1)
lodge unit, and reconstruction of nine (9) existing lodge units; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on November 26, 1985,
by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") , at
which time the Commission did evaluate and score the project, and it did
successfully meet the minimum required threshold of 63 points by having
received 74.3 points (not including bonus points); and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made by the
Applicant in scoring this project and in granting approvals for special
reviews related to this application, including, but not limited to the
following:
1. Three (3) drywells will be installed to retain the "hilltop"
surface runoff originating on the Crestahaus property. When soil
studies are done for foundation designs they shall include a
determination of historical water runoff onto adjoining
properties. The drainage system shall be designed and
constructed to not increase groundwater problems on adjacent
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 nil T PavP-q
properties.
2. An engineering report addressing ways to improve the sight
distance and other traffic problems associated with the
intersection with State Highway 82 shall be prepared by the
Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
Applicant shall discuss the findings of this study with the
Planning and Engineering Offices and agrees to comply with the
practical findings of the study, as determined by the Engineering
Office.
3. The Applicant will contribute $4,000 for the construction of a
bicycle path along the south side of State Highway 82 for bicycle
and pedestrian access into town. This sum will be given to the
City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and will
be held in an interest bearing account until the City formally
commences the project to add this link to the bicycle path, not
to exceed a period of ten (10) years after the submission of the
application. If no bicycle path project including this link is
begun after the ten (10) year period, then the original
contribution and interest payments will be returned to the
Applicant.
4. Included in the landscape plan are buffer areas and fencing
between the Crestahaus' eastern parking area and adjacent
residential lots in the Riverside Subdivision, planting of trees
and shrubs, berms, a path system and seating areas, all shown on
the site plan and revised landscape plan. All landscape
improvements represented in the landscape plan shall be installed
no later than one (1) year after the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
5. Exterior lighting shall be designed in such a manner that the
light source will be sufficiently obscured to prevent glare as
viewed from State Highway 82 and the surrounding neighborhood. A
lighting plan shall be submitted as acceptable to the Planning
and Engineering Offices prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. The dormitory employee unit shall be deed -restricted to the low-
income price employee housing guidelines. Employees of the
Crestahaus Lodge shall be allowed to live in the employee units
even if income exceeds the low-income housing guidelines.
7. The new two-story construction will minimize visual impacts by
keeping the median height of pitched roofs at 22 feet, or 3 feet
lower than allowable under zoning requirements.
2
; and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Lpaye
8. The rebuilt and renovated lodge units and common areas will be
suitable for occupancy prior to, or at the same time as the new
units for which an allotment has been requested. The
construction project is projected to commence in the spring of
1986 and be completed by fall, 1986.
WHEREAS, the Commission voted at the November 26, 1985 meeting to
recommend to City Council to allocate the ten (10) units in the L-3 quota
for 1985 and four (4) units from the 1986 quota for the Crestahaus project;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, did review
the recommendation and scoring by the Commission at their regular meeting
on December 16, 1985 and did concur with the Commission's recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That ten (10) units from the 1985 quota and four (4) units from the
1986 quota in the L-3 lodge zone category are hereby allocated to the
Crestahaus upon the condition that the above stated representation and
conditions of approval met.
That the above allocation shall expire, pursuant to Section 24-11.7 (a)
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, in the event plans,
specifications, and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit
3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
10[l T,PavPG
for the proposed reconstruction and new construction project are not
submitted on or before July 1, 1988.
Dated: /'�/ l9Y'
William L. Stirling, May
ATT EST :
Kathryn S. och, City Clerk
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City of Aspen, Colorado, at
a meeting held on the day of 1986.
SB .3 4
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
4
EXHIBIT 5
�Cpr.iprjZl_ o'clockM
el)0un No
SILYIA DA` iS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER r 5 j;; �w `116
( CCiFA-z' i.F.;7PIC'.Iht AhL AUK1.Llil.?,T
.HIS OCCI FA,;CY AND PE2 TAL DEED RESTRICTION AND AGRFF.-
rEVT (AgreementI is ri.i(:e and entered into December 4, 1987,
by and Uetwerr Crrr-i.11AULOT)GE, INC. (Owr(r) , and the
ASPEN/PITKIN Cul'%IY wil'SING I,11TIIOHITY (Authorttvt, n housing
authority creaLod and rFanized pursu:lot to S 29-1' 201, et
seq., C.K.S.i S �'9-4-50i, et seq. , C.R.S.; S 29-1-101, et
se ., C.R.S.; nerd an intergovernrre•to! agreement between the
�y of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado.
M I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS. Owner owns employee units (Units) in the
Crestahaus Lou¢e, 1301 East Highway 82. Aspen, Colorado,
which Units are more particularly described as follows.
The dormitory housing unit occupyinK approximately
6►5 square feet in an L-sh,.ped configuration along the rerta
and ea3c walls of the second floor of the main lodge build-
ing of the Crestahaus Lodge its shown oa Exhibit A attached
hereto and located on the lard disc:ibed on Exhibit 8
attached hereto.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Aspen City Council
Resolution No. 1-86, Gwner is required to impose certain
covenants on the Units which will restrict the use and
occupancy of the Units to lower -income workers and their
families who f.ill within the low-income rental guidelines
established and indexed annually by the Authority, except
that employees of Owner shall be allowed to live in the
Units even if their ircomes exceed the low-income guide-
lines. Tn order to accomplish the foregoing objectives.
Owner desires rc enter irito this Agreement with the Authori-
ty on the terms set forth herein.
NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars
($10.00) and other gocd and valuable consideration, paid by
the P-ithority to the owner, rt.e receipt and sufficiency of
whist. are hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by the parties
hereto as folicws.
1. Rental Re.tric•ions. The parties hereto
.acknowledge that �vrer vi nut occupy or utilize the Units
a: its residence; instead. Owner has constructed the Units
for purposes of leasing the Units to persons employed in
Pit; -in County as employees of Owner or who fall within the
Authority's low-income rental guidelines as the same Are
published from time to :itr^. In :he event ''.P '�nits are
occr_pi.d by person& other than c..rplotees of Owner. Owner
shall lease the Units pursuant to the aforementioned guide-
lines at the rental p:icen per square foot established by
such guidellnes. In this r(-gard, no lease agreement
mx 553 t n!7
executed for occjDanc'. of the tnits shall prc•vidr for a
primary term of 1 .! s !. -ar Fix .Onsecutive m-nrhs. Urner
shall furnish the At th•rity u:th a Copy of any lea— agree-
ment coverinj t!:e 71i.:.
2. Use and Cccliparcrt. The Owner herehv cove-
nants that the Unitz sl,ail remain rental units and shall not
be condominiumized. Use ani occupancy of the Units shall be
limired to housing for qualified employees in accordance
with -he low-income rultal guidelines established by the
Authoritv or a success -it thorcto, except that employees of
tn.. -r shall be ailcwf. :o 1 ve it the Units even if their
incomft: exceed the 1C.-incom� rental guidelines. The Owner
of the Ls..'ts shall Hive the right to lease the Units to
qualified emriuyeeF of its own selection. "Qualified
employee" as us,•d herein shall mean any person currently
residing in and erolcyed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin
County for a minimuur average of 30 hours per week nine
months out of any 12-mug.!h perind who shall meet low-income
and occupancy -eligibility rt•yuirements established snd
applied by. the Authority with reitpect to etrployee housing or
are employed by Owrer.
3. Etr creme nt Verification. Verification of
employment. of pe,A )ns lvingDiving In t'— a its shall be completed
and filed with t•-e Au-hority by Owner prior to occupancy
thereof and a -.et I-z ac,:eptatle to the Authority. If the
Owner does not rent the Unitf to its own employees or other
qualified employees, the Units shall be made available for
occupancy in accordance wit:u the Authority guidelines.
provided :he Owner shall hale the light to approve any
prospective tenant, which apiroval shall node unreasonably
delayed or withheld.
v. Lease. k'hen a lease is signed with a tenant,
a copy shall be sent to the Authority so that a current file
nay be ssaintained on each unit.
5. Owner further covenants that the previously
existing manager's apartment •n the first floor of the main
lodge of toe Crestahaus, the '.oc.ltior of which is shown on
Exhibit C. shall remain -in employee unit exclusively for
occupancy by employees of the Crestahaus and their families.
6. Violations of Rental of Regale Restr?ctions.
In the event the Units are leaEed wi:Fouf compliance with
this AaTeement, such transaction shall be null and void and
shall confer no interest whatsoever on the intended lessee.
Each and every lease of the Units shall be deemed to include
and incorporate by this reference. even i:ithout reference
hereto. the covenants herein contained.
7. Inagecti�ons. In the event the Authority has
reasonable cause [o believe the Owner is violating the
D6/07 -2-
eazu
Irovisions cf this Artrrcrient, the Authority. by its au-
thorized rcrresentat:1,t. may it-jlect the knits between 8.00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. McnL!.,y thruu�:h Friday after providing the
Owner with no less than L4 hcu:-s' prior written notice.
8. Discls'_rers. N(-thing herein shall be con-
strued to require - c Auihoritv to inder.r.ify the Owner
against any losses attributable to the rental including knot
by way of limitaticn) nonpayment of rent or damage to the
premises or to require the Autl'Ority to obtain a qualified
tenant for the Owner in the event none is found b-r the
Amer.
9, Not:ces. Any notice which is required to be
given under this Agreement shall be given by mailing such
-.otice by certified mail to the following addresses. which
nay be changed by written notice to the other party.
To Owner:
Crestahaus Lodge, Inc.
c/o Michigan Avenue Management Company
Suite 101. 910 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60605
To Authority:
Aspen/firkin County Housing Authority
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
10. Covenants Running with Land. The provisions
of this Agreement s a e covenants runn ng with the land
and shall be a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall
be specifically enforceable by the Authority or the City of
Aspen or their designees by any appropriate legal action
including injunction. abatement or eviction of noncoreplying
tenants. The covenants contained in this Agreement shall be
deemed to be in force and effect during the life of the last
surviving member of the presently existing city for Council
of
the City of .Aspen. Colorado, p years
Courof t y ears from the real propertydrecordsTate of e whichevercording e period shallreof in the be
y
greater.
11Breacht Remedies. There is hereby reserved
to the parties hereto any an all remedies provided by law
for breach of this Agreement or any of its terms.
uei07 -3-
��� 55:3 ��!J
IN WITNESS the parties hereto Iiave executed
this instrument a t:.(_ %Ijy .jud year above first written.
OWNLR :
CRFSrAHAUS LODGE, iNC.
LIU,j,kRI Fa'JAI resI U enl.
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
as.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument
Dwas acknowledged before me
December 1987. by
My commission expires
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary ru is
ACCEPTANCE BY 11UUSING ALrrHORITY
The foregoing grant and its terms are accepted by the
Authority.
THE ASPEN/PITY.IN COUNTY 110USING AUTHORITY
Title ^
06/07
iai, 553 0
IN WITNESS ', HERt.,)r , the .. i_es hereto have executed
this instrument on the play anti year above first written.
OWNEF
CRES',okhAUI LODGE INC. /+
tilt-
,-ftft'N-RTMVALj President
STATE: OF ftt l'TO 19
) ss.
COUNTY OF Ir" r r i f.; )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befosa me
December —Itr, 1987, by LEONARD KOVAL.
Hy commission expires
o
Witness my Nand and official seal.
ota� is
ACCEPTANCE BY 110USING AUTHORITY
The foregoing grant and Its terms are accepted by the
Authority.
THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
By
Title
D6/07 -4-
EXHIBIT 6
\ It \
LANDSCAPE Qb
CRESTAHAUS 00 , z0 , 40 50
�y p
AUTO couisrr
f \
IERM
/ PAPKINO `\ \
o0we10100'riaosw
ZB AMM 1Bb'3 LOEL
3J001 Sn%fH%f.LSatlO
ro V
t
2 Q
Q
J
IL
oc
0
0
J
LL,
NI
CcI
LL
`i
l�
• � • ;Q
F
-- OJ
— x3
mo
%H.LSV3 LOCL
8B AMH 1St/3 l.OEL
aJoo'1 snvHtrlsaam
LEVEL 1 PLAN 1 / 16"=1'-0"
LEVEL 2 PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0ll
ELEV,
LEVEL 3 PLAN
. ♦ f-% 1 IL I L I ,-% L- L-
1/16"=1'-0"
OILETS
TEAM
ATH
YDRO-
'HERAPY
LEVEL 4 PLAN 1/16'-0"
j
f
SEC�QN
A
30
�
t
_et-
4
LXfSTtNQ GRADE
KEY TO STRUCTURES
1—RENOVATED AND EXP,,%NDED LODGE
7960 A 2—ONE BEDROOM LIVING UNITS
3—TWO BEDROOM LIVING UNITS
4—WEIGHT ROOM WITH SPA BELOW
5—AEROBICS ROOM WITH LOCKERS BELOW
TURNAROUND 6—SPA ADMINISTRATION
— � — —� �� � ��
i o o 7—E —H' T'C SERVICES
MPL01'i( \`� , ^� 8—AEROBICS ROOMS WITH 25 METER POOL BELOW
j COMPQUND ��� i 7970
TRASH \�' 9—TENNIS COURTS WITH WET SPA BELOW
ENCLOSURE
10—TENNIS COURT WITH PARKING BELOW
7960 � I
1 �\�\ 11—EMPLOYEE HOUSING
7970
>BIKE PATH
7980 \ \
d
7990
o \
8000
0
SITE PLAN - CRESTAHAUS ADDITIONS 1" - 30'
NOW STORAGE
STATE HIGHWAY 82
EXISTING CRESTAHAUS- BEYOND
I -VOW' z I
-------------------------------------- i
7970
7960
NORTH ELEVATION 1/16"-1'-0"
I
I
---------------------------�
LOWEST FLOOR LINE-TYP.
WEST ELEVATION 1/1611=11-0141
- - 8000
- - 7990
--- 7970
- 7960
-o"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 / 16U=1'-o"
I BEDROOM
C
m
0
0
Z
v
m
.o
m
r
0
0
m
r
Z
O
PROPOSED SUITE PLAN 1 / 16At=1'-011
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 8/1/89
DATE COMPLETE: 'G _. /,:) -
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
�2737-181-00-047
t2737-181-00-014 79A-89
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Crestahaus Lodge 005 Rezoning, Special Review &
GMOS Exemption
Project Address: 1301 E. Highway 82
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin Associates, Inc.
Applicant Address: 205 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Representative Address/Phone:
Aspen, CO 81611
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: 3,150.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: t/
P&Z Meeting Date G PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO p
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
Mtn. Bell
School
District
J
✓.
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
--Building Inspector/
Envir. Hlth.
✓ Roaring Fork ✓
Other
J?�..
Aspen Consol.
Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: Y/l° /mac/ INITIALS: I/M
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED: 1A,�.� INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: t_
1�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office J":,'%
RE: Crestahaus Lodge: LP Lodge GMQS Submission and Rezoning
DATE: October 3, 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Staff recommends denial of the Rezoning request (from
R-15 (PUD) to LP for 82,771 s.f.) and of the Special Review of
FAR. Due to this recommendation staff finds that the entire
application must be significantly changed; therefore, the
Planning Office must decline the entire submission.
APPLICANT: Harley Baldwin Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells, Doremus and Wells.
EXISTING ZONING: LP zone on 77,660 s.f. and R-15 (PUD) zone on
82,771 s.f. of this 160,431 s.f. parcel, (see last page of
Appendix A).
REQUEST: Other that the Lodge GMQS competition, the applicant is
requesting Rezoning from R-15 (PUD) to LP; Special Review for
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)-; Special Review of Parking for Affordable
Housing; and a GMQS Exemption for a Change in Use. The P&Z is
the only review body for Special Review for FAR, Special Review
of Parking for Affordable Housing, and GMQS Exemption for Change
in Use. P&Z and City Council will review the GMQS Submission and
the Rezoning request.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Crestahaus will become a lodge that
promotes sports, physical and mental health. The applicant
proposes a dramatic increase in the number of amenities
including: swimming, aerobics, weights, squash, tennis and spas.
The applicant proposes 18 new lodge rooms in addition to the 29
which exist. The new lodge rooms include 9 one -bedroom and 9
two -bedroom suites. There is 1 three -bedroom suite which is a
result of the change in use. The proposal houses 18 employees in
low income dormitory style housing on -site. The applicant also
proposes an on -demand shuttle system to ensure that guest do not
need a private automobile, (see pp. 1-4 in the application for a
detailed summary of the program).
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are
included as attachment 1.
Environmental Health - In a memo dated September 11, 1989, Rick
Bossingham outlined the following concerns:
Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchase, the
operator must submit plans and specifications to the
Environmental Health Office to ensure compliance with State
Regulations.
ACSD - In a letter dated September 11, 1989, Bruce Matherly
stated that the District has sufficient treatment capacity to
serve the project, however, there are downstream line
infiltration problems which need to be resolved in order to
provide service to this project. In his letter, Bruce estimated
the cost of rehabilitation at $20,000, but in a follow-up phone
conservation the estimate was reduced to $5,000.
CDOH - In a letter dated August 31, 1989, Chuck Dunn stated that
traffic should be measured once the project is operational to
determine whether or not an access permit is necessary.
Fire Marshal - In a memo dated August 14, 1989, Wayne Vandermark
stated that the Fire District accepts the two (2) hydrants, but
has concerns regarding rear access to the property for fire and
rescue work.
Water Department - In a memo dated August 11, 1989, Jim
Markalunas stated that there is sufficient treatment capacity to
serve this project. He suggested that the additional fire
hydrants be located near the Crestahaus and in the neighborhood
across the highway.
Roaring Fork Energy Center - In a letter dated September 14,
1989, Steve Standiford stated that a good deal of thought has
been put into making this project both energy efficient and
environmentally sensitive. We would like all applications to
approach this model.
Engineering Department - In a memo dated September 18, 1989,
Elyse Elliott made the following comments:
Storm Drainage - All dry wells and detention ponds must be
shown on their plat.
Parking - The applicant does not provide parking for the
employees. Environmental Health should approve the final
design of the parking structure to ensure adequate pollution
control.
Roads - Reducing the height of the retaining wall, providing
access to the major parking area from the west and trail and
drainage improvements will improve access.
Trails - The applicant should agree to install rolled curb
and gutter along their frontage and valley pans where
driveways cross bike paths.
Site Design - Benches should be located on the applicant's
F
•
C7
property off of the bike path. The applicant should provide
a 41x4' pedestal easement and the applicant should agree to
join any future improvements district. The size and
location of trash storage area should be approved by BFI.
Plat - A plat must be submitted which meets all Engineering
Department requirements.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Included as attachment 2 are letters in
opposition to the proposal from L. Fredrick and Helen Klanderud.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff will evaluate this application as follows:
Special Review for FAR, Special Review of Parking for Affordable
Housing, GMQS Exemption Request for Change in Use and Request for
Rezoning from R-15 (PUD) to LP for 82,771 s.f. of the site.
Sec. 7-404. Review Standards for Special Review
A. Dimensional Requirements.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount
of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the
proposed development are designed in a manner
which is compatible with or enhances the character
of surrounding land uses and is consistent with
the purposes of the underlying Zone District.
Response - While the proposal is consistent with the
requested underlying zone, the mass of the proposal, in
terms of the expanse of the whole, is incompatible with
the character of the surrounding locally oriented/
family housing and small lodge neighborhood. Further,
the proposal locates many of the accommodation
facilities adjacent to the property boundaries which
abut residential areas rather than attempt to provide a
buffer with a larger setback.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed
development will not have adverse impacts on
surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts,
including but not limited to the effects of
shading, excess traffic, availability of parking
in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated
viewplane.
Response - In staff's opinion this proposal will have
an adverse impact on the locally oriented/family
housing uses which surround the area. Specifically,
this type of development, an extensive expansion of a
lodge and the lodge's conversion from an moderate cost
facility to an upscale lodge and health spa may
accelerate redevelopment pressure. Further, it is
conceivable that this redevelopment pressure will begin
converting this locally oriented, family housing
neighborhood to a second home neighborhood.
Sec. 7-404. Review Standards for Special Review
B. Special review of Parking for Affordable Housing.
2. In all other zone districts where the off street
parking requirements are subject to establishment
or reduction by special review, the applicant
shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the
residents, guests and employees of the project
have been met, taking into account potential uses
of the parcel, its proximity to mass transit
routes and the downtown area, and any special
services, such as vans, provided for residents,
guests and employees.
Response - The proposal provides 1 parking space per
lodge bedroom for a total of 59 spaces. The proposal
also provides a strong van pool program which will
mitigate the need for parking. The applicant
anticipates that parking demand for lodge rooms will
not exceed .7 spaces for a total of 42. Therefore, 17
parking spaces remain for employees.
In staff's opinion, the strong shuttle system will
likely mitigate some need for parking in the winter,
but we have some concern for summer visitor parking.
Staff would suggest that the applicant commit to year
round shuttle van service which functions for the
employee, as well as the visitor.
Sec. 8-104(B)(1)(b) GMQS Exemption for a Change in Use.
b. Change in use. Any change in use of an existing
structure between the residential, commercial/office
and tourist accommodations categories for which a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least
two (2) years and which is intended to be reused,
provided that it can be demonstrated that the change in
use will have minimal impact upon the City. A
determination of minimal impact shall require a
demonstration that a minimal number of additional
employees will be generated by the change in use and
that employee housing will be provided for the
additional employees generated; that a minimal amount
of additional parking spaces will be demanded by the
change in use and that parking will be provided; that
there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood
from the change in use; and that minimal demand will be
4
0 0
placed on the City's public facilities from the change
in use.
Response - The applicant proposes to convert the 3-
bedroom residence on the southeast portion of the site
to a 3-bedroom lodge suite and incorporate it into the
lodge facility. The applicant has addressed parking
and employee generation which result from this change
in use. The incorporation of this unit into the lodge
facility reduces the visual impact compared to the free
standing structure on the southeast portion of the
site. No additional public facilities are required.
Sec. 7-1102. Standards for Review for Amendments to the Official
Zone District Map.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response - The purpose of the Lodge Preservation zone
district is to preserve existing lodges in their existing
locations and to permit the limited expansion of these
lodges when such expansions are compatible with the
neighboring properties and to provide an incentive for
upgrading of the existing lodge on -site or onto adjacent
properties.
In staff's opinion this proposal is inconsistent with the
purpose of the LP zone. The expansion proposed is not
"limited" because it is not compatible with neighboring
properties. The following table illustrates what has
occurred to the Crestahaus Lodge over the past four years.
CRESTAHAUS
CHANGES TO LODGE FACILITY
Current
Pre 1985 1985 Proposed
Lodge units 15 29 48
Res. units 1 1
Emp. units 2 2 19 total-1 mgr.
unit, 18 dorm
Total Guest rooms 15 29 59
Floor Area s.f. 11,282 17,017 59,000
FAR .20 .30 .37
5
a •
As the table illustrates, the Crestahaus Lodge experienced a
significant expansion recently. In staff's opinion a
further expansion, like the one being proposed, will
adversely impact the locally oriented, family housing
aspects of the surrounding area. Finally, the Crestahaus is
the largest LP zoned property in the City and more than
doubling its size is in conflict with the purpose of the LP
zone district. Therefore, staff finds the proposal
inconsistent with this review standard.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response - In staff's opinion, this proposal provides the
Community with an upscale lodge and health club facility
which has little resemblance to facilities intended for the
LP zone district. Therefore, staff finds the proposal
inconsistent with this review standard.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response - As staff has stated several times in this review
memorandum, this proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the
intent of the LP zone and incompatible with the
neighborhood. In staff's opinion, this rezoning could
accelerate redevelopment pressure in this area to the point
that the locally oriented, family housing character of this
neighborhood could be replaced by second home development.
Staff is very concerned that we take every step possible to
preserve what is clearly a locally oriented, family housing
neighborhood. Therefore, staff finds the proposal
inconsistent with this review standard.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response - The proposal responds very well to traffic
mitigation and road safety. The proposal provides improved
sight distances, a safer access point for a majority of the
parking, improved bike and pedestrian facilities, improved
drainage and a strong shuttle system.
E. 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.
R
9 •
Response - The proposal provides upgraded utilities and
generally mitigates its demands on public facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response - While this site is undeveloped it is also
surrounded by development and is one of the few undeveloped
sites in the area. In staff's opinion no significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment will result from
appropriate development of the site.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response - The LP zone district was created to preserve the
Community's small lodges. In staff's opinion this proposal
does not preserve a small lodge, rather it convert a small
lodge into an expansive, upscale lodge and health spa which
was never intended for the LP zone. Therefore, staff finds
the proposal inconsistent with this review standard.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting
the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood
which support the proposed amendment.
Response - In staffs opinion, there have been no changed
conditions in this area which warrant this rezoning. This
area has consistently been locally oriented, family housing
with two small lodges mixed in the neighborhood. Therefore,
staff finds this proposal inconsistent with this review
standard.
I. 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 - In staff's opinion this proposal is in conflict
with the public interest due to the potential damage this
proposal could have on the locally oriented, family housing
aspect of this neighborhood. It is clear to staff that
approving a rezoning of this nature would send the wrong
signal to the development community regarding tourist
oriented development in this area. Finally, the
preservation of small lodges and the neighborhoods which
surround them is in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the Land Use Code. This proposal does not achieve these
goals. Therefore, staff finds this proposal inconsistent
with this review standard.
7
CONCLUSION: Staff finds that this proposal has many good aspects
to it, but has a fundamental flaw of being inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the LP zone district. Staff is concerned
that if the City approved a proposal of this nature that we would
jeopardize the very fabric of the locally oriented, family
housing aspects of the neighborhood which surrounds the
Crestahaus.
As the P&Z is aware, Council, P&Z and staff are working
diligently to create mechanisms which preserve these
neighborhoods. In staff's opinion, this proposal would send the
opposite signal to the development community. That signal would
be that tourist oriented development of more than a limited
nature is acceptable in this neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Rezoning request
(from R-15 (PUD) to LP for 82,771 s.f.) and of the Special Review
of FAR. Due to this recommendation staff finds that the entire
application must be significantly changed; therefore, the
Planning Office must decline the entire submission.
8
0 0
ATTACHMENT 1
0 •
To: Tom Baker, Planning Office
From: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Department
Date: September 21, 1989
Re: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS Rezoning, GMQS Exemption and
Special Review
Parcel ID# 2737-181-00-014 & 047
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above -mentioned land use submittal under the authority of Chapter
24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, section 6-201.B.3,
for the following concerns:
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The project is served with public sewer. This conforms with
Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual
Sewage Disposal Systems.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
This project is served by the City of Aspen water system which is
in conformance with policies of this department.
AIR QUALITY•
The Applicant notes that the two existing woodburning devices
will be retrofitted with gas logs which meets woodburning device
regulations.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS:
The kitchen design must comply with the "Rules and Regulations
Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in
Colorado" and will be licensed as a food service establishment.
Prior to any kitchen construction or equipment purchase, the
operator must submit plans and specs to this office.
9 0
.aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537
September 11, 1989
Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS Rezoning
Dear Tom:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient
treatment facility capacity at this time to serve this project.
however, there are some downstream line constraints that would
need to be improved in order for us to provide service for this
project. The rehabilitation required could cost as much as
$20,000. A more accurate determination could be obtained if the
applicant is willing to share the expense of having this portion
of line televised.
District regulations will require the installation of grease
interceptors, and swimming pools cannot be connected to the
District system without first obtaining a special permit from the
District. The pool permit specifies the hours and rate at which a
pool may be discharged into the system and the fees and charges
associated.
Sincerely, _ -h.
'- , �n. ( h ... / /
Bruce Matherly /V�
District Manager
cc A.J. Zabbia
Rea, Cassins and Assoc.
2902 State Hwy 74, Suite 101
Evergreen, CO 80439
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Holy Cross Electric Association
Fire Marshal
Roaring Fork Energy Center
State Highway Department
Roaring Fork Transit Agency
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS Rezoning, Special Review & GMQS
Exemption
Parcel ID # 2737-181-00-014 & 047
DATE: August 9, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Harley Baldwin requesting rezoning, special review, GMQS
exemption and Lodge GMQS allotments.
Please review this material and return your comments no later
than September 20, 1989. Thank you.
August 31, 1989
The Colorado Department of Highways offers the following comments:
Actual traffic should be measured after project completion. If there
is a reduction or no change in volumes, then the currect access
permit is sufficient. If, however, there is an increase in volume,
a new permit would be required.
Direct questions to Charles Dunn, 248-7232.
S�" t
6�� g�P�
WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL
420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-2690
TO: Tom Baker, Planning Office
FROM: Wayne tiandemark
RE: Crestahaus Loge GMQS Rezoning, Special Review & GMQS
Exemption
Parcel ID # 2737-181-00-014 & 047
DATE: August 14, 1989
We have reviewed the application submitted by Harley Baldwin.
The allocation of additional hydrants is accepted by the Fire
Department. The installation of an automatic sprinkler system
will assure adequate fire suppression until the Fire Department
arrives. Our concern would be access to the rear of the project
for emergency fire & rescue work.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Holy Cross Electric Association
Fire Marshal
Roaring Fork Energy Center
State Highway Department
Roaring Fork Transit Agency
�-FRem�Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS Rezoning, Special Review & GMQS
Exemption
Parcel ID # 2737-181-00-014 & 047
DATE: August 9, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Harley Baldwin requesting rezoning, special review, GMQS
exemption and Lodge GMQS allotments.
Please review this material and return your comments no later
than September 20, 1989. Thank you. \
7t
�J
C
v
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 * (303)963-0311
September 14, 1989
TO: Tom Baker - Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
FR: Steve Standiford - Director
RE: Review Comments on Crestahaus Lodge GMQS Rezoning
It is apparent that the applicant has an interest and
technical background with energy -efficient building design.
Insulation: The level of insulation specified for walls,
roof, floors and slab does exceed the Energy Code Amendment
to the Uniform Building Code and will aid greatly in reducing
heat loss thru the building envelope. It should be
noted that both the levels and technical detail included in
this proposal meet or exceed that specified in previous
proposals that we have reviewed over the years. This fact
should be commended and we would like to see this level of
detail in all GMQS applications.
Glazing and Passive Solar Design: The use of high -efficiency
glazing and attention to maximizing the use of passive solar
energy will benefit the development. There is no mention of
the use of movable insulation to prevent night-time loss.
But, this fact is reduced thru the use of efficient glazing.
The use of window frames with thermal breaks is another good
idea to incorporate. Several manufacturers have recently
been actively promoting high-R windows that use argon gas as
a way to increase energy -efficiency. The project may want to
use the stated U-values as minimums.
Infiltration: The projects stated intention of sealing all
penetrations in the building envelope during the construction
phase is a worthwhile idea. In addition, the airlock
entryways will further reduce heat loss thru infiltration.
Once again, most applications stop at this point. It is
refreshing to see a developer specify the use of the blower
door to prove that this goal is achieved when construction is
completed. We have included information on the blower door
and how the ELA relates to infiltration.
Mechanical: The goal of achieving an AFUE of 90% or greater
for all space/water heating is commendable. Providing duct
and pipe insulation, as well as automatic set -back
thermostats will only help increase energy efficiency.
The use of insulated covers on the pools and hot tubs is also
essential. The covers should be as high an R-value as
possible.
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
Water Conservation: The use of low -flow showerheads and
faucet aerators will conserve energy as well as water for the
project. Reducing water use of toilets by 50% over
conventional fixtures is another worthy aspect of the
application.
Air Quality: Removing wood -burning fireplaces will not only
help clean up the air but, will also reduce a very energy -
inefficient way to try and heat space. Providing an
alternative to the private automobile thru the use of
courtesy vans will also help conserve a non-renewable resource
(i.e., oil) while helping to improve local air quality.
Lighting: There is no mention of how the project will
address the subject of lighting. We would like to see
excessive lighting minimized and encourage the use of
products such as compact fluorescent lightbulbs and energy
saving ballasts.
Summary: A good deal of thought has been put into making
this project both energy -efficient and environmentally
sensitive. The application should be given a great deal of
credit for its comprehensive scope and attention to technical
detail. We would like all applications to approach this
model.
i
WHAT A BLOWER DOOR TELLS YOU
Ablower door forces air out of a
building at a fixed rate and meas-
ures the pressure difference between in-
side and outside the building. You can
then convert this raw data -fan volume
and pressure -to different measure -
merits. depending on your needs and
preference. The most commonly used
blower -do -or readings and their uses are
listed below.
Air changes per hour Inch) at 50
Pascals: As it sounds, this is the
number of air changes per hour induced
under 50 Pascals (Pa.) of pressure. It is
an easy number to get. but not that
useful. First. larger buildings always
look better under this method because
they have more volume per surface area
than smaller buildings. Another prob-
lem is that hairline cracks that would
rarely leak air under normal conditions
will leak air at high pressure -making
some buildings look worse than they
are. While this was once the most com-
mon blower -door measure, the ELA and
LR are gaining ground.
Equivalent leakage area IELA): This is
the size of a single hole that would pass
the same amount of air as the house
leaks through its many holes. Simply
stated. it's the size of all the holes in the
building shell added together. As a
Air Changes
Per Hour
Square
Feet
Square Inches
Per 100
Square Feet
BUILDING
TYPE
Moisture
Condition
marketing tool this number aids a home
builder by defining the problem. "If you
were to gather all the cracks and open-
ings in the house together the area
would be three -and -a -half square feet! "
Unfortunately, a technical debate
rages over the proper way to compute
this number. The two methods used -
developed in Canada and at Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratories -give quite dif-
ferent areas for the same house. But
both ELA calculations are repeatable
and can be used to compare precisely a
building before and after weatheriralion.
Leakage ratio (LRt The leakage ratio is
the ELA divided by the total surface
area of the building. LR is expressed in
square inches of hole per one -hundred
square feet of the building surface. The
LR doesn't depend on the size of the
building as do the ELA and the ach at
50 Pa
The leakage ratio describes the rela-
tive tightness of the building envelope.
If two houses have the same leakage
ratio, their construction is of equivalent
Lightness.
Floe exponent In -value): This is an in-
teresting diagnostic calculation based
on the relationship of several readings
taken at different pressures. If the flow
exponent is at the high end of its range
10.5 to 1). it indicates a large central leak.
BLOWER DOOR MEASURES
AIR CHANGES PER HOUR ® 50 PASCALS
•
First check for open windows, then look
for open flues or dampers. If these are
normal, you may be hunting for a miss-
ing attic hatch, pet door, or missing
basement window. Finally, look for the
major escape point where all the small
leakage points in interior walls exit to
the attic or cellar. A high flow exponent
might mean a laundry chute, a rough -
cut plumbing stack open to the cellar or
attic, or a large chase around a chimney.
On the other hand. a low flow ex-
ponent indicates a large number of small
leaks. So caulking and weatherstripping
will be the primary cures for infiltration.
Average seasonal air changes per hour
(ath): This is the most used and abused
blower -door measure, and perhaps the
most valuable, since it relates directly
to comfort and heating bills. The
seasonal ach is an estimate of the true
rate of air leakage averaged over the
heating season. Many energy auditors
and blower -door computers estimate the
ach using formulas that take into ac-
count the shape of the house, the loca-
tion of the cracks, the weather, and site
conditions.
While these calculations are far bet-
ter than older methods such as
ASIIRAE's "crack method." there is
still much room for error since the
auditor must make judgement calls. For
example, the average wind speed at the
site is rarely known. A commonly
used -but very rough -rule of thumb
states that the seasonal ach equals the
each at 50 Pascals divided by 20.
6 10 12 to 16 18 20
1.6
Canad.an Swed.sh
Suddard Standaud
(n-2000)
EQUIVALENT LEAKAGE AREA ® 10 PASCALS
i 015 i 115 p 2i5 3 3.5
LEAKAGE RATIO
0 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 e Y 10
t I 1 I I I
Ill. lw- lry,c�� hw 1rpcN .wf-ta.s Vrry lw�r
Enwpr nonw Lwuuunon NomM Lont on
MwO. MKn�n,W 0,01. bry E.— 1)1 c m
Vmionron 6�.w E»a—o n Lao w��mw
co.n.w+ws rim w.nnulr wrory
Blower done: take man' measures. The three scales above are the most widely used
7hev shou' hull mGl-chniale houses lypwally ruse, in hluieenlour tests. The top scale —
air rhdnges per hour lush) at .50 Puscals—shuws hour much air a hnusr leaks at very
high pressure. The middle srule—rquivulrnl leakuge area (ELA)—shou-s the combined
size of all the cracks and holes in u house, based on a 1.5(1(Isquare•foot house. The lower
scule—leakattr ratio (L10— rotes a house according to how leaky the envelope is —the size
of the leaks per square fait of buiding shell. The 1.H scale is the must useful for
comparing houses of different sizes and shulies. Note that in practice correlations be-
tween the three srulrs will our' from house rn house.
By Rob Zilin
SOLAR AGE
JANUARY 19M
•
0
MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Baker, Planning Office !�
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department��
Date: September 18, 1989
Re: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS, Rezoning, Special Review and GMQS
Exemption
The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and
has these comments:
1. Storm Drainage - Rea Cassens has been retained as an
Engineering firm by the applicant. They have determined that
2500 cubic of feet storage must be held on -site. By doing so,
they are maintaining the historic drainage and should be given 1
point. All drywells or detention ponds must be shown on their
plats.
2. Parking Design - there are only enough parking spaces to
accommodate the guests and not any provided for 19 employees.
Because of this, the employees should have full access to the
shuttle van and to any parking spaces on -site. The location is
not good for off -site parking because of the bike lane and the
highway. The applicant should be sure that the enclosed parking
area is well ventilated and does not have a high level of carbon
monoxide inside and at the discharge point. Environmental Health
should approve the final design. Recommendation - 1 point.
3. Roads - this project can be adequately serviced from Highway
82 although the sight distance is somewhat less than acceptable.
Reducing the height of the retaining wall will help as will the
$10,000 committed for drainage and trail improvements. Accessing
the bulk of the parking on the western part of the site is safer
that at the present entrance. Recommendation - 2 points.
4. Trails - the applicant has agreed to contribute $5000 toward
the construction of the bike path which is almost complete. To
enhance the trail, the applicant should agree to install rolled
curb and gutter along their frontage and valley pans where their
driveways cross the bike path. The applicant should also install
signs to warn vehicles that they are crossing a bike path. None
of the drainage from this project should be put on the bikepath.
5. Site Design - all new walls should be constructed at least 2'
back from the new bike lane so that they don't interfere with
handlebars. The walls must not interfere with sight distance
regarding pedestrians and vehicles. The location of the benches
should not be on the path, because there is not enough room. The
• 0
benches should be on the applicants property. We are pleased to
see that all new utilities will be undergrounded and would like
to have a utility pedestal easement of 4' x 4' on the property.
We also like the idea of a snow storage area on site. The
applicant should agree to join any future improvement districts
in that area which might include undergrounding the existing
utilities. The size and location of the trash storage area should
be approved by BFI.
6. Plat - a plat must be submitted that meets all Engineering
Department requirements.
•
u
ATTACHMENT 2
Sept. 26, 1989
52 McSkimming
Mr. Tom Baker,
I am writing with reguard to the Crestahus development
proposal. It is my understanding that the applicant is asking
for increased FAR's, change of zoning, additional units, and
tennis courts and swimming pools. I am very much opposed to
practically all of this.
The Crestahaus was remodeled and expanded a few years
ago. The charater changed from a quaint mom & pop lodge to a
larger business approach. Had I known at that time that the
"minor remodeling and expansion" would have resulted in what
is there today I would have opposed it. Only after several
complaints did we get them to comply with the proper liting
of the property. We still have to deal with lost souls
driving blindly into and out of the parking lot. Not to
mention the guest trying to hail a RAFTA bus on the blind
curve. Then there is the roofline outlined in cute little
twinkey lights; a great view from my picture window.
Now we have a proposal suggesting to further expand the
"Lodge". I am strongly opposed to this on several points.
Granted the Lodge has been here for some time.but the
neighborhood surrounding it is residential. A small lodge is
acceptible but what is proposed now is not compatible with
present zoning. To request that the aquired land to the west
be changed from R-15 is unexceptible. Why can't a person buy
land and use it as it is zoned? If you allow this to be
changed then why have zoning?
There seems to be an attitude with developers today in
Aspen that it makes no difference what the zoning is, or the
location, or setbacks, etc.. That can be delt with to get
what you want.
When affordable housing is unknown at present why take
land away that could be developed under its present zoning?
And develop it as what? Tennis courts and swimming pools?
Just what the residential community surrounding needs, more
impact, more density, and what about night lighting? We might
just as well live next to a Holliday Inn.
Granted I can see a new owner wanting to improve the
facilities with ammenities. But the proposal before you is to
expand and overwhelm the neighborhood. To remodel is fine, to
double the FAR is not.
I did not mean to ramble on but I didn't expect to some
day be living across from a large hotel complex. I hope I am
protected with zoning and reasonable decision making.
Resident and Voter,
L. Fred Ick
•
HELEN KALIN KLANDERUD
1201 Lincoln Mall, Apt. 801
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
(402) 475-8919
September 20, 1989
Mr. Tom Baker
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS, Rezoning, Special Review and GMQS
Exemption
Dear Tom:
My residence is on Lot 2 Riverside Subdivision adjacent to
the Crestahaus. In 1985 I stated my concerns about the
Crestahaus application for special review and approval of
fourteen additional units in the L-3, now LP Zone. The stated
purpose of the LP Zone is to "preserve existing lodges in their
existing locations and to permit the limited expansion of these
lodges wherever appropriate."(emphasis added). The special
review criteria for establishing LP Zone FAR is the
"compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses and
zoning." The 1985 approvals for what was then questionably a
limited expansion included a number of conditions to mitigate the
incompatibility of the development with the adjacent
neighborhoods. The current application, dependent on rezoning a
R-15 parcel to LP, is totally inconsistent with the purpose of
the LP Zone, and subverts the intent of the City to "preserve
existing lodges" and to "permit limited expansion." The current
application proposes significant expansion, not "preservation".
It proposes new devlopment not the intended "limited"
redevelopment envisioned for the LP Zone.
Full appreciation for the scale of this proposed development
can be found in a review of the development of the Crestahaus
property.
Prior to the 1985 approvals there were 15 lodge units and
one residential unit. Currently there are 30 lodge units.
Eighteen new lodge units are proposed for a total of 48 lodge
units. The result is a 300% increase in lodge units in four
years.
In 1985 the existing floor area square footage was 11,950
square feet. The 1985 approvals brought the total developed
square footage to 17,017 square feet. The current proposal
requests a floor area square footage of 59,000 square feet. The
incremental increase in FAR has been from .20 to .30 to a
proposed .37. The increase in floor area square footage is
•
nearly 500%.
Although it is true the additional square footage of lot
coverage is not on only the original parcel, this fact does not
mitigate the impact of this expanded project on the neighborhood.
The original LP parcel is 77,660 square feet. The parcel
requested for rezoning from R-15(compatible with adjacent
properties) to LP is 82,771 square feet. To add a parcel larger
than the original lodge property for new development not allowed
under current zoning, is neither "preservation" nor "limited
expansion".
In 1985 the impervious lot coverage, including existing
units, parking lot and swimming pool totalled 24,963 square feet.
The impervious lot coverage after approval was 26,260 square
feet. The current application provides no information as to
additional impervious lot coverage even though there is nearly
double the parking space and other additional development. The
applicant states there is 56,000 square feet of open space on the
site. It is difficult to imagine where this is, considering the
amount of development within the project. The 400 square feet
recreational facilities are proposed to increase to a 25,000
square foot health club. The proposed health club alone is
larger than the total current lodge. The health and recreational
facilities are no longer accessory uses to the lodge, but rather
the lodge units are accessory to the health facility. It is
doubtful that this change in primary use was envisioned by the LP
Zone ordinance.
In 1985 there were three employees for the Crestahaus. The
current proposal anticipates 21 or a 700% increase. Furthermore,
the applicant proposes no parking for employees. If employees
cannot park on the lodge property, they will certainly park on
neighboring residential streets.
There were significant concerns during the 1985 approval
process that on -site parking was adjacent to the Riverside Drive
residential lots. With the removal of the former residential
unit, the applicant has proposed parking spaces where they have
the most impact on the residential neighbors. In addition, the
applicant has proposed to put its snow storage next to the
residential neighbors.
Exhibit Six in the application is not the revised landscape
plan approved by the City in 1985. I have enclosed a copy of the
revised plan. Currently two of the trees required by that plan
have died and the screening provided by them has been lost. The
applicant has proposed no landscaping on the eastern section of
the Crestahaus property to screen the project from the
residential neighborhood. This was a major concern of the
Planning and Zoning Commission during the 1985 approval process
and the commission required fencing and trees to screen the
project. Considering the size of the current proposal, it is
questionable whether screening conditions could be adequate to
mitigate impacts on adjacent residential property.
The 1985 approved lodge expansion placed the new lodge
building 175 feet from the adjacent residential lots. The
current application gives no indication as to distance of new
development relative to the adjacent residences. Section 7 of
the 1985 approvals required that the new two-story construction
"will minimize visual impacts by keeping the median height of
pitched roofs at 22 feet, or 3 feet lower than allowable under
zoning requirements". Building height and distance from
residential lots is a significant consideration in determining
impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The application states on page 87, "While no investigation
of hazards has been completed for the site, there is no
indication that significant hazards exist, given the pattern of
development use surrounding the site." Section 1 of the 1985
approvals addresses the groundwater problems on adjacent
properties. Each spring there is a significant groundwater or
underground seepage problem both on my property and in the basin
north of the Crestahaus property where the parking garage is
proposed. Each spring that basin fills with water, yet there is
no notice of this fact in the application, and no proposal to
remedy the condition, if it can be remedied. If approvals should
be given, whatever remedy is proposed should be an adequate
solution, and in no way increase water problems on adjacent
private or public property, and should be consistent with the
intent of section 1 of the 1985 approvals.
The 1985 application was favorably received by the City
because it was perceived as meeting the goals of the LP Lodge
District. In 1985 the Crestahaus was in need of renovation.
Approval was given, but with significant requirements to mitigate
impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The current
application goes far beyond the intent of the LP Lodge District
and significantly impacts the adjacent residential neighborhood
without adequate demonstration of implementation of community
goals or policy.
The 1985 application on page 5, section 5, paragraph 2
states:
It is especially noteworthy that while the applicant is
expending significant sums which will result in great
improvements to the lodge, the lodge rooms will be
serving the same or similar clientele that it has
typically served resulting in improved service to this
segment of the market.
Planning Commissioner Harvey at the Planning Commission
meeting on November 6, 1985 stated on page 3, paragraph 2,
[A]nother concern was regarding L-3 renovations
creating upscalse lodging, at higher rates, thereby
0 •
squeezing out part of the market. The applicant wants
to maintain a moderate or middle -rate lodging facility
which is also an asset.
The current application proposes a "world -class" health spa
rather than preservation of moderate or middle -rate lodging.
A review of the November 5, 1986 Planning Office memo, the
:November 5, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission GMP scoring sheet
and the November 26, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission special
meeting minutes gives a clear history of the concerns of the
Planning office, The Planning and Zoning Commission and adjacent
residential property owners as to development of the Crestahaus
property.
I clearly object to the current application. Approval would
constitute further significant impacts on adjacent residential
property. The proposed development is incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. The proposal is inconsistent with the
purpose of the LP Zone District and stretches the application of
the LP Zone District far beyond the intent for the district. The
proposal constitutes an incremental approach to development which
results in an expansion not intended by the 1985 approvals or the
intent and purpose of the LP Zone District.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Enclosed
please find a copy of a portion of the 1985 approved landscape
plan.
Very trul..youurs,
HelerL,-InA yin Klanderua
cc: /J. Nicholas McGrath
777
I- Bus Parking ' prohibited
PARK N G
t
32.
S
it '''•„ -,.._`.. ... .. . / �
•I.`� ..cam !�ir.,,�'•' ��
PARKING
OU6rp�-1-E� 6y CresfJrl,aVs lnc . .-A I aQ w+ 0✓r�vr-c�
�,
•
u
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS GNP COMPETITION - LP ZONE DISTRICT
Project: Crestahaus Lodge Date: 10/3/89
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: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 1.5
COMMENTS: The existing City water system has sufficient
capacity to service the proposed development. The applicant
commits $2,000 to off -set water line extensions for two (2)
additional fire hydrants.
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: 2 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 2
COMMENTS: The _Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has
sufficient treatment capacity to service this project,
however, there are some downstream infiltration problems
which must be resolved in order for the ACSD to serve the
project. The applicant has committed $5,000 toward this
effort and the ACSD has indicated this is sufficient for the
task.
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: 2 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 2
COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to maintain the historic
drainage by retaining 2500 cubic feet of storage through the
use of dry wells or detention ponds (these has not been
illustrated on the drawings). The applicant have committed
$5,000 towards improved drainage for public facilities and
services in the area.
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: .5 X MULTIPLIER (1) _ .5
COMMENTS: The Fire Marshal accepts the applicants offer of
two (2) fire hydrants. (The Water Department suggests that
one (1) hydrant be located near the Crestahaus and another
in the neighborhood across the highway.) The installation
of an automatic sprinkler system will assure adequate fire
suppression until the Fire Department arrives. The Fire
Marshal expressed concern about access to the rear of the
project for fire and rescue work. The applicant indicates
that they will provide a gravel access road (12'-14' wide)
for fire access off of Riverside Drive. This is not
illustrated on the drawings and staff is not convinced this
can work.
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: 2 X MULTIPLIER (1) = 2
COMMENTS: This project can be adectuately served by SH 82.
The applicant commits to an aggressive shuttle system,
thereby. eliminating the need for private automobiles. The
Mountain Valley bus route passes this facility; the
applicant commits $5,000 towards trail improvements in the
area; and the applicant commits to remove approximately four
(4) feet from the top of the retaining wall for a distance
of approximately sixty (60) feet and create a step of seven
(7) feet or so, to further the sight distances. Staff
recommends that we nail down these numbers.
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
terms of its scale, siting, massing, height, and
building materials) with existing neighborhood
development.
RATING: 0 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 0
COMMENTS: It is clear to staff that a facilitv of this size
is out of scale with the family residential and small lodge
character of this area. The siting of this facility is done
in a manner which spreads the buildings out along the
Property line, thus impacting neighbors in the residential
areas which adjoin this site. The size of this lodge was
increased from 11,950 s.f. in 1985 to 17,017 s.f. Now the
facility is being proposed for 59,000 s.f. of floor area and
4
60,000 s.f. of building coverage. This is clearly out of
character with the neighborhood.
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: 1.5 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 4.5
COMMENTS: In concept the applicant has incoraorated a
number of details which would help them score higher in this
category. The provision of money for bike path improvements
and a bus shelter, as well as benches for pedestrians,
covered bike storage and snow storage. The basic problem,
however, is the extensive amount of the site which is
covered by this facility.
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: 2 X MULTIPLIER (3) = 6
COMMENTS: The applicant is providing 43 parking spaces in
structured, covered parking. This is an excellent asset to
the facility because only the surface parking will be seen
from the highway or neighborhood. (The applicant failed to
9
C�
•
illustrate the lowest level of parking in the drawings and
will bring in sketches for the meeting.) Staff has concerns
for the useability of all the surface spaces and the
function on any loading area. Further, staff has some
concern for parking adjacent to the south lot line because
of the impact on the abutting residential property; some
landscape screening would seem to be appropriate.
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 viewplanes in this area.
3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 8 points).
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
L
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: 3 X MULTIPLIER (1) 3
COMMENTS: This application exceeds the standards of the
code. The Roaring Fork Energy Center has given this
Proposal very high marks and suggest that it be used as a
model for energy efficient design.
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: 3 X MULTIPLIER (1) 3
COMMENTS: The use of low flow shower heads, faucet aerators
and efficient toilets are features of this proposal.
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 applicant proposes to convert the two (ZI
existing fireplaces to gas logs. Further, the applicant
proposes no additional wood burning or gas appliances, at
this time.
7
0 •
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: Considering the number of units (48) this
proposal seems to have a considerable amount of lobby and
meeting space; however, the quality is uncertain.
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 applicant proposes to provide dining
facilities for visitors who are taking part in the
nutritional programs being offered on -site. Other visitors
will be required to eat off site.
8
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: 3 X MULTIPLIER (2) 6
COMMENTS: The array of recreational facilities are
extensive and include swimming racquet sports weights spa
and aerobics.
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%)
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: 11
COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to house 15 of the 21.94 FTE
created by this expansion. The applicant proposes to provide a
320 s.f. manager's unit and 5,400 s.f. of dormitory space for 18
employees (300 s.f./emp). The applicant is providing housing for
19 employees at the low income guideline. Existing employees =
4. New employee generation = 21.94. Total employees housed = 19
9
of which 15 are new. Therefore, 68.4% of new employee generation
is being housed 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
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: Of the 29 existing units the applicant proposes
to remodel 14 and reorganize and reconstruct 15.
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:
COMMENTS: The Planning Office does not award bonus points.
10
•
0
SCORING CATEGORIES
THRESHOLD
OF MAXIMUM
POINTS: POINTS:
1.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
8
4.0
2.
QUALITY OF DESIGN
16.5
14.4
3.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
10
3.2
4.
AMENITIES FOR GUESTS
17.5
8.4
5.
PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
11
9.0
6.
REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF
EXISTING UNITS
15
9.0
7.
BONUS POINTS
0
TOTAL POINTS:
78
63.0
Name of P&Z Commission Member: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
ss.crestahaus
11
v,
\� 7970 t_
KEY TO STRUCTURES
1-RENOVATED AND EXPANDED LODGE
2-ONE BEDROOM LIVING UNITS
3-TWO BEDROOM LIVING UNITS
4-WEIGHT ROOM WITH SPA BELOW
5-AEROBICS ROOM WITH LOCKERS BELOW
6-SPA ADMINISTRATION
7-ESTHETIC SERVICES
B-AEROBICS ROOMS WITH 25 METER POOL BELOW
9-TENNIS COURTS WITH WET SPA BELOW
10-TENNIS COURT WITH PARKING BELOW
11-EMPLOYEE HOUSING
7980
/1 i
=BIKE PATH
• i i
L Oct)
4000
SITE PLAN - CRESTAHAUS ADDI ONS 1 " - 30
%I,Q s 7, �I . yS, 7 7 z
%ktf s� . �/. /,6,a /M
4(W �-2t
Tor -%4 0, V31,
�p * c Q•. 0" . r a u.wo
yf, -77 z
THOMAs L.KuRT, M.D.,M.P. H.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
3645 STRATFORD AVENUE
DALLAS,TEXAS 75205
1214) 528-3585
September 25, 1989
Welton Anderson
Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
01 PLOMATE
AMERICAN BOARD OF
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
AND
AMERICAN BOARD OF
MEDICAL TOXICOLOGY
Re: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS, Rezoning, Special Review and GMQS
Exemption
Dear Mr. Anderson and Commission Members:
I have written to you earlier, at the first PNZ review of this new
Crestahaus Addition, because I am a homeowner at 1375 Riverside Drive,
which is the adjacent street. You sent me a copy of your Public
Notice.
I have discussed the Crestahaus Addition with my neighbor, Helen
Klanderud. As an Aspen property owner for more than 15 years, I think
it is terrible that such density L;Lrd height is being allowed. The
traditional street of Riverside Drive is being overshadowed by giant
mansions from the Aspen Club, being built above the allowable house
ridge limit on our street, and the gingerbread tenement spa of the
Crestahaus.
The developer and his limited partners at the Crestahaus are strictly
developers, not traditional innkeepers, or hotel managers. In fact,
the Crestahaus has been kept vacant during a significant portion of the
past season, not serving the Aspen market. This would indicate that
the developer of the Crestahaus is not interested in the Aspen visitor,
Aspen tradition or hotel management, but simply to resell his developed
property for big bucks.
I trust you will not allow this rapacious overcommercialization of a
traditional Aspen neighborhood to occur.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Thn'b" L AK
M.D., M.P.H.
TLK/ms/cb
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Holy Cross Electric Association
Fire Marshal
Roaring Fork Energy Center
State Highway Department
Roaring Fork Transit Agency
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS Rezoning, Special Review & GMQS
Exemption
Parcel ID # 2737-181-00-014 & 047
DATE: August 9, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Harley Baldwin requesting rezoning, special review, GMQS
exemption and Lodge GMQS allotments.
Please review this material and return your comments no later
than September 20, 1989. Thank you.
0 9
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
August 11, 1989
Joe Wells
130 Midland Park Place #F2
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Crestahaus Lodge GMQS, Rezoning, Special Review & GMQS
Exemption
Dear Joe,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application is complete.
We have scheduled your application for review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday, October 23,
1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to your application is available at the Planning
Office.
Please be reminded that this public hearing requires notice to
adjacent property owners and posting of a sign.
If you have any questions, please call Tom Baker, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
ROD DYER, A.R.A. ARCHIT90
P.O. Box 9029
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
j (303) 925-7149
TO (�>
L1EUU[E1R3##Fununnio--TaL
DATE � JOB NO.
ATTENTION
�Jo �.
RE:
✓ L
WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached ❑ Under separate cover via %C the following items:
El Shop drawi gs ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples L Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
3
e_ 3 -
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For your use
As requested ❑ Returned for corrections
❑ For review and comment F'
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19
REMARKS
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ Return corrected prints
❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPY TO /
SIGNED: Z
PRODUCT 2403 1., G.W. Mm 0 14 71 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.